Talk:Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Short description

I don't want to add to the complexity of the current discussion about the article text, but the Short description does need to be improved. The current SD disputed Russian federal subject on Ukrainian territory has several problems.

1. The word "subject" is confusing - is the dispute about a topic or about a piece of land that is a subject of the Russian Federation (whatever that might be)?
2. Can we describe the area of land under discussion as a state, a territory or should we just stay neutral and use a word like area / region?
3. Is the area of land understood internationally to be part of Ukraine?

The SD need to express what the DPR is, without trying to include any detail that is itself disputed. Suggestions? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

1. A "Russian federal subject" is basically a province of Russia. But more in regards to the government of the province, rather than the territory. Russia is a federation, and its subdivisions are referred to as "federal subjects".

2. As I said in point 1, the entity that we are discussing is primarily the government that calls itself the "DPR", rather than the actual territory that it (either DPR or Russia) controls. I've referred to the entity as an "entity" in the opening sentence since it has mainly carried two statuses throughout its history, starting off as a breakaway state and then transforming into a Russian federal subject. Hence, a middle-ground is to just call it an "entity", which refers to both of those statuses simultaneously.

3. The area is understood to be part of Ukraine's internationally recognised territory, yes.

To clarify, a government and/or sovereign state can exist without any territory under its control. Such an entity is usually described as a "government in exile", but there is also the interesting case of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is widely recognised as a sovereign "entity" by the international community, despite not possessing the qualities of a state (i.e. an entity that occupies a piece of territory); the SMOM doesn't possess any real territory aside from some buildings in various places (mostly in Italy). The SMOM doesn't seek to be recognised as a state, but it is recognised as such by at least one country, apparently (I've seen this info from another Wikipedia editor, but I haven't confirmed it myself). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As for whose position we are taking in this dispute... Objectively speaking, the territory that the DPR currently occupies was part of Ukraine's internationally recognised territory from 1991 up until the present, more or less. According to a small minority of countries that have recognised the legitimacy of the DPR self-declared government and Russia's subsequent annexation, the DPR stopped being a part of Ukraine either in 2014 or in 2022, depending on how you look at it. With that being said, if you actually pay attention to the statements that Russian government authorities are making, they are completely nonsensical and divorced from reality. Russia asserts that Donetsk has "always been a part of Russia" and that Ukraine's attempts to retake the territory are "invading Russian soil", despite the fact that the territory was originally Ukrainian and it was Russia who invaded Ukraine and took the territory from them just as recently as a few months ago. By the way, Russia holds this same view towards parts of Donetsk Oblast that it has never controlled, especially the northwest of Donetsk Oblast. Russia has said that the northwest portion of the oblast is "Russian territory that is being occupied by Ukraine". Apparently, the referendum that Russia conducted in only around 60% of Donetsk Oblast's territory (under the DPR) legally made the rest of Donetsk Oblast belong to Russia, even though the residents of the 40% Ukrainian-controlled part never participated in the referendum. It's the same clown show with Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Russia's views are not aligned with reality, let alone international law. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is also the "minor" detail that the territorial extent of the DPR has never been clearly defined. From 2014 to 2022, it only occupied around one-quarter of the oblast (i.e. the southeast). Subsequently, Russia occupied an additional ~1/3 of the oblast, including the southwest and parts of the northeast (some of which Ukraine has recently recaptured, such as the city of Lyman). These new territories that Russia (Russia, not the DPR) occupied in Donetsk Oblast were not previously a part of the DPR, but they have been nominally incoporated into the DPR as of 30 September 2022. Russia has effectively annexed both the DPR and the remainder of Donetsk Oblast, although Russia regards the DPR as the authority of that remainder. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The SD should be a short summary of what is in the article. For that we need sources describing the current political/legal status of DPR. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The current legal status of the DPR is as a "disputed entity that Russia claims as a federal subject" (i.e. disputed by Ukraine, which used to govern the territory that the DPR seized by force initially in 2014 and later in 2022). The status is disputed, simply put. Whatever Russia recognises is legal in Russian jurisdiction, but illegal almost everywhere else (except in countries like Syria and North Korea). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The SD should not be a summary of the article – that is what the lead is for. The SD is not intended to be a definition, it exists only to clarify which article has been found by a search. In this case, no SD at all would be quite valid – at least until somebody forms a rock band called "Donetsk People's Republic" or something similar. So any SD here needs to be short, simple and generic enough to be seen as valid by the different interested parties. How about Disputed region between Russia and Ukraine — "Region" avoids value-laden terms like "province", "state", "territory" etc. The region is geographically between the countries that everybody agree are Russia and Ukraine. The SD avoids being specific about who might "own" the area and is also quite general about the nature of the dispute. Any suggestions? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The DPR isn't a region. The actual region that is disputed between Russia and Ukraine is called "Donetsk Oblast". The DPR is not synonymous with the Donetsk Oblast. It's a government that is claiming to represent the Donetsk Oblast. Think of it as being a political party that controls territory. | To clarify, Ukraine doesn't assert that it owns a piece of territory called the "Donetsk People's Republic". Ukraine asserts that it owns the Donetsk Oblast. At the same time, the DPR asserts that it owns the Donetsk Oblast. So, really, the Donetsk Oblast is a region that is disputed between Ukraine and the DPR (and the DPR itself is now controlled by Russia). The DPR is not a disputed region in and of itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

*The closest thing to a "Donetsk region" is the Donbas, except that this area combines the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Donetsk People's Republic is a --> ...disputed Russian republic in eastern Ukraine." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

...seen as valid by the different interested parties --> We definitely don't need to consider this factor. Doing so would be a case of both-sidesism. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: The reason we can't call Donetsk Oblast simply "Donetsk" is that this is the name of the capital city of the oblast, Donetsk. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the DPR is legally a federal subject of Russia whose legitimacy is disputed by Ukraine. The description of the DPR as a "breakaway state" is historical, although it hypothetically could get revived if the DPR decides to declare independence from Russia for some reason. Recently, someone created an article called "DPR (Russia)" (after the annexation), splitting the article into two parts. This POV-fork article was subsequently deleted after a lengthy discussion. Hence, the two topics are now combined together into one article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

“Entity” is not useful, and we should call the thing what it is now, and not use a blanket term for everything it’s ever been. We don’t call the USA an entity because it used to be thirteen British colonies.

We should call it what neutral reliable sources call it, and not indulge illegal Russian aspirations in Ukraine. The LDNR are not objectively Russian republics or federal subjects, except in the mind and captive propaganda environment of the Kremlin.

The Institute for the Study of War uses “Russian occupation authorities” for people in the Russian-installed “governments.”[1] A suitable short description is Russian occupation authority in Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 17:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with "occupation authority" for Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, but I don't agree with that exact same description for the DPR and the LPR because they've existed for eight years beforehand masquerading as "independent states". The common understanding of the DPR and LPR is that they are "breakaway states in eastern Ukraine that were annexed by Russia on 30 September 2022". Most sources for the past eight years have referred to these entities as breakaway states, and their political status has changed only very recently. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So what are you arguing for, calling them “breakaway states”? They are neither breakaway nor states. Their status has definitively changed. They are now called occupation authorities by the source I cited. If you find better options, let us know. —Michael Z. 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If the DPR and LPR were merely "occupation authorities", there wouldn't be an article about them. If you would like this article to be deleted, you can start an Articles for Deletion discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t follow your logic. The subject is clear from the entire content of the article, including its history. At this time, it is a Russian occupation authority administering the occupied part of Ukraine’s Donetsk oblast. I don’t “like this article to be deleted.” I like its subject to have a useful, accurate, and up-to-date short description. “Russian republic in eastern Ukraine” is not it. —Michael Z. 04:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to what Michael said, there are also many articles about occupation authorities separate from the occupations themselves. For example Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, Operational Zone of the Adriatic Littoral, Second Philippine Republic (that's the Japanese Empire one 1943-1945), Ober Ost, etc. So occupation regimes created as a tool during an occupation are covered in many historical articles. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the DPR is not de jure an occupation regime. The term "occupation regime" generally implies that the occupying state intends to exit the territory after the war is over. However, ostensibly, Russia does not intend to ever leave Donetsk Oblast. Russia's stated goal in this conflict is the permanent annexation of Donetsk Oblast (renamed by Russia to the "DPR"). So, Russia's DPR regime in Donetsk Oblast is an illegal annexation, which is a tier above an occupation regime. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Argument defies facts and logic. That it “generally implies” that is WP:OR. What are these “tiers”?: an illegal, unsuccessful annexation is exactly an occupation régime (the UN and international law considers the RF in Crimea an “occupying power” conducting an illegal “temporary occupation”).

But that is neither here nor there: by counterexample: Germany did not intend to exit Reichskommissariat Ukraine, whose short description is “Civilian-administered region of German-occupied Ukraine during WWII.” (Are there supporting examples?) Any assumption about what is going to happen or not is WP:CRYSTAL.  —Michael Z. 18:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

On the topic annexations, there have been many annexations that occurred during the post-WWII era that became recognised by most of the international community. Examples include Tibet, Sikkim, Goa, West Papua, and South Vietnam, as seen in this article: Annexation#Subsequently legalized. Take note that the Chinese annexation of Tibet and the Indonesian annexation of West Papua are effectively still ongoing in the present day; the Tibetan resistance is still very much alive, and Indonesia only very recently reorganised its administrative divisions in West Papua (Papua conflict), presumably as a means to increase its control over the territory. On the other hand, the Indian annexations of Goa and Sikkim seem to have been accepted by the local inhabitants, from what I can tell. The South Vietnam annexation was a civil war-type conflict. There are a some pro-democracy Vietnamese diaspora who fly the South Vietnamese flag (in protest of the present-day communist regime that governs the entire country). | The DPR is a de jure annexation, and it will continue to be classified in this way until Russia is completely expelled from the territory that it currently controls. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No it is not de jure, “by right”; it is completely illegal. Please stop using that incantation, because you keep getting it wrong. —Michael Z. 18:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The region is de jure part of Ukraine. De jure would include the status as recognized by international countries and the United Nations. Because the annexation and the claimed republic is not recognized internationally nor based on any accepted treaty, it is not de jure. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple legal systems around the world. "International law" is one system, but there are also the national systems of each country. When I say de jure here, I am specifically talking about the law in Russia. Russian law is one type of law, and the DPR is a de jure part of Russia according to Russian law. This claim is not recognised by the international community, but it is recognised by at least one country, namely Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If that was the case, then there would be no difference between de jure and de facto for any change that occurred in history, de jure would instantly match de facto, because every occupying regime in history issued some kind of claimed legal backing. Some detail on this: 'The “referenda results” do not change the legal status under international law of the Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia' 1. Besides the international community, Ukraine's opinion at a minimum would be required to change the de jure status, because Ukraine is the de jure sovereign state to which the territory belongs. A territory annexed without permission is specifically the situation the term de facto is used for, not de jure. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Donetsk People's Republic and this article about it is that the entity was already illegal to begin with, existing for eight years before Russia illegally annexed it. What we have here is layers upon layers of illegality, with some illegal acts overriding other illegal acts. In particular, Russia technically has annexed the DPR, which has changed its status from an illegal secessionist entity (and also a puppet state of Russia) to an illegal Russian occupation and annexation. The de jure Russian annexation of the DPR has nullified its status as a "de facto state", even though both the annexation and the secession were illegal processes. By the way, beforehand, I was one of the main people arguing over at the article List of states with limited recognition that the DPR is not a real de facto state because it is a puppet state of Russia and doesn't seriously desire to govern itself as an independent country (separate from both Ukraine and Russia). My suggestion to remove the DPR from the list (sometime back in maybe July 2022, i.e. before the annexation occurred) was vehemently opposed by certain editors. Eventually, the DPR was removed due to the Russian annexation nullifying its fake "separatist" persona, but various editors were adamant about recording the status of the DPR as being previously a de facto state, such as by POV-forking the new article "Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)". Some editors even went so far as to add Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast to the article "List of sovereign states", on the basis that Vladimir Putin had recognised them as such for just a single day prior to annexing them. On another note, I personally do not recognise the legitimacy of the Russian Federation, and I consider its "citizens" to be legally stateless (according to my own personal law, which you can call "Jargo Nautilus Law"). However, I recognise that the majority of the world's countries and the United Nations regard Russia as a real sovereign country, so I officially follow that definition even though I personally believe otherwise. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Good post, I agree on many points. Whereas it relates to the article, I think we can add back "puppet" after "breakaway" in the second sentence that says "breakaway state (2014-2022) and was later annexed by Russia (2022-present". Also, in the infobox, we could add the words "military occupation" or "annexed" in parentheses next to "Russia". -- Rauisuchian (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a bizarre pushback against the usage of the term "puppet" in the lead, because it apparently doesn't present an NPOV according to certain editors. Several editors seem to be adamant that the DPR has a genuine desire for self-determination, and hence should be described as having its own agency. In a previous revision of the article, before my own recent changes, the article used to say that "the [creation of the] DPR [was] ostensibly the result of an organic uprising among pro-Russian Ukrainian citizens". That clause had been added by another editor who had attempted to shorten the lead only shortly beforehand.

While it might be true that the DPR has some kind of a self-determination, it is undeniable that the entity is largely supported by Russia. Obviously, it is now a part of Russia, but beforehand, there was evidence that it was covertly backed by Russia as a puppet state. Indeed, several "citizens" of the DPR were Russians who had been imported into the region, including various key political figures in the DPR. It is also unlikely that the DPR would have had the military might to wage war with Ukraine in the first place had it not been supplied arms directly by Russia, which means that the DPR has probably been reliant on Russia since the beginning, rather than just only from 2022 and onwards.

Also, the referendums in the DPR (first in 2014 and later in 2022) were obviously rigged, with voters held at gunpoint, and with many Ukrainians having fled due to the war (along with many Russians having been imported to replace them). The DPR is an undemocratic "North Korea-like" statelet. The so-called elections in the region are exactly like Russia's, i.e. ceremonial and not actually democratic in the slightest (contrary to what this article tries to portray). Given that the DPR is so undemocratic, we don't actually know what the people of the DPR actually want, aside from its Russian-imported leadership. The ordinary people might not actually support the war or the secession, but their DPR government speaks for them (whether they like it or not). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent but here specifically, you seem to be confused about the term de jure. Russia promulgating an internal directive or performing a rigged referendum in occupied territory, is an internal law change there but that doesn't make it internationally recognized to be de jure. If it is only the case because Russia said it was, then that makes it de facto, not de jure. The difference between the de jure situation and the de facto situation is exactly the same before and after the annexation. Because the "DPR" was recognized as de jure Ukraine before it and still is recognized as de jure Ukraine, based on the UN and international opinion and Ukraine's opinion that all have to be taken into account to determine that. The "DPR" was de facto a Russian puppet state/regime/military formation, and still is de facto a Russian puppet/proxy regime/etc now. It was not any more an independent state before the annexation than after. If the Russian annexation has changed the de facto situation, it was a shift in the percentage of political/military control within the Russian side, and an internal intricacy on that side that might be revealed with sources reporting new info. The annexation has not changed the de jure situation because there was no accepted treaty to change that. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The DPR is a de jure annexation. As I've explained above, in Russian law, Russia has legally annexed the DPR. However, the international community regards the annexation as illegitimate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTOR and the WP:NOTFALSE, the lead terminology can be updated using the most up-to-date sources, prioritized more out of the eight years of sources. The sources that were previously trying to be super cautious and describe the front group with its self-proclaimed name and emphasize what seemed like its operational independence, were on this point contradicted more recently -- and have in many cases updated their terminology. As for word choice to introduce the article with: either "occupation regime" or "occupation authority" are adequate descriptors based on what reliable sources usually say. "Puppet"(state/regime) or "proxy" would also be supported by RS's, though there's that stagnated RfC. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The DPR is not a puppet state anymore, although it historically was. In its present form, the DPR is de jure annexed by Russia. The term "puppet state" implies indirect control. The DPR is currently directly controlled by Russia, so it's not even a question of whether Russia "is behind the scenes" or not. The DPR is part of the Russian government. (Note: All of the beforehand discussions about the DPR being a "puppet" are kind of moot now. The DPR is obviously a puppet (historically, not currently) now that it has been annexed by Russia.) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Illegal is the opposite of de jure. Please stop saying that.

The DPR’s status over eight years is not moot. It is a matter of history, which this article is very much concerned with. What has happened during this war is leading to reevaluations of the status of Russia’s war in Ukraine, including the occupation of Crimea, which will affect our articles. —Michael Z. 18:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the above RfC, it is completely full of nonsense, at least coming from the pro-Russia side. I would advise you to ignore it. Some of the sources about being a "puppet state" might be of use, but, as I said, this information is historical since the DPR is now simply a branch of the Russian government, not some kind of external tool being secretly controlled by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ignore that RFC = “make sure your opinion doesn’t count.” The DPR’s status as a puppet state for eight years is indeed, historical, and very relevant to the article’s “History” section. —Michael Z. 18:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that the people who were opposing the idea that the DPR is a puppet state were wrong, not the other way around. The DPR has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be a puppet state now that Russia has annexed it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, so we should include this (the phrasing "puppet state", "proxy", "puppet regime", or similar) in the lede even if it's for the past tense. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "military occupation with annexation" is not grammatically correct and makes no sense

I don't know what else to say other than any native speaker of English would find this wording incredibly awkward. If you Google the exact phrase "military occupation with annexation", you get five results, three from the Wikipedia articles that use this phrase, and two which use it in different, grammatically sound contexts: "Replacing the military occupation with annexation ..." and "But annexation would be more than a military occupation. With annexation, Palestinians ..." Yue🌙 05:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker (it's the only language that I speak), and the phrase "military occupation with annexation" makes complete grammatical sense. The phrase is taken from the article "List of military occupations". I've changed the wording to read "military occupation and annexation". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this, as I speak English natively and use Hebrew for religious purposes. It should be that way because Russia's military is actively in Dontesk and also because of the ""Annexation Referendum.""

-- @RossoSPC RossoSPC (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"With annexation" would be an adjectival noun using the ablative case (?). It means that "with annexation" is qualifying the "Military occupation". Indeed, the term "military occupation" contains an adjective; we could just say "Occupation", but the word "military" is there to describe what kind of an occupation it is (as opposed to, e.g., a "career" occupation). The main term of importance here is occupation, with the "annexation" being something that is directly associated with the occupation. Russia would not have been able to annex the DPR, LPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia if it had not occupied them in the first place. If Russia had "annexed" them before occupying them, that would have been absurd (indeed, it still is absurd in a way, since Russia has declared areas such as the city of Zaporizhzhia to be "annexed" even though Russia has not managed to gain control of that city yet). Furthermore, the fact that Russia "annexed" these territories is somewhat meaningless since nothing on the ground has changed, only on paper. Russia's annexation of these territories is nowhere near permanent. At least in the case of Crimea, there was nothing that Ukraine could do about it for eight years, so the status quo sort of became cemented (at least, prior to the 2022 invasion). With Zaporizhzhia and co, Russia's declared "annexation" of these territories in the midst of an ongoing war is not very convincing. These territories may very well fall out of Russian control within a few months, and Russia's declared annexation is merely an attempt to consolidate the territories that are only just barely under Russia's grasp. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "military occupation with annexation" just by itself is contradictory nonsense, it requires explanation. The list of military occupations has explanatory citations and table elements. Annexation follows occupation ordinarily but if the annexation is unrecognized then the occupation remains. If there is enough sourcing, I would specify "illegal" or perhaps "purported" but the way it is now is just misleading. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed “rival administration,” which linked to civil war, because it was unreferenced and non-neutral POV. —Michael Z. 01:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A rival administration is different from a conquest, or at least that's the gist of what I was trying to get at. It's when two different governments claim to rule over the same entity, rather than one entity completely annihilating the pre-existing entity. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I get that, but does any source call it that?

And “civil war” is controversial: it’s the label used by Russia when it denied its subversive and military role. —Michael Z. 22:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• It's a mix of two different concepts. Occupation refers to military control over another country's territory (which nevertheless remains an alien territory). Annexation is a legal term for unilateral incorporation of another country's territory into the administrative structure of a state (the territory then is no longer claimed to be alien territory). These two different concepts don't really go well together in one sentence, and the OP was right to flag up the inconsistency. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  These concepts together are key to understanding what is going on. In 2014 the RF occupied and then annexed Crimea. In 2022 it claimed to have annexed DLNR+Kh+Z After failing to occupy them, resulting in a much weaker political position, and even de-legitimizing the Crimea annexation because now these territories are all lumped together as the contested Ukrainian war zone.  —Michael Z. 14:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agree but the phrase "military occupation with annexation" without explanation is still gobbledygook. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  The slightly different wording "Military occupation and annexation" (with "and") is precise and is the one used by the infobox as of now. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC) edited Rauisuchian (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Repeating gobbledygook doesn't help. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  This talk page section, which is splitting hairs probably, was mainly concerned with the word "with" because it's a rare phrasing. "And" connects two facts that are in reliable sources, and solves that concern. There are possible other ways to phrase the infobox, particularly by adding the qualifiers "unrecognized" or "illegal" or "purported", as many reliable sources have. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the DPR still exist?

I understand that Russia believes to annex the Oblast, the world does not recognize neither the DPR nor the annexation. Does the DPR still exist? Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a part of Russia called Donetsk People's Republic (obviously, not recognised by most of the world). Whether it's the same entity that existed in 2014-2022 is an interesting ontological question but it doesn't really matter for our purposes. I think we can still write about both pre- and post-2022 stuff here and when the article becomes too long or the conflict is resolved one way or another we can split it. Alaexis_¿question? 09:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Short answer is no. Although previously existing as a fact, either it did not legally exist in the first place or if it did exist in some legal sense, then it ceased to exist with the purported Russian annex of Ukrainian territory including the territory previously under the control of the DPR (same applies to LPR). That would be my take but we would need sourcing saying that or similar in order to include it.(I saw it somewhere but can't recall where). Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

According to Putin DPR and LPR preserve their status and names. https://tass.ru/politika/15957465 Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That might be, according to Russia, but since they are now part of Russia (that's what annexing means), then their status is evidently not the same, even as a fact. From an international perspective, it is Ukrainian territory, occupied (in part) by Russia. Let me look around and see what we might use as sources. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The DLNR continue to exist as much as they ever did. Whatever changed as of the September 30 signing of treaties of “annexation” between Russia and its proxies has little or no effect on the reality.

It does however undermine the Russian politics of accepting “separatism,” “self-determination,” and other propaganda rhetoric after the RF openly conducted the invasion followed by imperial annexation, imposition of Russian institutions, language, education, and infrastructure, sent more Russian official to stack the local governments, forcibly conscripted thousands of Ukrainians, and forcibly deported millions.

And this has affected the perception of not only DLNR. Now, Crimea, Sevastopol, and four oblasts of Ukraine are collectively Russia’s partially occupied territories of Ukraine during wartime. For example, people outside Russia who for whatever reason chose to take the attitude that the “status of Crimea is beyond discussion forever” can no longer take it for granted. (I have seen this in sources but don’t have them at hand.)  —Michael Z. 19:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Allegedly Pushilin "is serving as the acting head of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) from 4 October, 2022", unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"False causality"

@Mzajac - The reason that I wrote "as a result" in the lead originally was because that is the way that almost every conflict-related article on Wikipedia is written by default. In the info-boxes relating to conflicts, there is always a section titled "Result", "Results", "Resulted in", etc. Then, the outcomes (i.e. results) of the conflict are listed. For example, one of the "results" of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was the annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts into Russia's territory. Another result of the same 2022 invasion was the restoration of Ukrainian control over the city of Kherson. So, this is where the terminology "as a result" comes from. It has little to do with precise cause-and-effect. Nonetheless, the current wording of "shortly thereafter" seems fine, and I don't intend to change it back to the previous wording. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, “as a result” means “as a consequence of (something).” At the beginning of a sentence it refers to what directly preceded it (unless you specifically write as a result of XXXX). It is not the same as a heading “result” in an infobox about a war, for example, which would be interpreted as result of the subject in context. —Michael Z. 23:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, “occupied and annexed from Ukraine” makes perfect sense. Occupied is one thing, annexed from Ukraine is another. —Michael Z. 23:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that English is not your first language (well, I presume that Ukrainian would be), because it actually does not make perfect sense. For it to make sense, the precise wording would have to be changed to "Russia occupied Crimea and annexed it from Ukraine" (as opposed to "Russia occupied and annexed Crimea from Ukraine"). If you separated the sentence into two equal parts, they would read: "Russia occupied Crimea from Ukraine" and "Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine". The major error here is that the first half of the sentence doesn't make sense, although the second half does. The word "from" is shared between the two halves, which causes the error. In order to remove the error, you have to ensure that the word "from" only applies to the second half of the sentence, which can only be done by pulling the object "Crimea" into the first half of the sentence, and then referring to Crimea again in the second half of the sentence with the pronoun "it". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t openly speculate about people’s personal history. It is rude, and furthermore makes you look bad when you don’t know what you’re talking about.  —Michael Z. 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I do know what I'm talking about. Your syntax is wrong. That's plain to see, if any third-party wants to investigate this matter. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I said you don’t know anything about me, so don’t try to write about me.  —Michael Z. 05:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I know at least one thing about you: You don't know how to separate two clauses in a single sentence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Armed separatists

@Asarlaí - It's not really super important to specifically say "armed separatists" since it's pretty obvious already that the separatists declared independence (i.e. "proclaimed") via force. Furthermore, the reason that it said "the separatists" originally (rather than merely "separatists") is that the separatists were already specifically mentioned as "Russian-backed separatists" in the first paragraph, and the second paragraph is referring back to the first paragraph with the article "the". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC) In saying that, it might make sense to describe the separatists as "armed" in the first paragraph as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to make clear that the republic came about by force, hence why I re-added the line "armed separatists seized government buildings and proclaimed the Donetsk People's Republic". It was also this armed seizure that sparked the Donbas War, which is mentioned in the next line. If we simply say "separatists proclaimed the Donetsk People's Republic", it could mistakenly suggest that it was proclaimed by separatist politicians in a peaceful democratic process. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 12:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have added "militarily-armed" to the first paragraph, for consistency. As such, I have retained your recent edit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead of the article.

Currently, the lead of the article reads: The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) is an unrecognised Russian federal subject in occupied eastern Ukraine that claims and partially controls Donetsk Oblast. The DPR was created by Russian-backed separatists in 2014, and it initially operated as a breakaway state until it was annexed by Russia in 2022. The city of Donetsk is the claimed capital city.

In my opinion, this should be a stable rendition, although of course it is subject to further change at any time. Obviously, the lead has been changed tremendously within the past few hours.

Here is how the lead is supposed to work: When you are scrolling through Wikipedia and you see a hyperlink, you hover over it (with your mouse button or finger on touch screen) and you see the first paragraph, or at least the amount that can fit into the display before it gets cut off. This is why the first paragraph has to be a good summary of the primary topic of the article, and it has to be short enough to fit (mostly) within the display.

Meanwhile, when you are browsing the Google search engine, you only see the first sentence of the article. So, that sentence has to be especially critical, and the rest of the info in the first paragraph can be a bit less important.

With regards to this particular article, when a reader comes across it, the first thing that they see is a description of exactly what the Donetsk People's Republic is, in pretty clear terms. The second sentence then explains the history of the DPR in the briefest way possible, highlighting key facts such as "Russian-backed separatists" (a buzzword/term back in the day that instantly evoked the DPR and LPR) and "it used to be a breakaway state before it got annexed by Russia". Particularly with regards to that second piece of information, it is really important since it clearly explains that the scope of this entire article covers both the periods of pre-annexation DPR and post-annexation DPR, making no distinction between them. (Whereas, there was previously a big argument on Wikipedia over splitting the article into two parts).

The third sentence explains that Donetsk is the capital city, which, whilst being a semi-important piece of information, is obviously not essential for the reader to know immediately.

The second paragraph explains the early period of the DPR's history, starting from the events leading up to its creation, its status as a breakaway state for over eight years, and its lack of recognition from the international community during that period. It also makes reference to the Luhansk People's Republic and the Republic of Crimea, both of which are closely related situations. It also mentions the relevant major topical articles related to this history, of which there are four: 1. Revolution of Dignity, 2. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 3. 2014-2022 War in Donbas, and 4. 2014-present Russo-Ukrainian War. These articles effectively serve as further reading, and the reader should consult those articles if they want to know more.

The third paragraph explains the contemporary history of the DPR, which began when Russia recognised the DPR and LPR as sovereign states and shortly thereafter launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This paragraph details events that occurred entirely within the year of 2022.

The fourth paragraph explains the politics and ideology of the DPR.

The fifth paragraph discusses the allegations of the DPR being a "terrorist organisation" and a "puppet state" (during its period of nominal self-rule from 2014 to 2022). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it needs to be preferably four paragraphs per MOS:LEAD. So maybe merge the last sentence with paragraph on politics. Also as it mentions Donetsk as the claimed capital city, it should also probably say that the city has been under DNR/Russian control since 2014. Mellk (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) The two sentences about "terrorist organisations" and "puppet states" are quite short, so, yes, they probably can be merged with the politics/ideology paragraph. (2) True, it currently just says that Donetsk is the "claimed capital city". It should say "The DPR controls Donetsk City, which it claims as its capital." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: The exact wording that I used in my recent edit to the article is "The DPR controls Donetsk, which it claims as its capital city". The sentence has also been moved up (from third-position to second-position). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The opening is wrong: the DLNR do not claim or control anything. Russia does.

There probably needn’t be two and a half paragraphs, including part of the first, on history. The history is not in chronological order.  —Michael Z. 05:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Currently half the first paragraph is a summary of the following two paragraphs, which are in turn a summary of the #History section. History should still be cut down to a 1-paragraph summary in the lead.  —Michael Z. 17:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) The DPR does claim and control something, on behalf of Russia. Subnational entities can possess agency within a wider national framework. For example, in the United States, states can legislate their own laws independent of the federal law. (2) The history is currently split into two paragraphs because the early history is very different from the recent history. (3) The history is currently in chronological order. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No, an administrative subdivision is not a person under international law (and these puppet states never were sovereign states anyway). It cannot conduct international relations, sit in the UN, or otherwise make any kind of claim to territory. California can’t occupy or claim part of Mexico either, without the USA doing so.

The lead is not in chronological order. It says the DNR was created in 2014 and moves to 2022 in paragraph 1, and then again says it was created in 2014 in the second paragraph. I’ve already explained this pretty clearly, so I think you may have stopped WP:LISTENing. —Michael Z. 00:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources post February 24, much less after September 30, refer to these respective territories as claimed, annexed, or occupied by Russia, not by the DLNR.  —Michael Z. 00:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, an entity doesn't have to be a sovereign state in order to "claim and control" territory. For example, there are certain territorial disputes between subnational territories. Back when the Soviet Union was a single unitary republic, the internal Soviet Republics (now fifteen separate sovereign states) had territorial disputes with one another. You should be familiar with this phenomenon given that Russia and Ukraine disputed sovereignty over Crimea even back when they were both parts of the Soviet Union. Armenia and Azerbaijan also disputed sovereignty over Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh back when they were both parts of the Soviet Union. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not examples of international relations.  —Michael Z. 01:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you know how to read? I said that these two examples (Crimea and Artsakh) are examples of internal territorial disputes, which precisely proves that internal entities (i.e. subnational territories) can claim and control territory. Because, obviously, if it was not possible for them to do so, then these territorial disputes (Crimea and Artsakh) would have never existed in the first place, and it would have been all sunshine and rainbows with all Soviet Republics living in harmony alongside one another. What response do you have to this? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s not relevant to the Russian Federation’s occupation of Ukrainian territory by Russian forces.  —Michael Z. 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant for the reasons I've already highlighted above. Subnational territories have their own agency to differing degrees. Depending on the government institutions that are in place, a sovereign state can either be highly centralised or highly de-centralised. Russia is a federation, which by default means that there is (theoretically) less centralisation in comparison to unitary republics such as China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we are to say that "Russia claims and controls Donetsk Oblast", then that makes it ambiguous as to what the purpose of the DPR is supposed to be. It would be at least clearer to say "Russia regards the DPR as the legitimate authority in Donetsk Oblast". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports that?  —Michael Z. 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A source that supports that Russia views the DPR as the legitimate authority in Donetsk Oblast? I can probably find some. Russia regards the borders of the DPR as lining up with the borders of Donetsk Oblast, Russia regards Donetsk City as the capital of the DPR (which Ukraine regards as the capital of Donetsk Oblast). The name of the DPR, "Donetsk People's Republic", speaks for itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia has never specified the borders of its four new “annexed” territories.

Ultimately, it matters whether reliable sources support saying that DLNR “claim and control” any territory. There are countless that refer to “Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine,”[2] or, for example, refer to the DLNR formations as “Moscow’s forces”.[3]  —Michael Z. 02:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that Russia currently controls six distinct entities that it views as the legitimate authorities in eastern Ukraine. Hence, in order to be specific, we have to clearly explain which entity Russia views as being the legitimate authority in which part of eastern Ukraine. These include: (1) DPR for Donetsk Oblast, (2) LPR for Luhansk Oblast, (3) "Kherson Oblast" for Kherson Oblast, (4) "Zaporizhzhia Oblast" for Zaporizhzhia Oblast, (5) "Republic of Crimea" for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and (6) "Federal City of Sevastopol" for the Special City of Sevastopol. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, paragraph 1 is not in chronological order, and I never said it was. I specifically said that paragraphs 2 and 3 are in chronological order only, whereas the other paragraphs are excluded from the rule. Paragraph 1 provides a brief overview, whereas paragraphs 2 and 3 expand upon the history (which is precisely why paragraphs 2 and 3 expand upon points that were briefly mentioned in paragraph 1). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Now you’re just paraphrasing my explanation of the problem.  —Michael Z. 02:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You said that the paragraphs are not in chronological order. I specifically said that only paragraphs two and three are in chronological order because they specifically explain the history of the DPR, divided into two periods: early and contemporary. The first paragraph mainly discusses key facts about the DPR, mainly pertaining to what it currently is, although it also briefly alludes to the early status of the DPR as a "breakaway republic" before it was annexed by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead shouldn’t start with a summary of more of the lead.  —Michael Z. 02:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not really a summary. The lead starts off by (1) saying what the DPR currently is, and then (2) saying what the DPR is also well-known as (but no longer is).

The DPR is well-known for being the location of "Russian-backed separatists" and for having historically branded itself as a "breakaway state" (whether it actually qualified as one is debatable). This information is important particularly for the purpose of combining the two topics of pre-annexation DPR and post-annexation DPR into a single article.

If this article fails to combine those two topics neatly, then the argument of splitting this article into two could flare up again at any moment. If this article only discusses post-annexation DPR (which seems to be your intention, Mzajac), then it could be argued that we'd need to recreate another article about the pre-annexation DPR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s not my intention.  —Michael Z. 04:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your most recent changes are acceptable. The only amendment I made was that I changed "Russian-occupied parts" to "the occupied parts" for brevity, because "Russia" was already mentioned in the same sentence immediately beforehand, and it should be obvious to the reader that Russia is the one doing the occupying based on the information at hand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus you are not respecting WP:BRD, and you are monologuing in your edit summaries[4] (typing “@” in an edit summary does not ping users, and I am not combing through the history as if it were my personal talk page). I’ll remind you that this page is subject to WP:ACDS (e-e) and WP:GS/RUSUKR. Please take a breath, undo your reverts, and discuss for consensus.  —Michael Z. 00:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, the past couple of edits of yours throughout today and yesterday have been bad. You keep adding redundant information (e.g. info that's already in paragraphs two or three), and you also keep pushing a POV without providing evidence for the POV. Also, I obviously know that writing @ in the edit summary doesn't tag people, but it ultimately doesn't matter as you can obviously see my edit summaries regardless (so, it works, doesn't it?). As for "monologuing" in my edit summaries, I'm simply providing the exact reasoning for my edits. Given that the reasoning is rather long, I have to write a long edit summary. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. It's actually encouraged to write edit summaries, rather than to use blank summaries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a source that says “Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine,”[5] and not “DLNR-occupied” or the like.

No, I didn’t see your edit summaries. I saw the state of the article and improved it. Later I noticed thousands of words in the article history that I will never take the time to read. Here’s an example of abuse: “@Mzajac - Your recent edits have been quite frankly terrible. You repeatedly keep adding redundant info and hyperlinks to the lead that were mentioned elsewhere.”[6] See Help:Edit summary.

Please start to take discussing these changes seriously, because I’m at my wit’s end here, with nowhere else to go but the administrators’ notice boards.  —Michael Z. 01:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, your edits *have* been problematic. You repeatedly add information that was already explained elsewhere in the lead. Some of the information in the lead is repeated, but usually when this is the case, the duplicate entry is very brief (and not equally as long as the main entry). Meanwhile, even if Russia is the one who is "occupying" eastern Ukraine, the DPR is specifically the government authority that Russia has established to represent itself in eastern Ukraine. So, that is the function of the DPR, and it would be unhelpful to omit that information in the lead of this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Another problem that I noticed with your edits is that you referred to Russia as "The Kremlin" in one of the sentences that you added to the lead paragraph in a recent edit. This wording is problematic. Even though media outlets often refer to Russia as "The Kremlin", this is an informal way of referring to Russia or the Russian Federation. Precisely, this is "metonymy" or "pars pro toto". Such language is not helpful for the lead and should be avoided. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Kremlin had denied its participation during eight years of less intense warfare after the breakaway client state was established by Russian-backed separatists in 2014. - This is a sentence that you recently added to the first paragraph of the lead, which uses "The Kremlin". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A serious shortcoming remains. The lead discusses eight years of an international conflict without ever mentioning the role of one of its two participants, much less properly describing it.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the status quo for several years was to not directly describe the DPR/LPR as Russian created and controlled. Granted, that was before major developments, particularly the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the 2022 Russian recognition+annexation of the DPR/LPR. Nonetheless, if we were to change the entire lead to more heavily emphasise Russia's direct involvement from the very beginning (which, I personally don't doubt), then we would require some very strong sources. There are certain editors who will adamantly refute such radical changes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: If you're referring to Ukraine, then ignore my previous comment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Forced conscription

@MrDemeanour changed “forced conscription” to “conscription”with the edit summary “All conscription is forced.”[7]

The sources seem to believe otherwise. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet used the term in July 2022:[8]

We are also concerned about confirmed allegations of forced conscription by Russian-affiliated armed groups at the end of February 2022, in Donetsk and Luhansk.

An OHCHR release used the term in October 2022:[9]

Since February 2022, the situation had deteriorated dramatically. There were reports of excessive use of force, extrajudicial executions, use of torture, use of rape and sexual violence as tactics of war and intimidation of the population, mobilisation and forced conscription of civilians, arbitrary arrests and detentions, ill-treatment of detainees, and ill-treatment of the civilian population.

And every OHCHR report on human rights in Crimea also has a section entitled “Forced Conscription.”

I’ll follow the sources and restore it.

I’m no expert, but here’s my speculative interpretation. There’s legal conscription where violations are punishable according to the law. And then there’s conscription that Russia has imposed by military force or threat of force in Ukraine: where conscription is enforced by illegal force, illegal threat of force, or illegal punishment. Forced conscription. —Michael Z. 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

So can you cite any example of unforced conscription?

My contention is that the use of the word "forced" is perjorative, in that it makes the act sound worse than it already is, without adding any information. And I don't think wikipedia voice should take it's guidance from the utterances of international officials. That's argument from authority, and we rely on reliable sources, which means editors.

[Edit] I suspect part of this is that some commentators aren't sure that the public realizes that conscription means force. If there's no compulsion, it's volunteers, not conscripts. That's the generous interpretation; I also suspect that many commentators add "forced" because it's more blood-curdling amd headline-worthy. One might equally speak of "forced recruitment", which would be more neutral.

MrDemeanour (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited international organization uses “forced conscription.” It says that forced conscription is a violation of international humanitarian law. I think it’s reasonable to assume that conscription which is normal in many sovereign states is not a violation of IHL.

I don’t agree with your logic about the wording, whose application would mean that any behaviour that obeys a law is “forced.”

I don’t agree with your implication that the OHCHR and other UN human-rights agencies incorporate headline-worthy blood-curdlingness into their routine reporting.

You could find sources that support your views on these things. There must be legal articles about interpretation of forced conscription and other violations of humanitarian law that would help confirm the background here, which seems quite self-evident to me.  —Michael Z. 23:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In International humanitarian law:

• Enlistment means voluntary incorporation into an armed force or group.[10]
• Recruitment means involuntary incorporation into an armed force or group.[11]
• Compelling or propagandizing people to fight for a hostile power or against their won country is a type of forced labour prohibited in war.[12][13] Compelling a PW or protected civilian is a grave breach.[14]
• Non-state armed groups (like the DLNR) are legally prohibited from using any conscription.[15]
• Recruitment of children is a crime.

UN agencies routinely use both the terms forced conscription and forced recruitment for illegal conscription.  —Michael Z. 00:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI, Google Scholar search has about 11,000 results for “forced recruitment”[16] and about 5,420 with “forced conscription,”[17] so it seems reasonable to conclude that it is not widely considered to be either semantically redundant or unduly blood-curdling. —Michael Z. 02:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. Well, I made my case. I still think that conscription implies compulsion, and that therefore "forced conscription" is redundant.

But it's not my habit to edit in the face of resistance;so I'll drop it.

MrDemeanour (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You’re not used to the resistance of thousands of reliable sources to your thinking? Okay.  —Michael Z. 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't be silly.

Some Wikipedians are combative POV-pushers, with a brigade of supporters. I have no "allies", and I'm not inclined to online combat. I only want to improve Wikipedia. If my improvements face resistance, then I'll move on; there's no shortage of articles in need of improvement.

I generally avoid editing articles that are political battlegrounds, but this change seemed uncontroversial. You disagreed with it, so I have backed off. Are you saying that you want to go on fighting? Find someone else to fight with.

MrDemeanour (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

DPR's abortion policy as an example of Far-Right policy in the lead

A user in the edit history made the claim, surprising to me, that the DPR's social policy on abortion isn't "notable enough" to be included in the lead. This seems like a very odd claim to me as such policies are routinely noted when it comes to discussing the policies of a state (or quasi-state like this), and the article is noting there that they have Far-Right policies, of which this would be the strongest example I'm aware of example. I vote for its inclusion especially since (use a better term) Far right is not not a good description. is a very broad term and could mean anything from a racial supremacist agenda to extreme libertarianism. It's helpful to clarify that it's Far-Right in the sense of extreme social conservativism. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know DLNR are intolerant in so many ways: Russian ultranationalism, anti-Ukrainian, intolerance for non-whites, religious intolerance, sexism, political intolerance, LGBTQ intolerance, &c. Just see the #Human rights section of the article. Why pick out one specific policy for the lead?  —Michael Z. 01:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Opposing abortion is hardly a good example of a "far-right" position, it is a pretty mainstream opinion in most of the world. And given that the lede is already a little too long per MOS:LEDELENGTH, it seems like it would be better kept out of the lede. As long as it is addressed in the body, I think the lede does fine without including specific examples. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your points, AlphabeticThing9. Restricting abortion access is almost unknown in the post-Soviet states, apart from the statelets that have been nurtured under Russian occupation. This makes it notable for the region, as it sets it apart from the mainstream. Stara Marusya (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal (Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic)

11 months ago the page Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic was recreated and was being regularly edited by multiple users up until February when a @Rsk6400: changed the page pack to a redirect citing a discussion that happened 8 years ago. Rsk6400 said that there should be another discussion before the page is recreated. So, in light of pages Crimean Prime Minister and LPR Prime Minister existing and the page for the DPR Prime Minister existing for nearly a year, I propose that the page be recreated and split from this article. Khronicle I (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no encyclopedic article there,[18] barely a dictionary definition (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). It cited no reliable sources. It does not meet WP:GNG for an article nor even for a list of PMs of the “DNR.”  —Michael Z. 22:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The non-article Head of the Donetsk People's Republic has some real sources, but none that justify its existence per GNG either.  —Michael Z. 22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. To clarify, I would be in favour of the article being made if there were enough sources for it, not to simply restore the previous revision. Khronicle I (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair. But I think a strategy to accomplish this would be to add the sourced material to his or other articles first, until it’s sufficient to demonstrate GNG, then propose the split. (I am sceptical that it would be a worthwhile effort.)  —Michael Z. 16:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic is currently a redirect to a section of Donetsk People's Republic which doesn't contain more than three (sic) sentences that could be used for the proposed article. Khronicle I, I was much more sceptical of a recreation of that article than your mentioning of our discussion implies. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that I just started the AfD for Head of the Donetsk People's Republic. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

My apolagies if I misrepresented you, I was simply going off what you said in your edit summaries. Khronicle I (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Recognition

Describing the DPR and LPR as “unrecognized” is categorically inaccurate. Although they are recognized by only a few of the UN member states, they are, by definition, recognized. There are many references to their cultures, governments, and history within Wikipedia, indicating their recognition. It is apparent that the author has used the term “unrecognized” in a derogatory manner and with bias. The term should be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. 73.12.187.182 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WP is based on WP:RS, not on what you think can be deduced "by definition". Other WP articles are not considered RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Read “Recognition and International Relations.” To term the DPR and LPR as “unrecognized” creates a conflict within the article. Specifically, it suggests that these “unrecognized” Republics are in fact recognized by at least three UN member states. It is apparent that the WP:RS that is being referred to has used the term in a derogatory and biased manner. WP should not be biased. The article should not refer to the DPR and LPR as unrecognized. 73.12.187.182 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The “annexed” territories are a wartime occupation régime (I mean their portion that’s occupied). Any international “recognition” of the fake independence of the “DLNR” was moot the moment the Russians stopped feigning their puppets’ independence and said they’re now part of Russia. North Korea and Syria “recognizing” Russian sovereignty over Ukrainian provinces is not a defining characteristic of the “DLNR,” and doesn’t belong in an obtuse statement in the lead sentence.  —Michael Z. 03:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There are two fairly good references cited for the statement that the “DNR” “is an unrecognised republic of Russia.” The problem with the lead is that these sources do not say that. The statement should be corrected.  —Michael Z. 03:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Can not be a republic of another country

The article claims the Donetsk People's Republic is an unrecognized republic of Russia. Republics cannot be Republics of another country, by definition the people in the Republic elect their officials, as the people of the Donetsk did.

They are a self recognized republic declare sovereignty from Ukraine. The fact Russia supports them is like calling the USA a French Republic because France supported them during their revolution against Britain. 204.210.145.21 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Putin and the DNR’s leader signed a treaty of annexation on September 30. Russia and the DNR consider the DNR part of Russia. See Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. (The elections were a Russian-controlled sham.)  —Michael Z. 22:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Donetsk was already a nation under assault by Ukraine for 6 years before Putin decided to clean up his backyard. The people of the Donetsk DO NOT consider themselves Russian, they simply have stronger ethnic and cultural ties to Russia and they have been under attack by Ukraine for half a dozen years. 204.210.145.21 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Provide proof. Also, your statement "Republics cannot be Republics of another country" is demonstrably false. Russia is one of the countries that is famous for naming some of its territorial subdivisions "republics". It is entirely possible for a republic (or federation) to contain smaller republics within itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: Russia currently calls itself a "Federation", but it actually used to call itself a "Federative Republic". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well that’s POV-pushing. The DLNR have never been either nations nor sovereign states. There is no DLNR ethnicity or national identity. Russia has had the DLNR militants in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts under overall control since 2014. Russia is trying to violently annex parts of Ukraine while destroying the cities using Ukrainians it can get its hands on as cannon fodder under the command of Russian officers. “New Russia” failed in 2014 and millions fled because, indeed, few people there consider themselves Russians, but the Kremlin doesn’t give a toot. The “nation under assault” rhetoric is part of Putin’s campaign of incitement to genocide.  —Michael Z. 18:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia has numerous entities inside of itself that are called "republics", such as the Republic of Sakha/Yakutia. Why is this even in question? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The agreement between the Donetsk and Russia is not such that Russia has administrative authority over the Donetsk. It is more a pact of friendship.

It's possible that in the future they become a federation of Russia but as of right now they are a breakaway state with Russian backing. 204.210.145.21 (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Where is your source that says that the DPR has merely entered into a "pact of friendship" with the Russian Federation? All of the reliable sources that I've seen say that Russia has completely annexed all of the institutions of the DPR, which makes the DPR little more than a province of Russia at this point. The DPR is still officially called a "republic", but as I pointed out, there are numerous Russian territorial subdivisions called "republics". Your statement "Republics cannot be Republics of another country" ignores this rather obvious fact that Russia has a tendency to call some of its own subdivisions "republics". There is an obvious and well-established precedent for "republics to be republics of another country" in the context of Russian politics. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia has many republics inside itself, and while the Dontesk government remains, the government is very similar to a state in the US except with slightly less autonomy. FusionSub (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The people of the Donetsk have far more autonomy than any US state. You clearly have no idea what agreements are in place between them and Russia. 204.210.145.21 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This anon is arguing fringe theories and responding is a waste of time and energy.

• There are 21 Republics of Russia
• Four Russian-installed occupation administrations signed “treaties of accession” to the Russian Federation: Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts
• The invaders have imposed martial law, and residents have no rights under Russian occupation

This section should be closed as unproductive.  —Michael Z. 07:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Z. on this one. Ivario (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

has recognised >> recognised Tomatoswoop (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 20:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding pronunciation audio recording

There is a recording available.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/File:Ru-Донецкая_Народная_Республика.ogg

However, the page is locked so I'd request someone to add it to the article. 192.89.123.42 (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

Change "is an unrecognised republic of Russia in the occupied parts of eastern Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast, with its capital in Donetsk." to "is an unrecognised republic of Russia which claimed territory corresponds to eastern Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast, parts of which it occupies, with its capital in Donetsk." Ektoras duncan (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done done with some grammatical changes to make it read better. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The changes that were made also ended up changing the meaning. The territory claimed to be of DPR does not correspond only to parts of the Donetskaya oblast'. It corresponds to the entire Donetskaya oblast'. That was the reason for which I proposed a change. Besides, since the referendum for joining Russia, I think that it is not very correct to say that DPR claims something, since it is no longer an independent state, and consequently it is not responsible for any claims. On other hand, saying "which claimed territory corresponds" is better because it does not specify who claims the territory (who claims the territory is the sovereign state of which the DPR is part - Russia -, but it is not necessary to write it in the introduction). It is better not to specify who claims, than to say that DPR claims it.

You said that my original proposal was grammatically not good to read. Could you say which exactly was the problem? So that we could think on a better way to rewrite it. Ektoras duncan (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems better to be absolutely clear up front, that Russia claims this territory it occupied, and has controlled the DNR since May 2014. The whole lead is vague and implies the Russian-controlled “separatists” had separate agency in the matter of their sovereignty.  —Michael Z. 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to revert, but I hadn’t seen this request. “DLNR” do not have armed forces or occupy territory, Russia does. Since the 2022-09-30 “annexation” it is not claimed to have a state identity nor foreign policy, so there is no debate about this.  —Michael Z. 18:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. See discussion above. lizthegrey (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I also want to weigh in - I really think the phrasing needs to be changed in the opening paragraph. It is not on Russian territory and in calling it a republic of Russia Wikipedia seems to be adhering to Russia's definition of it.

I propose:

The Donetsk People's Republic (Russian: Донецкая Народная Республика, tr. Donetskaya Narodnaya Respublika, IPA: [dɐˈnʲetskəjə nɐˈrodnəjə rʲɪˈspublʲɪkə]; abbreviated as DPR or DNR, Russian: ДНР) is an area of eastern Ukraine which Russia has proclaimed to be one of its republics during ongoing Russian attempts to annexe parts of Ukraine since 2014. 0lida0 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

“Internationally unrecognized republic of Russia” - what kind of concept is this? There is the concept of an unrecognized republic, there is the concept of a recognized republic and a partially recognized republic And what's that? After that, do you call yourself an encyclopedia? Wikipedia has become a propaganda dump By the way Ukraine was also initially a separatist entity Why don't you add this to the description of the article about Ukraine

Kosovo,[a] officially the Republic of Kosovo,[b] is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition. Kosovo lies landlocked in the centre of the Balkans, bordered by Serbia to the north and east, North Macedonia to the southeast, Albania to the southwest, and Montenegro to the west.

Why does this separatist entity have a completely different description?:)

Table

@Mzajac, Mellk, and Rsk6400: template is not reserved for legitimate rulers. Panam2014 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you arguing for including a table? Mellk (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk: yes. Panam2014 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Panam2014, that something is not forbidden doesn't mean that it is advisable. There was a delete discussion that led to merging the article "Head of the Donetsk People's Republic" into this one. One of the arguments was that the subject's notability is dubious. And that's one of the reasons why I think presenting the "Heads" with photographs is WP:UNDUE: It gives too much prominence to those "Heads". The other reason is that while the template looks fine at the end of an article like Head of the Republic of Ingushetia, it looks unesthetic here (at least to my eyes). Returning to status quo, since we didn't reach consensus yet. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The result was to merge to this article, and it used a table. Mellk (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The current version has been stable since April 10, that's nearly two and a half months. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you do not have a veto. Mellk (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, we have to find a consensus, and for finding a consensus every editor should give their reasons. I didn't see your reasons yet. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The table is used to organize the data. Adding a table for undisputed information is useful. Mellk (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I just took a look at both versions: Apart from what I said above, I also think that the table is confusing for the reader (because of the different colours, because of the empty space between the lines that is caused by the pictures). Rsk6400 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks just fine. There is a consensus regarding their notability - otherwise article about them would not have existed on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 20:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We already use tables for dictators like List of heads of state of the Soviet Union and for rulers of unrecognized states such as President of Artsakh. Panam2014 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: As I pointed out before, the current version has been stable for nearly two and a half months, it has been restored by two editors (myself and another one), so I don't see a reason why you didn't follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. Moreover, your edit summary was wrong: I explained why the table is not WP:DUE here on the talk page. I didn't say they are not notable, but that their notability is dubious, and the fact that their article was merged into this one is a not very convincing demonstration of their notability. Finally, the table is partly unsourced, i.e. the numbering scheme excludes an "Acting Head" and we don't have any reference for the way RS assign numbers to those "Heads". I never read "Pushilin, the 2nd Head of the DPR" in any source. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that the heads themselves are notable. The articles about them have existed for years and no one has challenged it. If the problem is with the numbering we can remove it. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, but their office is not notable enough to be given the visual prominence that comes with the table and the pictures. Panam2014, the problem is not that they lack democratic legitimacy, but that their office is not given much prominence by RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Area

Just a random geography fan, I've reverted your edits since the BBC country profile you added doesn't contain the area of DPR. Please feel free to add the area back with proper sourcing. Alaexis_¿question? 08:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

Territorial control of Avdiivka should be changed to Russia as Ukraine announced withdrawal Khrom3ium (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Already done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Mistake in religious breakdown pie chart

The colors used in the legend is mismatched with the colors shown on the pie chart. 14.139.176.131 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

Someone please add back the flag, coat of arms and anthem. Why remove them for? 171.244.185.182 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems that the page had manual of style issues. Not reverting the edits. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Durranistan: As said by ABG, it is a MOS problem, but also a sourcing problem. If you use a picture to establish that the flag is still in use, that’s WP:OR. And if the picture is two years old, you can’t establish it’s use for for 2024. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)