Jargo Nautilus (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Selfstudier (talk | contribs) →closure?: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 417: | Line 417: | ||
:::That is not my reading, there are 6 votes clearly in favor of Q2, then there is one who has only said not Q1, 2 that specifically said Q1 and 3/4 with versions of quasi/puppet, preferring quasi. The "extreme POV" is what is there currently not what is proposed. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::That is not my reading, there are 6 votes clearly in favor of Q2, then there is one who has only said not Q1, 2 that specifically said Q1 and 3/4 with versions of quasi/puppet, preferring quasi. The "extreme POV" is what is there currently not what is proposed. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::: My point is that you guys wasted a lot of time and resources on arguing over something that could have been changed without a second thought. Clearly, both of you are trying to push some kind of an agenda that is totally unnecessary and overblown. Effectively, we are arguing over nearly nothing. I don't think anyone was opposed to changing the description if you had sources and a good reason. But both of you guys came into this discussion without sources and without a good reason, so you decided to start this fake debate over nothing in order to waste everyone's time. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::: My point is that you guys wasted a lot of time and resources on arguing over something that could have been changed without a second thought. Clearly, both of you are trying to push some kind of an agenda that is totally unnecessary and overblown. Effectively, we are arguing over nearly nothing. I don't think anyone was opposed to changing the description if you had sources and a good reason. But both of you guys came into this discussion without sources and without a good reason, so you decided to start this fake debate over nothing in order to waste everyone's time. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::As far as I can see, well over 50% of the debate is taken up with your personal opinions backed up by zero sources. And I will thank you to be [[WP:CIVIL]] in the future and avoid casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] about other editors. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: At best, we can perhaps change the description to "''Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It has been described as a Russian puppet state. As of 2022, the republic does not have clearly defined borders or population.''" Effectively, this means we are not definitively calling it a "puppet state" or a "quasi-state", but we are pretty much implying that it might fit these criteria. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
:: At best, we can perhaps change the description to "''Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It has been described as a Russian puppet state. As of 2022, the republic does not have clearly defined borders or population.''" Effectively, this means we are not definitively calling it a "puppet state" or a "quasi-state", but we are pretty much implying that it might fit these criteria. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::IMHO this would be an improvement. On not having clearly defined borders and population we need a source. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 08:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::IMHO this would be an improvement. On not having clearly defined borders and population we need a source. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 08:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:27, 12 September 2022
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussions, attributions, viewership | |
"Breakaway Puppet Quasi State"
Geez this is the least neutral POV I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. It's a state with its own government. How dare the liberals of Wikipedia deny territorial integrity to the Novorossiyan people of Donetsk & hide behind a "protected page". The language must be adjusted, perhaps the simple "partially recognized state" used on every other page 73.97.248.215 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- We go by what reliable sources say, and this description is adequately sourced. — Czello 18:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- The IP address is closer to correct here, despite IP address' unnecessarily hostile tone. "Puppet" was not adequately sourced. The FT source claimed Putin's goal to create a puppet state, and the Washington Post article was only an opinion piece. Puppet is also contentious label that did not belong in the opening paragraph, even apart from the sourcing issues. This created a problem with NPOV and also Wikipedia guidance on the lead, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view[.]" I've substituted with the neutral phrasing "Russian supported" and appropriate sources. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I find myself mostly in-agreement with JArthur1984. For the opening sentence, I think “breakaway quasi-state” is enough. What I would say we could add (in the opening paragraph, even) is something mentioning how it’s widely considered — at least by the media, I’m not sure if any governments/governmental agencies have used the term “puppet/puppet state” — a puppet state, while this label is challenged by Russia and the Donetsk PR. If we had some sources from governmental agencies referring to it as a “puppet state” I suppose I couldn’t argue much with the opening sentence as-is, though. But just because we “know” it to be a puppet doesn’t mean we can include it, that would begin to fall under a violation of WP:OR, I would say. MWFwiki (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many states have been called puppet states (for example TRNC [1] and the Houthi government of Yemen). It doesn't automatically follow from this that we need to characterise them as such in the lede. DNR is not universally referred to as such by reliable sources. Here the Guardian calls them proxy states and self-proclaimed republics. Alaexis¿question? 08:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is very little difference between a proxy state and a puppet state. However, there is indeed a difference between a self-proclaimed republic and a puppet state. Nonetheless, most sources do actually describe these statelets as "self-proclaimed states that are under heavy Russian influence/control". They are simultaneously puppet states and self-declared states. It's not a case of either or. They can be, and they are, both. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @MWFwiki and @Alaexis: I would personally be willing to delete "Russian-supported" in the first sentence as well, but I was trying to be modest in my edits. I recognize that there's a less obvious result on that issue. "Puppet," however, was not a well-sourced word and far too contentious a label for the first sentence and should absolutely be removed. That's a point someone can make elsewhere in the article if necessary: "Some have argued that DPR is a puppet state..." "(Specific person) stated that DPR is a puppet state..." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that "Russian-supported" should stay in the lede. Almost no one, whether in the West, Ukraine or Russia, denies that Russia has been providing military, economic and diplomatic support to LNR. This is one of the main facts about it and deserves to be in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 16:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to have created confusion -- I also agree "Russian-supported" should stay in the lead, my comment was about whether it should be in the first sentence. DPR's Russian support is long-standing and non-controversial; it belongs in the lead. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- My comrades... Why is it so contentious to merely label these statelets as "Russian-supported"? They were not just Russian-supported, they were Russian-created! It's a no brainer that they are Russian-supported... I can't believe that people are even uneasy about adding this descriptor. At the present time, Russia is trying to take Wikipedia to court for documenting the entire Russo-Ukrainian War. This is the type of regime that we are dealing with here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- For those unacquainted, here is a reference for Russia's war against Wikipedia.
- - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-20/russia-looks-to-punish-wikimedia-foundation/101255940 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that "Russian-supported" should stay in the lede. Almost no one, whether in the West, Ukraine or Russia, denies that Russia has been providing military, economic and diplomatic support to LNR. This is one of the main facts about it and deserves to be in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 16:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that Western people are unable to understand totalitarian/authoritarian perverty. I used to live many years in a Communist country so I understand. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a "puppet state" or "proxy state". "Russian-supported" is WP:WEASEL. Since "puppet state" is more straightforward than "proxy" that's what we should go with. Volunteer Marek 19:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neither of the sources cited supported the "proxy" claim. One was an opinion article. One said not that it was a puppet, but Putin seeks to create a puppet.
- "Puppet" is contentious in that it is a loaded term, implying that there is no organic support for the self-proclaimed states from the people within. But there is How about "Russian-backed," and we can make that clear in a neutral way?
- Keep in mind the current consensus here is in favor of removing the contentious label "puppet." These issues are fair game elsewhere in the article, but too contentious for the lead. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a few more sources that call it a puppet [2][3][4]. Calling it a puppet state does not at all seem contentious or loaded to me - because that's what they are. — Czello 20:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is waaaaay too contentious to be right up at the front in the lead, totally goes against the style neutrality guides. Mathmo Talk 00:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I recently learned, headings and subheadings cannot be cited for a proposition. So this is just one RS using the label "puppet." JArthur1984 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Puppet does not imply that there is zero local support. Consulting with my dictionary, it says that the DLNR are under external control (by the Kremlin). —Michael Z. 22:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of us are flies on the wall of the government of DPR, and don't have special knowledge of their independent operation (or not). In the interest of fairness and neutrality, I wonder how many other countries have their opening paragraph and info box as "Breakaway Puppet Quasi State"?? As there is certainly tonnes of countries who some might describe like that!! Heck, do you start of the article about Taiwan like that? Of course not! That doesn't get discussed until right at the end of the lengthy opening section about Taiwan, and even then it strives to keep a neutral tone and not exclusively write from a pro-CCP perspective. Mathmo Talk 02:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1) You’re changing the subject as I was responding to a specific statement; and 2) that is a false balance: Taiwan is objectively a democratic republic originating in 1912, while DLNR are objectively complete Kremlin dependencies created by agents of Russia including Bordai, Bolotov, and Girkin in April 2014. —Michael Z. 02:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Donetsk and Luhansk became "independent" states when I was a teenager, whereas Taiwan in its current state is around as old as my grandmother. I don't think it's even remotely fair to compare the DPR-&-LPR with Taiwan in terms of their political status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have a special knowledge that Luhansk and Donetsk were part of Ukraine before 2014, if my memory serves correctly? I'm pretty sure it can be established in the historical record that these territories were, indeed, parts of Ukraine before. The same is not true for a lot of other breakaway states. For example, even the Abkhazia and South Ossetia dispute is more complex than Luhansk-&-Donetsk because they actually became independent at around the same time that Georgia (the claimant) itself did, in the early 1990s, rather than at a significant point later. One of the other examples that definitively broke away from a parent state in modern memory is Kosovo; that dispute is indeed extremely contentious, so much so that it has created the concept of a "Kosovo precedent" (which has even been cited for Donetsk-&-Luhansk). Nonetheless, Kosovo has received international support or at the very least attention from the entire global community, whereas Donetsk-&-Luhansk have barely been able to put a single embassy together. Indeed, Donetsk and Luhansk have been known to create fake embassies, violating the laws of the states that they are supposedly having diplomatic relations with, e.g. Czechia and Finland. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of us are flies on the wall of the government of DPR, and don't have special knowledge of their independent operation (or not). In the interest of fairness and neutrality, I wonder how many other countries have their opening paragraph and info box as "Breakaway Puppet Quasi State"?? As there is certainly tonnes of countries who some might describe like that!! Heck, do you start of the article about Taiwan like that? Of course not! That doesn't get discussed until right at the end of the lengthy opening section about Taiwan, and even then it strives to keep a neutral tone and not exclusively write from a pro-CCP perspective. Mathmo Talk 02:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Puppet" is not a loaded term, it's a matter of fact. Indeed, a whole host of other countries and breakaway states around the world have been described occasionally as puppet states, but I'd argue that the Donesk and Luhansk PRs are two of the ONLY states (quasi-states?) in existence in the present day that unequivocally qualify as puppet states. I would compare the contemporary Donetsk and Luhasnk PRs to the historical puppet states that Japan carved out of China during or shortly before WWII, including Manchukuo and the Wang Jingwei regime, among others. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm literally getting WWII PTSD flashbacks whenever I edit or discuss articles related to the Luhansk and Donetsk PRs. It is truly horrifying (P.S. I'm not that old, but still). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
My edit to the infobox got reverted with a comment on "please stop pretending this is a real state", simply because I'd corrected it due to that being inappropriate non-NPOV to put right at the top of the article. The infobox already has "Status Limited recognition" & "De facto independence from Ukraine", that's more than enough additional clarification for what should be a brief infobox at the beginning of an article. Mathmo Talk 01:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- NPOV means accurately reflecting reliable sources and that’s how reliable sources describe it. Volunteer Marek 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, that's not at all the case, as I stated in my edit summary. It had only two sources, one of which was was an editorial opinion piece and the other was speculating that maybe one day in the future it might be a puppet state. (we can't state as now what it might be in the future) Am not saying such claims can't ever be in the article itself, just it is inappropriate and violates NPOV/MOS to put it so prominently right at the top of an article itself. Mathmo Talk 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Czello gave three more sources right above. NPOV means following sources. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are there WP:reliable sources cited stating DLNR have “de facto independence”? Seems to me that since the Battle of Ilovaisk they are demonstrably wholly dependent on Russia and Russian forces for their existence. —Michael Z. 03:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's more accurate to say that they have de jure independence, according to a very narrow definition of the laws (only in Russian, Syrian, North Korean, South Ossetian, Abkhazian, and internal DPR-LPR laws, effectively, as well as unofficially in Belarus, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc.). Obviously, they don't have de jure independence according to the laws of most other countries. But yes, I would agree that they aren't truly de facto independent. On the ground, they are completely controlled by Russia, which by definition makes them not independent but instead militarily occupied. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are there WP:reliable sources cited stating DLNR have “de facto independence”? Seems to me that since the Battle of Ilovaisk they are demonstrably wholly dependent on Russia and Russian forces for their existence. —Michael Z. 03:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Czello gave three more sources right above. NPOV means following sources. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, that's not at all the case, as I stated in my edit summary. It had only two sources, one of which was was an editorial opinion piece and the other was speculating that maybe one day in the future it might be a puppet state. (we can't state as now what it might be in the future) Am not saying such claims can't ever be in the article itself, just it is inappropriate and violates NPOV/MOS to put it so prominently right at the top of an article itself. Mathmo Talk 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
More sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc etc. Volunteer Marek 04:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Although DPR and LPR are sometimes called "puppet states" in the news, I agree that the expression is pejorative, creates an issue with NPOV and in any case is not appropriate for the lead section. We should remove it here and elsewhere. The expression is also slightly imprecise because it suggests that they were independent in the past, or that they should become independent in the future, while those who use the expression generally would like them to be part of Ukraine rather than free from foreign control. Anyway, there's plenty of expressions that convey the same meaning without negative connotation. Here above "Russian-supported" and "Russian-backed" have been proposed, and they are fine, but also "Russian client state" could be used (e.g., New York Times), which is better, I believe, than vassal state or protectorate, and far better than puppet state. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the notion that calling a polity a "puppet state" implies that it was previously a legitimate state. That's just your own perception. To me, the term "puppet state" actually suggests a "fake state" more than anything. When I hear that term, that's what comes to my mind, personally. Historically, there have been cases of puppet states occupying real countries, such as Croatia and France. However, there have also been cases of fake puppet states, such as Manchukuo. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't you think that the notion of "puppet state" has a negative connotation?
- MOS:LEAD says that the first paragraph "should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view" and that we should "not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject". I see that "unrecognised breakaway state" is what we say of Transnistria, we call Abkhazia "a partially recognised state", Artsakh "a breakaway state in the South Caucasus, whose territory is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan", and South Ossetia is a "partially recognised state". Compared to these relatively similar cases, our "breakaway puppet quasi-state proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine" is surprising and questionable in terms of NPOV. IMO we should replace it with something simple and boring like "Russian-supported breakaway state", "Russian client state", "partially recognised state backed by Russia". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with comparing Donetsk-&-Luhansk to South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Artsakh, is that these latter four statelets are completely different from the former two. The latter four all have some small amount of legitimacy, whereas Donetsk and Luhansk have absolutely zero legitimacy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- In reply to myself, I think it should also be noted that, as far as I can tell, I don't think Transnistria has expansionist motives towards Moldova. From what I can tell, it already controls all or most of the territory that it claims, and this has been the status quo for decades. Likewise, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are generally happy with their current borders. The only outlier is Artsakh, which lost a large amount of territory to Azerbaijan upon losing the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. | On the other hand, Donetsk and Luhansk have always harboured expansionist motives ever since they were first established, and these motives have partially been realised as a consequence of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- That’s partly a WP:CRYSTAL BALL opinion. The Kremlin intends to take all of the Ukrainian coast right up to the border of Moldova (in April the RF MOD stated an objective “exit to Transnistria” and Lavrov just stated the intention to target “a number of other territories”), where it would have direct access to its remnants of the Russian 14th Guards Army and largest ammunition dump in Europe. Transnistria exists to prevent Moldova’s full sovereignty just as DLNR exist against Ukraine’s. The difference is only Putin’s current immediate goals and opportunities. —Michael Z. 17:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will admit that Transnistria has a really weird geographic position and shape. The state would not exist naturally without outside support (Russians), and it should either be a part of Moldova or Ukraine under historical circumstances, rather than independent from either country. Furthermore, some would argue that Moldova's own existence is an anomaly of Soviet interference, and that it should (or would or could) unite with neighbouring Romania. Nonetheless, Transnistria does indeed have a significantly longer history than the Donbas region of Ukraine as being a separate region (not that I'd agree that it should be an independent state).
- As for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I'm convinced that these two regions have some kind of self-determination because they are both home to unique ethnic groups in comparison to BOTH the Georgians and the Russians. The South Ossetians are related to the North Ossetians inside of Russia, and they want to combine with that group and effectively join Russia, but they are not Russians per se. This is why the Abkhazia-&-South-Ossetia duo is not a perfect analogy to the Donetsk-&-Luhansk duo, even though the two sets of territories might appear to be superficially similar at first on account of being apparently "Russian-backed". Do note that even though Donetsk-&-Luhansk is somewhat distinct from the Ukrainians (especially in the west of the country) due to being largely home to either Russian-speaking (ethnic-Ukrainian) or ethnic-Russian people, it's not really distinct from Russia.
- The Donetsk-&-Luhansk situations is more similar to Artsakh in relation to Armenia, or Kosovo in relation to Albania. Except, particularly in the Kosovo-Albania relationship, there are strict rules in place prohibiting the two countries from unifying, at least in the short term. As for Artsakh, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous region prior to Azerbaijan's declaration of independence in the early 1990s. However, it's hard to argue that the Artsakh-occupied territories outside of Nagorno-Karabakh were part of this arrangement, which is a major reason that Artsakh had to concede these territories to Azerbaijan at the conclusion of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, aside from having effectively lost control of a lot of this territory anyway. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nonsense. There was no separatist movement in DLNR before invaders created one in 2014. “Russian-speakers” is not an ethnic or other identity group in Ukraine. Kyivans speak Russian (or did until now). Putin’s “New Russia” went nowhere because Ukrainians in Donbas, including the ethnic-Russian minority, are really distinct from Russia.
- This is sinking into speculative WP:CHAT and no longer about the content of the article. It’s okay to sum up what reliable sources say, but not useful to build a controversial personal model of the subject which is not supported or supportable by RS and present it in discussions. —Michael Z. 20:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I specifically said that the reason that Donetsk/Luhansk is different from the other cases is that it's clearly a case of Russian interferences with Ukraine. I tend to classify a movement as illegitimate when it involves heavy outside interference, and especially when it involves irredentism. Clearly, there are Russian-speakers and ethnic-Russians inside of Ukraine (e.g. Crimea was mostly Russian). But the point that I'm making is that the actions that have taken place in these territories have been largely motivated and executed by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- That’s partly a WP:CRYSTAL BALL opinion. The Kremlin intends to take all of the Ukrainian coast right up to the border of Moldova (in April the RF MOD stated an objective “exit to Transnistria” and Lavrov just stated the intention to target “a number of other territories”), where it would have direct access to its remnants of the Russian 14th Guards Army and largest ammunition dump in Europe. Transnistria exists to prevent Moldova’s full sovereignty just as DLNR exist against Ukraine’s. The difference is only Putin’s current immediate goals and opportunities. —Michael Z. 17:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- In reply to myself, I think it should also be noted that, as far as I can tell, I don't think Transnistria has expansionist motives towards Moldova. From what I can tell, it already controls all or most of the territory that it claims, and this has been the status quo for decades. Likewise, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are generally happy with their current borders. The only outlier is Artsakh, which lost a large amount of territory to Azerbaijan upon losing the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. | On the other hand, Donetsk and Luhansk have always harboured expansionist motives ever since they were first established, and these motives have partially been realised as a consequence of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is also problematic to describe Donetsk and Luhansk as merely "Russian-backed" because a lot of evidence points to the fact that they were either Russian-created or Russian co-created. So, reducing the role of Russia to merely a "supporter" rather than a direct actor is actually taking a non-neutral position on the topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with comparing Donetsk-&-Luhansk to South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Artsakh, is that these latter four statelets are completely different from the former two. The latter four all have some small amount of legitimacy, whereas Donetsk and Luhansk have absolutely zero legitimacy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the notion that calling a polity a "puppet state" implies that it was previously a legitimate state. That's just your own perception. To me, the term "puppet state" actually suggests a "fake state" more than anything. When I hear that term, that's what comes to my mind, personally. Historically, there have been cases of puppet states occupying real countries, such as Croatia and France. However, there have also been cases of fake puppet states, such as Manchukuo. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Terminology is changing as the Russians make plans for annexation and have openly stated they intend to occupy a larger part of Ukraine and impose régime change. A Washington Post article now refers to “The Donetsk People’s Republic, a Russian proxy state in east Ukraine, said it expects to capture the entirety of the Donetsk region, which it claims as its territory, by the end of August.”[11][12] —Michael Z. 21:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Russian proxy state" seems accurate and supported by sources. If I understand the expression well, it is synonymous with Russian client state, which is also supported by sources. "Client state" is well-established in political sciences and international law. While "puppet state" has a negative connotation and "quasi-state" is exceptionally uninformative and confusing, "puppet quasi-state" is probably a neologism. To me it sounds like a complicated way to say "no good at all". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- A client state is subordinate in some way, while a puppet state is under control. Technically, the term state is problematic because the Donbas proxies do not have the capability of sovereign statehood, and are not recognized as such. —Michael Z. 23:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I've specifically (and others as well) opted to use the term "quasi-state" rather than "state". Essentially, a quasi-state is something that is similar to a state but is not exactly a state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- A client state is subordinate in some way, while a puppet state is under control. Technically, the term state is problematic because the Donbas proxies do not have the capability of sovereign statehood, and are not recognized as such. —Michael Z. 23:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer short definition "self-proclaimed republic" from Britannica (see the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic). Then below in "History" you can cite the criticism if that puppet state, etc. PoetVeches (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Donetsk PR map
I believe that we should present two maps for the Donetsk People's Republic in the infobox. One should correspond to the pre-2022 front lines, whereas the other should correspond to the most recent front lines with the disclaimer that the territories are controlled by both Russia and the DPR. I've initially started this discussion over at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Luhansk PR map. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022
In the article the form of governance of DPR is listed as "Puppet state" but citations #7 and #8 dont substantiate that claim. 174.215.222.51 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Both citations clearly call it a puppet state. Citation 7 even does so in the title of the article. — Czello 07:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Towards an RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk "Peoples’ Republics"
The discussions we had here did not deliver a clear consensus on how to best describe the legal status of the Republics. If I'm not wrong, the two main options are to retain "breakaway puppet quasi-state" or to adopt "Russian-supported breakaway state" (other plausible options are "partially recognised state", as Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo, and/or "Russian client state"). In the next few days I intend to open an RfC on this.
I have one doubt though. The question(s) will be substantially identical for Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics. Should we have two separate RfC on the two talk pages or should we rather have one single RfC here and link to the RfC on the talk page of LPR? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Partially-recognised state" is a big no-no because there is not enough evidence that the DPR and LPR are actually functionally able to be classified as states. At best, they are "statelets" or "quasi-states" or "proto-states". If they are truly puppet states of Russia, then it goes without saying that they aren't really states in that scenario either.
- "Russian-supported breakaway (quasi-)state" is potentially a viable option. I lean in favour of "breakaway puppet quasi-state". We have to refer to them as quasi-states, not as states. And "client state" is also problematic since that suggests proper statehood, more so than "quasi-state".
- Personally, I believe that your intention to hold such an RFC is an indication of your sympathies towards the Russian war effort, but I will first try and debate this RFC proposal civilly.
- @Mzajac, you may want to look into this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- The "statehood" of a self-declared state is on a spectrum. Kosovo leans towards being fully functional as a sovereign state. South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't really as functional. The DPR and the LPR are either the same level of functionality as South Ossetia and Abkhazia or significantly less functional. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Eastern Donbas is not free. https://freedomhouse.org/country/eastern-donbas/freedom-world/2022 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- What constitutes a "state"? Are Donetsk and Luhansk less of states organisationally than, say, Nauru or Tuvalu? How can we measure that? We see that Donetsk and Luhansk have a more evolved and advanced administration than many microstates. At what level of organisation do we draw a line between a state and a non-state? — kashmīrī TALK 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- One of the main objections to recognising the statehood of the DPR and LPR is that it is unclear how much of the territory is controlled by Russia directly versus by the proxy DPR and LPR governments.
- In this sense, we cannot define the DPR and LPR by land boundaries (such as depicted in the info-box maps), but only by their self-declared authorities.
- It is not possible at the moment to declare that the lands claimed by the DPR and LPR are under the effective control of the two regimes. As I've argued before, Russia is the ultimate sovereign after the February 2022 invasion, controlling occupied territories directly in the midst of its war against Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- We might only be able to make an informed assessment of the situation after the war in Ukraine completely ends. However, by that point, the territories that are claimed by the DPR and the LPR may very well be completely retaken by Ukraine. At the end of the day, these discussions may be rendered moot in the event that both statelets are completely disintegrated, which is a real possibility at this rate. It might have been possible to determine the situation before the war, but it certainly isn't possible now whilst the war is at its height. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- What constitutes a "state"? Are Donetsk and Luhansk less of states organisationally than, say, Nauru or Tuvalu? How can we measure that? We see that Donetsk and Luhansk have a more evolved and advanced administration than many microstates. At what level of organisation do we draw a line between a state and a non-state? — kashmīrī TALK 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for Nauru and Tuvalu, I would say that both of these entities are countries (or almost that). Nauru's territory is not actively claimed by another country, so no one is really contesting its status (which is an important distinction!). Tuvalu is somewhere in-between being a country and being a dependency of New Zealand. New Zealand doesn't really claim Tuvalu's land directly, but it effectively operates a protectorate over Tuvalu. Most micro-states are not accepted as countries because their land is actively claimed by an established sovereign state, so bringing up that topic is not very helpful in my opinion. The better comparisons would be with other partially-recognised entities, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Artsakh. These entities are what you should be discussing, not Nauru and Tuvalu. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that you're eager to further discuss the substantive issue, but I intended this section to address the procedural question: should we have one single RfC (Donetsk + Luhansk PR) or two separate ones (DPR and LPR)?
- Besides, we could discuss here the formulation of the questions. What about the following draft?
There are three questions on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk "Peoples’ Republics":
- Should the Donetsk and Luhansk "Peoples’ Republics" be described as "breakaway puppet quasi-state(s)"?
- If the answer to Q1 is no, should they be described as "Russian-supported breakaway state(s)"?
- If the answer to Q2 is no, how should they be described?
- I ping some editors who might want to share their views on this: @Czello, JArthur1984, Alaexis, and Mzajac: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- The first point is definitely hard to prove, whereas the second point can probably more easily be proved. So, in all likelihood, if the first can't be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then we will probably go with the second.
- As for having a joint RfC, well, logically, we should. However, I've previously suggested to merge the two articles into one (i.e. merge "DPR" and "LPR" into a single "Donbas breakaway republics"), but that was strongly rejected. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to use the scare quotes for "People's Republics", because regardless of what we characterize these geopolitical groupings as, those are their names.
- I generally agree with this formulation.
- But is this an article-wide question, or a question of how it should be described in the lead? We should specify.
- My own position on this was based on how it should be characterized in the lead (the first sentence, if I recall correctly) JArthur1984 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that these questions concern how to characterize DPR and LPR in the lead section and do not impinge upon the content of the article. I'll avoid the scare quotes, as suggested. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I think this is a prudent and wise to address in RfC. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that these questions concern how to characterize DPR and LPR in the lead section and do not impinge upon the content of the article. I'll avoid the scare quotes, as suggested. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for Nauru and Tuvalu, I would say that both of these entities are countries (or almost that). Nauru's territory is not actively claimed by another country, so no one is really contesting its status (which is an important distinction!). Tuvalu is somewhere in-between being a country and being a dependency of New Zealand. New Zealand doesn't really claim Tuvalu's land directly, but it effectively operates a protectorate over Tuvalu. Most micro-states are not accepted as countries because their land is actively claimed by an established sovereign state, so bringing up that topic is not very helpful in my opinion. The better comparisons would be with other partially-recognised entities, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Artsakh. These entities are what you should be discussing, not Nauru and Tuvalu. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics
There are three questions on how to characterize the legal status of Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics in the lead sections of the corresponding articles:
- (Q1) Should DPR and LPR be described as "breakaway puppet quasi-state(s)"?
- (Q2) If the answer to Q1 is no, should they be described as "Russian-supported breakaway state"?
- (Q3) If the answer to Q2 is no, how should they be described?
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Survey
- *Support"Russian-supported breakaway state". Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Definitely not #1, because adding lists of adjectives is not the best writing. Pick the most useful adjective; if that is breakaway per #2, then that one seems good. More generally on the title of the RfC, what legal framework is being referred to, and do we have any reliable sources that discuss what they are within that legal framework? CMD (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- No to Q1. "Puppet state" has a negative connotation and "quasi-state" is uninformative and confusing. "Puppet quasi-state" is probably a neologism and to me sounds like a convoluted way of saying that something has gone seriously wrong there. Per MOS:LEAD the first paragraph should identify the topic "with a neutral point of view" and "not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject".
Yes to Q2 "Russian-supported breakaway state" is neutral, informative and concise. In the discussion here above I also proposed "Russian client state" or "partially recognised breakaway state". See Artsakh (breakaway state
), Transnistria (unrecognised breakaway state
), South Ossetia (partially recognised state
), Abkhazia (partially recognised state
), Kosovo (partially recognised state
), SADR (partially recognized state
), Somaliland (de facto state
), Northern Cyprus (de facto state
). Comparison with Kosovo is striking: "breakaway puppet quasi-state proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine", on the one side, and "partially recognised state in Southeast Europe", on the other. More consistency would be desirable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)- It's problematic to compare the DPR and LPR to Kosovo. There's an entire article about this phenomenon, the Kosovo independence precedent. The situation in Kosovo is considered to be of a sui generis nature by Europe. Only Russia and a few other countries have viewed Kosovo as setting a "precedent". Russia has in the past used the situation in Kosovo to justify its support of the DPR and LPR breakaway republics, which has been rejected by Europe. In my opinion, Kosovo's situation is unique because its independence came hot on the heels of the breakup of the entire Yugoslavia (and, notably, Albania has always been separate from Yugoslavia). Kosovo was perhaps okay with being ruled by a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia that included Croatia, Bosnia, etc. However, when Kosovo eventually found itself being ruled exclusively by the ultra-nationalist Serbia, the Kosovans decided that they weren't going to allow themselves to be ruled by a single foreign ethnic group. The Soviet Union obviously also broke apart into many states, but the situation is not quite the same as Yugoslavia (partially due to the relative dominance of Russia within the USSR, whereas Serbia was only seen as the leader of Yugoslavia to a small extent). More comparable is the breakaway of Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Chechnya. These places basically are more similar to Kosovo, since they broke away during the wider breakup of the Soviet Union. The situation in the DPR and LPR is different because these two areas were pulled away from Ukraine by Russia during the modern era. I think it's a stretch to say that the DPR and LPR are directly connected to the breakup of the USSR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, compare the populations of Serbia and Kosovo. Serbia has 6.8 million inhabitants, including Vojvodina and excluding Kosovo. Meanwhile, Kosovo has 1.8 million inhabitants. The aforementioned Vojvodina is an autonomous region of Serbia (similar to Kosovo's former status) that has a population of 1.9 million (within 6.8 million of Serbia), which is around 2/3rds ethnic-Serb and contains various ethnic minorities. Comparing Kosovo's population with Serbia (excluding Kosovo), and considering that most inhabitants of Kosovo are ethnic-Kosovo Albanians, we can see that Kosovo has over 25% the population of Serbia. And, if Kosovo were a part of Serbia in the present day, its population would comprise over 20% of the total population of the country. So, clearly, Kosovo is too big for Serbia to simply rule over as a minority ethnic group. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Another important detail... Albania, which is obviously closely connected to Kosovo by ethnicity and culture, has a population of ~2.8 million as of 2022. Compared to Kosovo's population of 1.8 million, that's not really a lot bigger, is it? If Kosovo and Albania were one state, Kosovo would comprise around 40% of the total population of the country. So, as you can see, Kosovo is obviously a big deal for Albania considering that they are nearly as big as Albania itself and are located right next door. And Kosovo isn't some small breakaway region of Serbia considering that it is effectively equivalent to 20% of Serbia. This situation is starkly contrasted against the DPR and LPR, whereby Russia's population is enormous compared to these two statelets, and even Ukraine's population is still significantly larger as well (combining the DPR and LPR, they comprise around 10% of Ukraine's population, excluding Crimea, and Crimea itself has a surprisingly small population as well). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Long story short... We do not need to have consistency between these various states with limited recognition. Each situation is different, and it is not helpful to make comparisons and set precedents. We need to assess the DPR and LPR situations independently of most international affairs. Only relevant to mention is the war in Ukraine and the actions of Russia in this war, and that's it. Even mentioning Georgia is going off-topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Another point: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Artsakh was basically defeated by Azerbaijan (the claiming state) in 2020, with most of its territory getting absorbed into Azerbaijan. The remainder of the territory is completely surrounded by Azerbaijan, the self-ruled area has been forced to politically submit to Azerbaijan in a peace treaty that was brokered by Russia (there was a "Lachin Corridor" to allow movement between Artsakh and Armenia, but I think it was closed recently). If the peace treaty had not been signed, I think Azerbaijan could have taken the whole territory, perhaps with some major losses. Azerbaijan used the treaty as a way to secure an easy victory without suffering more losses. The war is as good as won for Azerbaijan. So, it's basically irrelevant to mention Artsakh either way, because it is doomed now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Q2 is the simplest although what I really want to say is "Russian-supported breakaway state with limited recognition" (attempting to secede from Ukraine) and...too long. Selfstudier (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support #1 - I support the first option, and if not the first, then the second (*with the caveat that we must call the territories "quasi-states" rather than "states"). I don't see what the problem of having a list of adjectives is. Alternatively, we could refer to the DPR and LPR as "disputed territory" and then elaborate in another paragraph about the details of the situation. But those adjectives are basically already there to serve the purpose of succinctly explaining what these territories are. We definitely cannot refer to them as "countries" since no sane person (aside from a Russian sympathizer) would actually agree with that assessment. Calling them "partially-recognised states" is just as bad as calling them countries. We can only refer to them as territories of some kind or another. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- My proposed alternative that has not been listed yet above is breakaway republic. This is supported by several sources that have been listed below. It's a good alternative to "breakaway state" because the word "republic" is literally inside of the names of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. Furthermore, there is no objection to the fact that they have broken away from Ukraine. Nobody is denying that they were ruled by Ukraine prior to 2014; this is non-controversial (the exact same way that I've said with Kosovo in some of my comments lower down in the RfC discussion). The term "de facto state", as listed by @Gitz, is not particularly neutral in comparison to the other term "quasi-state". In my opinion, both of these terms have the exact same problem of non-neutrality and ambiguity. If there aren't too many sources using the term "de facto state", then I'm afraid that it is also invalid. By the way, I've just noticed that Gitz's username is really "Gitz6666", although they've changed it to display as "Gitz". This is incredibly confusing for the purpose of pinging them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier - The comment above may be of interest to you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- You can propose it under Q3, a difficulty for "non Q2" ers is that opposition to Q2 is being diluted between different options. leaving Q2 a clear favorite (atm). Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, the term "state" is actually confusing for some people as well. On Wikipedia, it is regarded as a normal alternative to "country". However, as someone who lives in Australia, I can tell you that the word "state" can also refer to a subnational unit, effectively synonymous with "province". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- You can propose it under Q3, a difficulty for "non Q2" ers is that opposition to Q2 is being diluted between different options. leaving Q2 a clear favorite (atm). Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- If not "breakaway republic", then "breakaway entity". I'm still against referring to these entities as states. Maybe "polity" is a good alternative. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also going to suggest "breakaway territory". Indeed, "territory" seems like a neutral term to me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wild alternative, but it is perhaps possible to not define what the DPR/LPR is in the first paragraph or sentence. We could instead simply phrase the opening sentence this way. "The Donetsk/Luhansk People's Republic was proclaimed in April 2014 by pro-Russian separatists, breaking away from Ukraine. The DPR/LPR seeks to be recognised as a sovereign state, whereas Ukraine continues to claim the breakaway republic as its own territory. The United Nations and the vast majority of the international community supports Ukraine's claim, whereas Russia and a few other countries have recognised the DPR/LPR as a sovereign state." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier - This option above may also be of interest to you. Effectively, I have not defined anything in absolutist terms in this opening paragraph/sentence, which leaves it up to the reader to decide what is what. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I still prefer Q2 as a neutral correct description in keeping with many sources. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Avoid defining a state, i.e., a type of organisation, by its current external political relations. Definition should be relatively long-lasting and should not need changing with each change in international environment. So, quasi-state will be ok for me; puppet state less preferred but acceptable, but anything "Russian-supported" is plainly outside of definition. Russia does provide support to DPR in many areas while it does not in others. Similarly, DPR supports Russia in certain areas. Mutual relations between states are usually a complex matter, they cover not only public international law but also such matters as energy, transport, communication, private international law, migrations, recognition of academic titles and professional qualifications, etc. Mutual dependence of countries on each other is a very common thing (e.g., Japan depends on Russia for gas, which can theoretically be presented as Russia supporting Japan with energy needs) and should not, in my view, be made a core part of the definition. — kashmīrī TALK 10:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The support of Russia should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the intro, because Russia has been using the DPR's and LPR's pre-2022 territory as a launching ground in its invasion of Ukraine, in the exact same way that it is doing with Belarus. The fact that the DPR and LPR are essentially accomplices of Russia in its 2022 invasion of Ukraine is extremely notable. Of course, @Mzajac would argue that the DPR and LPR cannot be classified as "co-belligerents" due to being possibly directly controlled by Russia, but that's a separate issue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously, DPR and LPR troops are directly involved in the invasion of the wider Ukraine area alongside Russian troops as we speak. This is extremely notable. The DPR and LPR are either co-belligerents of Russia in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, or they are simply controlled by Russia are are basically extensions of Russia itself rather than something markedly separate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Russian puppet quasi-state in Ukraine, although not conventional, would be accurate, precise, and comprehensive, and capture the defining characteristics. All three adjectives have independent meaning. —Michael Z. 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, a lot of people seem to have a problem with the term "quasi-state", but as I've pointed out in the section below, the term "quasi-state" is really just a jargon that was invented by Wikipedia (not exactly, but almost). There aren't going to be a lot of sources using this term since it doesn't really exist in normal speech outside of this website. The term quasi-state means "something that is similar to a state". "Quasi" is a prefix of Latin origin that means "almost". It is somewhat comparable to "Pseudo", meaning "False", of Greek origin. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- That’s not even almost true, it’s false. Please stop repeating it in discussions.
- Quasi-state is a term in international law. It is also a good term because its meaning is self-evident, or easy to look up the meaning of the prefix quasi- (“apparently but not really”) in any dictionary for anyone who doesn’t know it. —Michael Z. 20:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that it is a term of international law (which?), perhaps a term used by international lawyers. Not sure where it originated, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, Robert H. Jackson 1990, perhaps, he makes the point that it is not the laws as such that have changed but the political treatment of states that might otherwise be considered deficient in some respect. "Quasi-states therefore exist and survive by virtue of the East West balance of power which has endured throughout the entire period of Third World decolonization and independence." Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll correct myself, it’s a term in the field of international relations, not a legal term.
- Also, the first cited reference in the lead of “Quasi-state” gives a subject-specific dictionary definition: Grant & Barker 2009, Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 493, 580:
- A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood . . . which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. . . . a term of international relations, and certainly not of international law, it connotes former colonies . . .
- DLNR are not exactly the definitive examples. Reading the definition, I think pseudo-state might be better, but this suffices. —Michael Z. 22:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Or we have in 2006, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249706388 The Sustainability and Future of Unrecognized Quasi-States "The study of quasi-states has been marred by an unfortunate terminological confusion. Sometimes, this term is taken to mean recognized states that fail to develop the necessary state structures to function as fully fledged, ‘real’ states. At other times, ‘quasi-states’ is a designation given to regions that secede from another state, gain de facto control over the territory they lay claim to, but fail to achieve international recognition. The author proposes that, in order to clear up this confusion, recognized but ineffectual states ought to be referred as ‘failed states’, while the term ‘quasi-states’ ought to be reserved for unrecognized, de facto states." Lot of cites, not a law specialist though. Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- 2019, Unrecognized State Entities & Evaluation of Emerging States in the 21st Century makes an attempt at dealing with all the terminology "The amount of terms denoting territorial units with attributes without international recognition is large and persistently increasing. Existence of terms like unrecognized states, de facto states, pseudo-states, state like entities, states within states, contested states, and even wannabe states (Anderson 2012:183), only supports that statement. The only thing that the enumerated terms reflect is the end of simple perception of the world." Interesting that he still refers to all as "states" regardless of adjective.(proto is another). Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Or we have in 2006, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249706388 The Sustainability and Future of Unrecognized Quasi-States "The study of quasi-states has been marred by an unfortunate terminological confusion. Sometimes, this term is taken to mean recognized states that fail to develop the necessary state structures to function as fully fledged, ‘real’ states. At other times, ‘quasi-states’ is a designation given to regions that secede from another state, gain de facto control over the territory they lay claim to, but fail to achieve international recognition. The author proposes that, in order to clear up this confusion, recognized but ineffectual states ought to be referred as ‘failed states’, while the term ‘quasi-states’ ought to be reserved for unrecognized, de facto states." Lot of cites, not a law specialist though. Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has adopted a niche, non-widely-used term and has developed it into something matter-of-fact. As such, Wikipedia has contributed to the increased usage of this term. Wikipedia is largely intertwined with the international relations academia, some of whom are known to edit articles here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- The term is from the relevant subject field. See if you can remove “niche” terms from articles on math, chemistry, and physics, too.
- “Intertwined with academia”? “Are known”? Tell us what’s wrong with that, what you propose to do about it, and provide evidence it’s true. —Michael Z. 21:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that it is a term of international law (which?), perhaps a term used by international lawyers. Not sure where it originated, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, Robert H. Jackson 1990, perhaps, he makes the point that it is not the laws as such that have changed but the political treatment of states that might otherwise be considered deficient in some respect. "Quasi-states therefore exist and survive by virtue of the East West balance of power which has endured throughout the entire period of Third World decolonization and independence." Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, a lot of people seem to have a problem with the term "quasi-state", but as I've pointed out in the section below, the term "quasi-state" is really just a jargon that was invented by Wikipedia (not exactly, but almost). There aren't going to be a lot of sources using this term since it doesn't really exist in normal speech outside of this website. The term quasi-state means "something that is similar to a state". "Quasi" is a prefix of Latin origin that means "almost". It is somewhat comparable to "Pseudo", meaning "False", of Greek origin. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- A quasi-state "is a political entity that does not represent a fully institutionalised or autonomous sovereign state", while a puppet state "is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders." The states have limited international recognition, and they seem to have their own governments, "parliaments" and other structures that make up a state, so they are not quasi-states. That said, it is fairly clear that they are completely dependent on Russia to function - they have the Russian ruble, their army is supplemented by the Russian army and siloviki, and they have no appreciable degree of independence wrt foreign affairs, so it is fair to call them Russian-controlled puppet states (particularly since the DPR and the LPR were proxies for Russia's war until February 2022, and are now its allies). Now, as to sources, these guys couple both terms at the same time, but that seems excessive; the label is indirectly asserted here. Most of them, though, name DPR and LPR as "breakaway" or "self-proclaimed" states. Self-proclaimed is probably no longer relevant as they already have some recognition, so describing them both as breakaway and Russian puppets is IMHO the best solution. "Russian-supported breakaway state" is an understatement - Pinochet was obviously supported by the United States but that doesn't mean he was a US puppet - if we took out Washington after the coup, he would likely still have ruled Chile. Here, however, the involvement of Russia is much deeper, and if we remove Russia, DPR and LPR lose their raison-d'être, so it's better to say they are Russia's puppets. It is a loaded term, but one which is correct in these circumstances. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that DPR and LPR are quasi-states because they do not have defined borders. As @Mzajac has pointed out many times, the DPR and LPR's borders are impossible to define after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially since they are seemingly trying to expand their borders beyond their pre-2022 frontiers. If you look at the map info for the territories of the DPR and LPR, you will see that editors have been continually expanding the borders to match the new frontiers of the 2022 Russian invasion. However, we cannot say with complete certainty that these are the actual new borders because it can easily be argued that Russia actually has the supreme control over these territories. It is currently impossible to draw a line between Russian control of occupied Ukrainian territory and control by the DPR and LPR. At best, we can suggest that there is "joint control". However, implying that the DPR and LPR control the territory exclusively, without Russian involvement, is highly dubious. The only borders that were more reliably defined were the pre-2022 frontiers, which have been depicted in various reliable sources for several years (2014/2015 to February 2022). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per the declarative theory of statehood it requires all four criteria to be met: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. DLNR arguably lack all four (ever more “former” Russian officials keep showing up in their governments). Quasi-state is more accurate than state to define them.. —Michael Z. 17:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that DPR and LPR are quasi-states because they do not have defined borders. As @Mzajac has pointed out many times, the DPR and LPR's borders are impossible to define after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially since they are seemingly trying to expand their borders beyond their pre-2022 frontiers. If you look at the map info for the territories of the DPR and LPR, you will see that editors have been continually expanding the borders to match the new frontiers of the 2022 Russian invasion. However, we cannot say with complete certainty that these are the actual new borders because it can easily be argued that Russia actually has the supreme control over these territories. It is currently impossible to draw a line between Russian control of occupied Ukrainian territory and control by the DPR and LPR. At best, we can suggest that there is "joint control". However, implying that the DPR and LPR control the territory exclusively, without Russian involvement, is highly dubious. The only borders that were more reliably defined were the pre-2022 frontiers, which have been depicted in various reliable sources for several years (2014/2015 to February 2022). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- No to Q1 My primary concern is that "puppet" is a rhetorically-loaded, non-encyclopedic term unfit for the lead. The formulation in Q2 is acceptable to me. Q2 is a cumbersome phrasing which, while not ideal, should adequately address the concerns of editors who might otherwise want "puppet." JArthur1984 (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is "puppet" non-encyclopaedic when it has been used to describe various historical entities, such as Vichy France, the Italian Social Republic, and Manchukuo? I will remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia describes things as they are. If the DPR and LPR are determined to be puppet states, then we should describe them that way, regardless of one's feelings. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, if independent reliable sources describe them so, and thus represent a significant view, then so can we. Do they, though? Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is "puppet" non-encyclopaedic when it has been used to describe various historical entities, such as Vichy France, the Italian Social Republic, and Manchukuo? I will remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia describes things as they are. If the DPR and LPR are determined to be puppet states, then we should describe them that way, regardless of one's feelings. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- It should be described either puppet quasi-state as in current version or simply quasi-state. I agree with comments by Szmenderowiecki above, i.e. this is not a "de facto state" because it is completely dependent on Russia. This is de juro a part of Ukraine, but de facto a part of Russia or simply an occupied territory, at least right now. Accordingly, No to Q1 and No to Q2. My very best wishes (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes to Q3. Now, when the territories of both "republics" have been significantly expanded by the occupying Russian forces, they both should be described as simply "territories occupied by Russia". My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you meant "Yes to Q1". If so, please correct and remove my comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my comments. What I said is that they have a formally organized government, so they can't be called quasi-states, as this implies that they are not fully formed yet. LPR and DPR both have everything what an independent state needs on an institutional level - the govt, the legislature, the courts, the army, the police etc. and these organs exercise their duties in some way, and they even have "citizenship" (whatever DPR citizenship means). But they are definitely puppets in that the main positions of power are either directly controlled by Russia or controlled by proxy, so we can easily say they are controlled by Russia and are UA's occupied territories. Btw, you also can't say de facto part of Russia because Russia considers these republics independent. If they organise Crimea-style referendums and announce the result we all know regardless of the actual vote, then yes, but not before that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Q1 - no, because I think leaving only "quasi-state" (no "breakaway" and no "puppet") or defining it as an occupied territory would be best. And no, based on the arguments above, this is simply not a state but occupied territories directly and de facto ruled by Russia (it does not matter what official lies about their "independence" Russian state promotes). Note that the territories of both "republics" are now expanded due to the ongoing occupation, which supports the "not a state" argument. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a good guide for this discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- My analysis of the theory of statehood for the DPR and LPR...
- 1. Population --> This is not well-defined after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine since we cannot determine who is actually a "citizen" of the DPR/LPR as opposed to a foreigner (i.e. Ukrainian) under occupation. I am sure that most people in the north of the former Luhansk Oblast, which has been almost completely occupied by Russia as of September 2022, would refuse to identify as citizens of the LPR.
- 2. Territory --> This is not well-defined after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine since we cannot say with absolute certainty which exact territories are ruled by the DPR and LPR as opposed to Russia. It is currently impossible to draw a line between the DPR/LPR and Russia after the invasion, although it was possible to draw a line before the invasion with the pre-2022 frontiers.
- 3. Government --> This is well-defined since there are self-declared DPR and LPR governments that we can easily point to. Whether they are "real" governments is a different story. But the fact that they exist is easy to see.
- 4. Sovereignty --> Sovereignty involves both actual control of a territory (and its citizens) and international recognition. The DPR and LPR don't really have 100% control of their territory and citizens because it can be argued that the supreme sovereignty lies with Russia (on account of the fact that Russia is currently invading the entire country of Ukraine, and the DPR and LPR have been swept up into this wider invasion). In terms of recognition, Russia does actually recognise the DPR and the LPR as independent sovereign states (irrespective of the actual details of the situation on the ground), and a few of Russia's allies have also recognises the DPR and LPR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a good guide for this discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The "fully-formed government" is not the only qualifier to determine something as a proper state as opposed to a quasi-state. The other big detail is whether the entity has defined borders. The DPR and the LPR currently do not have defined borders, so at best they can be described as "a government". See my comments above. The DPR and LPR's borders have become nebulous after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. They were better defined before the war, with the pre-2022 frontiers. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to partly disagree. My reply:
- 1. Population --> Unknown
- 2. Territory --> There is no stable territory. The war is ongoing.
- 4. Government --> There is no independent government. All government figures are appointed or at least directly approved from Moscow.
- 5. Sovereignty --> There is no "sovereign authority over a specific territory" (see 4.) and there is no specific territory. The territory is occupied by Russian army; the DPR units are commanded by Russian military officers.
- Conclusion: this is not a state, but merely an occupied territory. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:OR. Take a look at Bosnia Herzegovina when it became a UN member state. It failed at least two Montevideo criteria to even be a state and yet it was admitted as a full member, Montevideo is not the be all and end all, it is politics as much as law. See Political Realities of Recognition of States Contrary to the Bindings of International Law Example "... There is no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined." (North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgement, ICJ Reports 1969:3). Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Independentness is not an indicator of whether a government exists, just of whether it is legitimate. There are various governments of countries around the world that can be considered illegitimate to some degree, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Myanmar military junta, North Korea's entire existence, etc. But nobody denies that a government exists in these cases. A government is still a government no matter whether it is a theocratic fascist Marxist absolute monarchical military dictatorship or a liberal democratic republic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Q1 - no, because I think leaving only "quasi-state" (no "breakaway" and no "puppet") or defining it as an occupied territory would be best. And no, based on the arguments above, this is simply not a state but occupied territories directly and de facto ruled by Russia (it does not matter what official lies about their "independence" Russian state promotes). Note that the territories of both "republics" are now expanded due to the ongoing occupation, which supports the "not a state" argument. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support Q2 of the options presented thus far. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do you realize that Q2 means DPR (including all the currently occupied territories!) is merely a legitimate state supported by Russia. I do not think this can be at all supported by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is quite tricky, an argument is being made by some that Russia's recognition (based on the contested doctrine of remedial secession) is illegal. Else if it is legal then they could make a defense pact ( Russia signed with the leaders of the DPR and LPR treaties on friendship, cooperation and mutual aid) with the recognized states and then they are not occupier but defender there (and occupier outside of there). I doubt we want to get into the complexities of that argument in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you define "defence", but considering the fact that the DPR and the LPR have ostensibly (being shown to) been expanding their territorial frontiers throughout the 2022 Russian invasion of Urkaine, surely this war must be viewed as primarily offensive? If the DPR and LPR were truly defending themselves, they wouldn't be trying to grab more territory. The facts on the ground just don't support the narrative. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is quite tricky, an argument is being made by some that Russia's recognition (based on the contested doctrine of remedial secession) is illegal. Else if it is legal then they could make a defense pact ( Russia signed with the leaders of the DPR and LPR treaties on friendship, cooperation and mutual aid) with the recognized states and then they are not occupier but defender there (and occupier outside of there). I doubt we want to get into the complexities of that argument in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Once again, ""Russian-supported breakaway state" (Q2) means they are legitimate recognized states supported by Russia. It does not even say "unrecognized" states. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- They have been recognized by Russia, Syria and N Korea so it would be inaccurate to say unrecognized. One can argue that these recognitions are illegal, that's a different thing. "breakaway state" need not imply legitimate either. Secessionists either end up off and running or get reabsorbed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why would "Russian-supported breakaway state" imply that they are "legitimate"? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "legitimate" (morally justified? entitled to rule? generally obeyed? capable of entering into international treaties?) but whatever you mean by it, if you want to convey that they are legitimate you'd better say it explicitly and use the word "legitimate". None of those meanings follows from the description "Russian-supported breakaway state". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do you realize that Q2 means DPR (including all the currently occupied territories!) is merely a legitimate state supported by Russia. I do not think this can be at all supported by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support Q2 for now.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support Q2 The situation is very complex because the Kremlin has flooded the region with (10s or 100s of) billions of dollars to corrupt the politics and economics of Donetsk institutions and businesses, and there isn't really any precedent in history, so it is very hard to describe. In the coming years, it will be documented much better, but in the meantime, it can be described as a puppet state. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Q2 doesn't say "puppet state". Did you mean Q1? Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is a poorly constructed set of questions. It is not a break-away state. Just a puppet state. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, you have written Support Q2 which is ""Russian-supported breakaway state", it sounds as if you want either Q1 or Q3 (you say what it is). Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are right. This is confusing. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a breakaway state, because the people didn't support a break from Ukraine, even though there is a big cultural and political divide between east and western Ukrainians. It is definitely impossible to call it a breakaway state now, as most Russian Ukrainians did not support Putin's decision to invade, even if they did have a more pro-Russian sentiment before. That sentiment was influenced by money from the Kremlin for many but also nostalgia for the Soviet era for some. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are right. This is confusing. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, you have written Support Q2 which is ""Russian-supported breakaway state", it sounds as if you want either Q1 or Q3 (you say what it is). Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is a poorly constructed set of questions. It is not a break-away state. Just a puppet state. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Q2 doesn't say "puppet state". Did you mean Q1? Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support Q1, second preference being Q2, third preference being something along the lines of "de facto quasi-state dependent on Russia". I know we don't usually explicitly refer to states with limited recognition as "puppet states." There are a handful of other states that you could arguably call puppets; there's a case to be made that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are also Russian puppets, and less so Transnistria, and there's even some sources that would describe Artsakh as an Armenian puppet. We seldom refer to any of them as puppet states (though I can think of a few pages on the encyclopedia that currently do). But I think there's a remarkable difference between these other entities and the DPR & LPR in terms of just how frequent it is to see sources describe them as puppets. The Donetsk and Luhansk/Lugansk People's Republics are, more so than any other partially recognized states, referred to as puppet states by secondary sources. Referring to them as such is not inappropriate. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Suport Q3 or Q2. The term "puppet" is a biased term and based on the random sources in table 2 below is of undue weight to be included in the lead. Table two in fact shows that the term puppet on average never shows up. Also, from table 2 it is clear that the term puppet is equivalent to the more neutral qualifiers such as: (Russian backed, Russian supported, Russian controlled, Moscow backed, pro-Russian, Moscow's, or [no descriptor]). Based on the random results of table 2 the term "puppet" violates WP:impartial (i.e. WP:NPOV): "
Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
" [highlighting by me]
- Building on Jargo Nautilus's suggestion below I suggest the following lead sentence:
- "Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. The Russian-backed republic is currently occupied by Russian forces and does not have clearly defined borders because of ongoing war."
- Or some variation on the above without the use of the biased term "puppet". --Guest2625 (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
As far as I am aware, they have no legal status in international law. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Options 1 and 2 both describe them as "states". Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 uses the terminology of "quasi-state", which means "something that is similar to a state". This means that it actually is not exactly referring to them as "states". That's why I prefer "quasi-state". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's more complex. There's no such thing as "legal status in international law". — kashmīrī TALK 10:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
If "breakaway" is commonname for "secessionist" then breakaway is good. "de facto state" is a common usage for states that lack substantial recognition.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- The term "breakaway" means that the territory has broken away from a larger country (obviously). Meanwhile, the term "secessionist" is more ambiguous because it doesn't clarify whether the territory is still a part of the larger country or not ("separatist state" is even worse).
- In my opinion, the terminology "breakaway state" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. For example, Kosovo is undoubtedly a breakaway state from Serbia. Nonetheless, I personally support the independence of Kosovo. I don't object to the descriptor "breakaway" for Kosovo, because that's exactly what it is. No one is pretending that Kosovo wasn't previously a part of Serbia prior to 1999 (UN administration) or 2008 (self-declared independence).
- "De facto state" implies that the state actually functions like a state. "De facto state" is a common way to describe Taiwan, which is generally considered to function 100% as a normal country, even though it is not (officially) recognised as a normal country by most of the international community. On the other hand, it will be quite difficult to argue that some of the other more "fringe" cases actually operate as normal countries. Among the list of self-declared states, my personal opinion is that Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, all function more or less as proper countries, with varying degrees of recognition. Meanwhile, Western Sahara is barely functioning as a country, but it's recognised by the United Nations as a "non-self-governing territory", and the actual government itself (the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) is a member of the African Union, so that's good enough for me. As for Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, the situation is muddier due to Russian influence in these regions, but I will point out that these three regions all declared independence during the breakup of the Soviet Union, rather than 20+ years later (as in the case of the DPR and LPR). As for Artsakh, well, I would have argued that it was country-like prior to 2020, but now that it has lost so much of its territory, I think it is soon going to be absorbed completely into Azerbaijan (or have a chance of some kind of arrangement with Armenia, maybe a population transfer or some political concessions), so it's barely a country now. Artsakh is also influenced by Russia, but that's less important than the fact that it's got even more influence from Armenia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: In the collapse box I've started gathering some titles on the legal status of DPR and LPR, but I think that these sources can be more useful for expanding the article than for answering the RfC. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, we do need sourcing to some extent, we can't just accept some statement x or y without some analysis of the sources. Is it actually the case that the balance of sources (ideally scholarly) describe these entities as "breakaway", "puppet" or "quasi" or whatever? I will try to add some more in the collapse box. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Realistically, not many sources describe these entities as "quasi-states" since that's not a very common word outside of technical jargon. It's basically a catch-all term to describe various different entities that are similar to a state (but might not 100% qualify as proper states). With that being said, I've seen the news outlet Al Jazeera refer to these entities as "statelets", which is a similar term. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera "Moscow-backed statelets in Ukraine". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to say it outright; we do not need sources to describe the DPR and LPR as "quasi-states" because the term is basically a Wikipedia-exclusive jargon that very few people actually use outside of this website. We instead need to find sources that describe the DPR and LPR as being "similar to a state but not quite a state". Anything like that would place them into the category of a quasi-state according to Wikipedia's own definition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- On the other hand, "breakaway" and "puppet" most likely do need to be directly quoted in the source material. So, only "quasi-state" is exempt from this rule given how unusual of a term it is. Given that "breakaway" and "puppet" are used in normal speech outside of Wikipedia, they actually do need to be literally stated by the source material. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing is exempt from the need for citation if challenged, especially a term like "quasi-state". I would insist on a citation for that usage. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- We may as well delete the entire "quasi-state" article on Wikipedia then, since most of the information in that article can be regarded in the same way. As I said, the term is more or less a Wikipedia-invented catchall. With that being said, the same applies to the article "list of states with limited recognition", which was also effectively invented by Wikipedians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Take it to afd if you think that's the right thing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The notion of "quasi-state" in exceptionally confusing and our article on the subject unfortunately doesn't help much. In international law it usually refers to entities that do not qualify as states but enjoy "legal subjectivity" under international law, that is, they can enter into treaties with states. The typical examples are the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Quasi-state is a good word. Its meaning is self-evident, and quasi- is easily looked up in a dictionary by anyone who doesn’t get it. It is not made up by Wikipedia, but is sourced in the relevant article. —Michael Z. 06:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- The word is not the problem, it is dueness, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is irrelevant that Kazakhstan calls them quasi-states, that's just a political opinion, what we need to know is whether it is a "significant viewpoint", if there are scholarly sources calling them that, please add them to the sources box if so. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- One needs something very recent because everything has changed with these "republics" during the war. I think "Quasi-state", "proto-state" or any other kind of "state" is not good right now. In the current situation of the expanded territory occupied by Russian forces, they are simply occupied territories, without stable population, stable territory or independent self-governing.My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you’re dancing around the distinction between the Russian-sponsored political entities (whatever one calls them), their claimed territories (which have been fluid, but lately claimed to be at least the territories of the corresponding Ukrainian oblasts), and the Ukrainian territory de-facto controlled by Russian forces including their subordinate DLNR army corps. We can refer to all of these things, but they can only be defined with some level of uncertainty. —Michael Z. 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- One needs something very recent because everything has changed with these "republics" during the war. I think "Quasi-state", "proto-state" or any other kind of "state" is not good right now. In the current situation of the expanded territory occupied by Russian forces, they are simply occupied territories, without stable population, stable territory or independent self-governing.My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- The word is not the problem, it is dueness, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is irrelevant that Kazakhstan calls them quasi-states, that's just a political opinion, what we need to know is whether it is a "significant viewpoint", if there are scholarly sources calling them that, please add them to the sources box if so. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Quasi-state is a good word. Its meaning is self-evident, and quasi- is easily looked up in a dictionary by anyone who doesn’t get it. It is not made up by Wikipedia, but is sourced in the relevant article. —Michael Z. 06:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- The notion of "quasi-state" in exceptionally confusing and our article on the subject unfortunately doesn't help much. In international law it usually refers to entities that do not qualify as states but enjoy "legal subjectivity" under international law, that is, they can enter into treaties with states. The typical examples are the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Take it to afd if you think that's the right thing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- We may as well delete the entire "quasi-state" article on Wikipedia then, since most of the information in that article can be regarded in the same way. As I said, the term is more or less a Wikipedia-invented catchall. With that being said, the same applies to the article "list of states with limited recognition", which was also effectively invented by Wikipedians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing is exempt from the need for citation if challenged, especially a term like "quasi-state". I would insist on a citation for that usage. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've also started a table of sources which use other terms beside "puppet" to describe the two states. Anyone is free to expand the source list. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- In my view, the problem with "puppet state" is not that it is not supported by sources, but that its use is contrary to MOS:OPEN and MOS:FIRST. It is also at odds with comparable articles like Transnistria, etc. We should avoid defining/identifying the subject of the article using disparaging words, and the political term puppet state is biased. Using "client state" or "protectorate" would be in principle more encyclopedic although equally questionable from the viewpoint of settled practice - we usually say "de facto state" or state with limited recognition. See List of states with limited recognition. I'm not against using "puppet state" in the body of the article and possibly even in the lead section (with attribution), but i think that both MOS and NPOV prevent us from describing DPR and LPR in that way in the opening sentence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a section in the article body devoted to the different viewpoints only that we should be careful when asserting something as a fact in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Gitz, in my opinion, you are confusing "NPOV" with the "false balance". Just because something is seemingly disparaging, doesn't make it false. You understand that we as Wikipedia editors have no obligations to please anyone? Our job is to present the facts, not to appease certain people. If the facts say that the DPR and the LPR are puppet states, then that's how we should describe them. Of course, I'm not saying that that's how we *must* describe them. I'm just saying that there's nothing inherently *wrong* with describing them that way. Just because it hurts your feelings, doesn't make it illegal. Must I remind you that Wikipedia is not censored? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- In my view, the problem with "puppet state" is not that it is not supported by sources, but that its use is contrary to MOS:OPEN and MOS:FIRST. It is also at odds with comparable articles like Transnistria, etc. We should avoid defining/identifying the subject of the article using disparaging words, and the political term puppet state is biased. Using "client state" or "protectorate" would be in principle more encyclopedic although equally questionable from the viewpoint of settled practice - we usually say "de facto state" or state with limited recognition. See List of states with limited recognition. I'm not against using "puppet state" in the body of the article and possibly even in the lead section (with attribution), but i think that both MOS and NPOV prevent us from describing DPR and LPR in that way in the opening sentence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Territorial extent of the DPR and LPR
This topic is relevant to the RfC. In the introductory paragraph of the Donetsk People's Republic article, it says that the DPR is "proclaimed inside the territory of Ukraine". After this, it says that the DPR "claims the entirety of Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast as its territory". This is crucial information because the DPR does not control 100% of the Donetsk Oblast. Effectively, this means it does not control 100% of the territory that it claims. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, the DPR claims direct succession to the Donetsk Oblast, according to the theory of the succession of states. This is comparable to the dispute between North Korea and South Korea, whereby both regimes claim to be the sole government of the entire Korean Peninsula. Effectively, the "Donetsk Oblast" is split between Ukraine's Donetsk government and the separatist Russian-backed Donetsk People's Republic government.
Luhansk Oblast is in a similar situation, except that around 99% of the oblast is controlled by either the LPR or Russia.
It should also be added that, both in the case of the DPR and the LPR, it can be argued that Russia is the supreme sovereign over the occupied territories in the context of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. At best, the territories can be described as "under joint occupation by Russia and the DPR/LPR". Arguing that sovereignty exclusively lies with the DPR/LPR, without any influence from Russia, is dubious. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Who says that about claims of state succession? It is not like Korea. Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts have never had statehood and there can be no state succession from them. Ukraine is a unitary state, not a federation. —Michael Z. 07:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Theoretically, the theory of the succession of states can apply to both national and subnational entities alike. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Quasi-state
Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3 ed.) Edited by: John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker, contains a short entry (few lines) on the concept of quasi-state:
A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood ... which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. See Holy See, Sovereign Order of Malta
The key-notion is that quasi-state possess a measure of international personality
: the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta enter into treaties, maintain diplomatic relations, issue passports. Also the old European Communities, now European Union, have been described as "quasi-state" for that reason: they have legal personality under international law and can sign treaties. From the view point of international law, the case of DPR and LPR is the opposite one: they are fully-fledged states (centralised political communities ruling over a population and a territory) that cannot exercise certain prerogatives of (external) sovereignty because they haven't been recognised by other states (apart from Russia and a few others). But there's nothing new there, and there's no need of looking for striking new words for describing states with limited international recognition. Why can't we just use the same words we use for Transnistria or Abkhazia? But the basic question is: do we have an HQRS describing DRP and LPR as "quasi-states"? Or is this just a piece of OR? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- The entire Wikipedia article about Quasi-States uses the "State that doesn't possess all characteristics" definition, not the definition that you've described here. It is possible to instead refer to the DPR and LPR as "statelets" or "proto-states". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, the Holy See is a bad example of a quasi-state because it is effectively a full-fledged sovereign state in its own right, having been recognised by the majority of the international community as being such. The Holy See possesses a defined territory and a defined albeit tiny population. Demographically, the Holy See isn't a normal country because it only has 5% women and 95% men, so obviously it draws its population primarily from outside of its own borders rather than having an internally self-sustaining population. Nonetheless, the status of the Holy See as a legitimate sovereign state (albeit a very weird one) is not contested.
- It's the same sort of deal with the Order of Malta. The Order of Malta is recognised as a full-fledged sovereign entity (albeit not a sovereign state in the traditional sense) by the majority of the international community. The Order of Malta's status is uncontested, and it doesn't even seek to be recognised as a normal country in the first place. The Order of Malta is more of a glamorous institution than anything else, akin to transnational corporations like Facebook and McDonalds, for example. The Order of Malta doesn't have territory and doesn't even seek to acquire territory, although it historically actually did possess some significant territories.
- I would personally describe neither the Holy See nor the Order of Malta as quasi-states since they are basically 100% sovereign outright. The Holy See is 100% a sovereign state, whereas the Order of Malta is 100% a sovereign entity and is currently the only sovereign non-state entity that is widely recognised to exist in the world. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that it is possible for one word to have multiple definitions. Just because you have found *one* definition of a quasi-state, that doesn't mean you've found the *only* definition of a quasi-state. So, it is entirely possible that both definitions are valid. Your definition doesn't automatically negate the other definition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that the term "quasi-state" is confusing (and
NPOV), as I said above - and a fellow editor dusagreed with me. Multiple definition=confusing, ambiguous term. We should avoid using it in the lead. Plus it is not supported by RS with regard to DPR and LPR: so it's also OR. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)- Assume you mean "non NPOV" (or POV). Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- The term "quasi-state" isn't confusing to me. It is perhaps only confusing to you. I will point out that the alternatives "statelet" and "proto-state" still exist. Alternatively, we could use the word "entity". I will say that it's definitely against NPOV to use the expanded-territory maps to depict the DPR and LPR in their info-boxes. The maps that are currently in use show the entire area that is currently occupied by Russian troops, but this implies that the entire area is under either DPR or LPR rule, when in fact it's under Russian rule. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps so but not the subject of the RFC. We can't use quasi state if it has multiple meanings because how does the reader know which one is meant. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I changed my comment to "against NPOV". As for the term "quasi-state" having multiple meanings, I was not even aware of this up until Gitz brought up the other definition. I didn't even know that the other definition existed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the three scholarly articles on the subject I put up, it is clear there is no unanimity about the meaning. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not my problem or main concern. I will say thought that the alternative that is being presented, "de facto state" is not neutral either and can potentially also be considered to have multiple meanings. In order to use the term "de facto state", we must have sources. As far as I can tell, hardly any of the sources below use this terminology. Indeed, from a quick glance, the most common terminology would probably be "breakaway republic" (republic, not state), so, ultimately, I think that's what we should probably use. "Breakaway republic" is also my own preferred term; I don't really use the "puppet state" terminology because it can be perceived as biased, regardless of whether it is supported by evidence or not. So, ultimately, my vote is towards Q3, because Q2 says "breakaway state", but I prefer "breakaway republic", which is not the same thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- de facto state has not been proposed in the rfc afaics although someone could propose it under Q3 if they wished. It is quite common, three of the sources in the original sources box mention that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- It has been proposed by @Gitz in this comment above:
...we usually say "de facto state" or state with limited recognition
. It has also been proposed by you (@Selfstudier) in this comment above:"de facto state" is a common usage for states that lack substantial recognition.
. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)- I have chosen Q2, so has Gitz. If I want to change it to Q3 (something else) I will let you know. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- It has been proposed by @Gitz in this comment above:
- de facto state has not been proposed in the rfc afaics although someone could propose it under Q3 if they wished. It is quite common, three of the sources in the original sources box mention that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not my problem or main concern. I will say thought that the alternative that is being presented, "de facto state" is not neutral either and can potentially also be considered to have multiple meanings. In order to use the term "de facto state", we must have sources. As far as I can tell, hardly any of the sources below use this terminology. Indeed, from a quick glance, the most common terminology would probably be "breakaway republic" (republic, not state), so, ultimately, I think that's what we should probably use. "Breakaway republic" is also my own preferred term; I don't really use the "puppet state" terminology because it can be perceived as biased, regardless of whether it is supported by evidence or not. So, ultimately, my vote is towards Q3, because Q2 says "breakaway state", but I prefer "breakaway republic", which is not the same thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the three scholarly articles on the subject I put up, it is clear there is no unanimity about the meaning. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I changed my comment to "against NPOV". As for the term "quasi-state" having multiple meanings, I was not even aware of this up until Gitz brought up the other definition. I didn't even know that the other definition existed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps so but not the subject of the RFC. We can't use quasi state if it has multiple meanings because how does the reader know which one is meant. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that the term "quasi-state" is confusing (and
- "A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood". OK. Perhaps it did satisfy some of these criteria (such as more or less stable territory and population) before the invasion, exactly as some of the references below say. However, after the occupation by Russian army of significantly larger territory and during the active warfare there is no stable population and territory. Neither is their "government" independent from Moscow. This is Russian army, and the DPR forces is subordinated to Moscow. NONE of the statehood criteria are currently satisfied. This is currently neither a puppet state nor a quasi-state. Not a state. This is merely an occupied territory. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty much, I agree with this statement. Prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I might very well have supported the description of the DPR and LPR as "de facto states". Not anymore. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Atm, the lead says "...proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine, which is militarily occupied by Russia and Russian-backed separatists." which I would have thought covers the point although I am not convinced it is exactly the right wording. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that formulation covers MVBW's point. They would like us to describe DPR/LPR as Russian "occupied territories", and the pro-Russian separatist forces simply as "Russian" forces [13] - so basically they would like us to get rid with the very notion that DPR/LPR exist as self-standing political and military entities, and replace it with the notion that they are a mere facade, a cover-up for Russian intervention in the area. The problem with this is that is 100% WP:OR, with no supporting source whatsoever. Even those who speak of "puppet state" don't deny that they exist as a political community capable of ruling effectively over a territory and a population (that is, as a state). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Atm, the lead says "...proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine, which is militarily occupied by Russia and Russian-backed separatists." which I would have thought covers the point although I am not convinced it is exactly the right wording. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty much, I agree with this statement. Prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I might very well have supported the description of the DPR and LPR as "de facto states". Not anymore. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no, you completely misinterpreted my words. I am only saying these entities belong to occupied territories, and we have already a list of such territories where DPR, LNR and Crimea are already included. I am saying something very much obvious, something that is already reflected on our pages per RS. It was already an occupied territory before the war. But it is even more so when it lacks any stable territorial boundaries and population due to the active warfare. No, it does not "exist as a political community capable of ruling effectively over a territory and a population" because there are no stable territorial boundaries and population at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The article Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast says "...came under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic, a Russian-backed breakaway state located within it." Of course WP is not a source so we can't take that as support for Q2. (Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast is similar) Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Russian occupation" (the title of the page) means occupation by Russian army, and this army obviously took the leading part in the "liberation". The cited source does say that the territories newly occupied by Russian forces/army was subordinated/transfered by Moscow to the same DPR administration. But it does not change the argument about the lack of stable territory. They only claim whole Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine, but they do not have it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't usually edit pages in this area, the only one was Azov and I stumbled on that accidentally. But having had a look at the mini mountain of "occupation" pages, one thing is clear, there is a lot of confusion over what constitutes an occupation, never mind what a "state" is. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Russian occupation" (the title of the page) means occupation by Russian army, and this army obviously took the leading part in the "liberation". The cited source does say that the territories newly occupied by Russian forces/army was subordinated/transfered by Moscow to the same DPR administration. But it does not change the argument about the lack of stable territory. They only claim whole Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine, but they do not have it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The article Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast says "...came under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic, a Russian-backed breakaway state located within it." Of course WP is not a source so we can't take that as support for Q2. (Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast is similar) Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no, you completely misinterpreted my words. I am only saying these entities belong to occupied territories, and we have already a list of such territories where DPR, LNR and Crimea are already included. I am saying something very much obvious, something that is already reflected on our pages per RS. It was already an occupied territory before the war. But it is even more so when it lacks any stable territorial boundaries and population due to the active warfare. No, it does not "exist as a political community capable of ruling effectively over a territory and a population" because there are no stable territorial boundaries and population at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. You seem to limit your understanding to military presence alone, missing the key characteristic which is the independence of the three branches of the government. While the executive branch of the DPR/LPR government is strongly dependent on Russian support, at least politically, the situation is different as regards the judiciary. As a matter of fact, the judiciary structure in the DPR/LPR is completely independent of the Russian judiciary structure and, obviously, Russian laws do not apply on the territory of DPR/LPR. Similarly, the legislative branch is formally independent from the Russian Duma. In my view, DPR/LPR bear all hallmarks of a state (albeit strongly dependent politically and security-wise on its larger neighbour) and labelling these organisms merely as "occupied territories" would be akin to, say, refusing to accept the statehood of the State of Palestine just because it's under military control of another state.
- Of course, in the grand scheme of things, both DPR and LPR came to existence only to further Russian political interests. But this is a fairly common occurrence - many states are only there because big powers have decided to create them. — kashmīrī TALK 10:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Sources
Bibliography on the legal status of DPR and LPR
|
---|
feel free to add more references to this bibliography |
Table of sources describing Donetsk and Luhansk as puppets
Discussion of sources describing Donetsk and Luhansk as puppets
|
---|
|
Website name | Quote from source | URL | WP:RS/P rating |
---|---|---|---|
Financial Times | Ukraine fighting points to Russia designs for puppet state(article body is paywalled) |
[32] | Generally reliable |
ETH Zurich | the “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, arguing that though they may be best described as Russian puppet states, |
[33] | Not mentioned, likely reliable (public research university) |
The Guardian | The first was that Russia would annex the east of Ukraine, as it did last month with Crimea. The second was that Moscow would install a puppet regime analogous to the one in Trans-Dniester, the breakaway Moldovan region next to western Ukraine, he said. "The Kremlin will decide at the last minute."Certainly Russia is treating the "Donbass People's Republic" as a dignified government-in-waiting. |
[34] | Generally reliable |
Daily Express | targeting data on the location of the puppet ‘Ministry of Internal Affairs” in occupied Donetsk. |
[35] | Generally unreliable |
The Chosun Ilbo | Like the Luhansk People's Republic, the DPR is a Russian puppet state proclaimed in 2014 in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbass. |
[36] | Not mentioned, likely reliable (regarded as a newspaper of record for South Korea) |
Daily Mirror | Denis Pushilin, the head of the Donetsk People's Republic [DPR], a pro-Moscow puppet state in eastern Ukraine, |
[37] | No consensus |
The Sun (United Kingdom) | According to Russian newspaper Kommersant, missiles hit the private office of Denis Pushilin, the leader of the pro-Putin puppet state Donetsk People’s Republic. |
[38] | Deprecated |
Free Press Journal | Olga was a colonel who oversaw a division of rocket artillery that was sent into Ukraine as part of the militia of the Donetsk People's Republic, a puppet state of Russia. |
[39] | Not mentioned |
The Telegraph | The 52-year-old from Donetsk was a colonel commanding a unit in the forces of the Russian puppet state Donetsk People's Republic that has been accused of shelling civilians. |
[40] | Generally reliable |
MENAFN | The lack of success on the front does not allow the Russian Federation to set a final date for the so-called 'referendum' on the puppet pseudo-formation 'DPR' joining Russia. |
[41] | Not mentioned |
i (newspaper) | Russia’s puppet government in the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic in Ukraine |
[42] | Not mentioned |
Metro (British newspaper) | Kachura was colonel within the forces of Russia’s puppet state Donetsk People’s Republic |
[43] | Generally unreliable |
National Review | the Muscovite businessman who is serving as prime minister of the Putin puppet “Donetsk People’s Republic,” |
[44] | No consensus |
Detroit Free Press | Russian puppet governments are making similar plans elsewhere in Ukraine. |
[45] | Not mentioned |
Euractiv (quoting the Czech government) |
The Czech foreign ministry said on Twitter on Tuesday that it would not comment on the claims of “a Kremlin puppet regime not recognised by anyone.” |
[46] | Not mentioned |
Taipei Times | Initially, the only territorial ambitions Russia officially declared were confined to the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which the respective puppet “People’s Republics” claimed as their land. |
[47] | Not mentioned |
The New Voice of Ukraine | Among them was a known local crime boss, ex-councilmember of the Donetsk puppet authority, and owner of the entertainment center “Bermuda”, Yuriy Krykulenko. |
[48] | Not mentioned, likely biased |
ABC News | The Donbas contains two provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk, that touch the Russian border and since 2014 have been controlled by two puppet separatist governments that Moscow armed and helped establish. |
[49] | Generally reliable |
BBC News | US officials believe annexation is on the cards, and Russia's puppet leader in Donetsk, Denis Pushilin, has said referendums would make sense when Russian forces complete the capture of both regions. The outside world would regard any vote as a sham, but he sees the result as "obvious". |
[50] | Generally reliable |
Bloomberg News | The vote confirms the Kremlin has reluctantly decided to hang on to the puppet states it helped carve out. |
[51] | Generally reliable |
The Economist | And some take in fighters from Russian-backed militias in the Luhansk and Donetsk people's republics—a pair of puppet governments in eastern ... |
[52] | Generally reliable |
Newsweek | Some Kremlin allies, including puppet Donetsk separatist leader Denis Pushilin, have called for Azov prisoners to be tried in Russian courts. |
[53] | Generally reliable |
Politico | Russia also installed puppet governments inside the two so-called republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. The local councils of Donbass elected before the war did not support Russian aggression, so Moscow created military dictatorships in the occupied territories, which initially were run by Russian citizens. Later, the Russians were replaced by local collaborators. |
[54] | Generally reliable |
Table of sources describing Donetsk and Luhansk as breakaway/other descripitor
Website name | Quote from source | URL | WP:RS/P rating |
---|---|---|---|
Financial Times | As Vladimir Putin announced that his decision to recognise two Moscow-backed separatist states in the Donbas extended to large swaths of Ukraine-controlled territory, the Russian president made it clear his options were not at an end.(article body is paywalled) |
[55] | Generally reliable |
ETH Zurich | Russia’s economy is in a deepening recession as a result of the costs of supporting breakaway statelets in eastern Ukraine, western sanctions and collapsed oil prices. |
[56] | Not mentioned, likely reliable (public research university) |
The Guardian | Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has announced that he is recognising two breakaway territories in eastern Ukraine as independent. |
[57] | Generally reliable |
Daily Express | The area is one of two breakaway republic's backed by Moscow. |
[58] | Generally unreliable |
Daily Mirror | Mr Aslin was handed the death penalty for "mercenary activities" at a court in the Russian-backed breakaway Donetsk People's Republic in eastern Ukraine. |
[59] | No consensus |
The Sun (United Kingdom) | Russia gave their backing the separatist forces which formed breakaway republics in Donetsk and Luhansk. |
[60] | Deprecated |
Free Press Journal | Russia has ordered its troops to move into into two breakaway regions of eastern Ukraine run by Moscow-backed separatists - the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR) |
[61] | Not mentioned |
The Telegraph | Boris Johnson condemned Vladimir Putin's decision to recognise the breakawayUkrainian republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. |
[62] | Generally reliable |
MENAFN | Later, pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine declared the independence of two breakaway“people's republics,” which were not immediately recognized by Russia. |
[63] | Not mentioned |
i (newspaper) | The Russian-backed breakaway states have been controlled by separatists for eight years, with Mr Putin recognising them as independent states in February this year. |
[64] | Not mentioned |
Metro (British newspaper) | Days earlier, Putin had given another address confirming his decision to formally adopt the breakaway republics in Donetsk and Luhansk, a move which was already effectively a declaration of war. |
[65] | Generally unreliable |
National Review | Russian president Vladimir Putin on Monday recognized the independence of the eastern Ukrainian enclaves of Donetsk and Lugansk, which have have been under the de-facto control of pro-Russian separatists for years. |
[66] | No consensus |
Detroit Free Press | In 2019, four people were charged with murder for their roles in the crash. The suspects – three Russians and a Ukrainian – were part of the leadership of the pro-Russian "People's Republic of Donetsk" breakaway republic. |
[67] | Not mentioned |
Euractiv | The DPR is one of two breakaway Russian-backed entities in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine that Russia says it is fighting to liberate from Ukrainian forces. |
[68] | Not mentioned |
Taipei Times | North Korean state media released a statement from the ministry after formally recognizing two Russian-backed breakaway self-proclaimed republics in eastern Ukraine as independent states. |
[69] | Not mentioned |
The New Voice of Ukraine | But the retired General also complains that the leadership of the Russian Federation so far has not recognized the results of the referendums of independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the self-proclaimed breakaway entities in Ukraine’s east. |
[70] | Not mentioned, likely biased |
ABC News | Russia-backed separatist forces have controlled two breakaway republics of eastern Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Donbas since 2014, following Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. |
[71] | Generally reliable |
BBC News | He added that the fate of the men was a matter for the pro-Russian, breakaway Donetsk People's Republic. |
[72] | Generally reliable |
Bloomberg News | President Vladimir Putin announced he’s recognizing two self-proclaimed separatist republics in eastern Ukraine, a dramatic escalation in Russia’s standoff with the West as the U.S. and its allies continue to warn it could soon invade its neighbor. |
[73] | Generally reliable |
The Economist | In a move that seemed to take Europe to the brink of war, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, officially recognised the breakaway “people‘s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, and said he would deploy Russian troops to them. |
[74] | Generally reliable |
Newsweek | The Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state located in Ukraine and was formed by pro-Russian separatists following the "Revolution of Dignity." |
[75] | Generally reliable |
Politico | It is also disrupting the Kremlin’s plans for an offensive in eastern Ukraine to establish a land corridor between Moscow’s breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk with Russian-controlled Crimea. |
[76] | Generally reliable |
closure?
If I'm not wrong (I might: I'm on mobile) it's been a while since we had new voices in this RfC. Maybe the time has come to ask for a closure? Or is it too early and we'd better wait for new contributions? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can go up to 30 days, if there is consensus reached, can be less. Maybe leave it a bit longer, it's only been a week. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- My general opinion is that this survey has gone nowhere. Have we contributed anything useful? Not really. Have we made any progress? No. Is anything going to change? Maybe, but we didn't need an entire survey to do that. Literally any changes could have easily been made with a bold edit if they were within reason. The only purpose of holding a survey was to try and push a more extreme POV alteration, which has not worked as far as I can tell. There is overall no consensus. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is not my reading, there are 6 votes clearly in favor of Q2, then there is one who has only said not Q1, 2 that specifically said Q1 and 3/4 with versions of quasi/puppet, preferring quasi. The "extreme POV" is what is there currently not what is proposed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that you guys wasted a lot of time and resources on arguing over something that could have been changed without a second thought. Clearly, both of you are trying to push some kind of an agenda that is totally unnecessary and overblown. Effectively, we are arguing over nearly nothing. I don't think anyone was opposed to changing the description if you had sources and a good reason. But both of you guys came into this discussion without sources and without a good reason, so you decided to start this fake debate over nothing in order to waste everyone's time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, well over 50% of the debate is taken up with your personal opinions backed up by zero sources. And I will thank you to be WP:CIVIL in the future and avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that you guys wasted a lot of time and resources on arguing over something that could have been changed without a second thought. Clearly, both of you are trying to push some kind of an agenda that is totally unnecessary and overblown. Effectively, we are arguing over nearly nothing. I don't think anyone was opposed to changing the description if you had sources and a good reason. But both of you guys came into this discussion without sources and without a good reason, so you decided to start this fake debate over nothing in order to waste everyone's time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is not my reading, there are 6 votes clearly in favor of Q2, then there is one who has only said not Q1, 2 that specifically said Q1 and 3/4 with versions of quasi/puppet, preferring quasi. The "extreme POV" is what is there currently not what is proposed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- At best, we can perhaps change the description to "Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It has been described as a Russian puppet state. As of 2022, the republic does not have clearly defined borders or population." Effectively, this means we are not definitively calling it a "puppet state" or a "quasi-state", but we are pretty much implying that it might fit these criteria. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- IMHO this would be an improvement. On not having clearly defined borders and population we need a source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I am content to wait for more input and a formal close but if you are able to get some agreement with non Q2ers, I won't stand in the way. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Gitz, we don't even have a source that defines the borders of the DPR and LPR, so why would we need a source that undefines it? The burden of proof is on the DPR and LPR to prove their borders, not for us to disprove their borders. We don't even 100% know what territories they claim. It is suggested that they claim the entire oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk, but we only have a very weak source to support this claim at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- The above sentence is definitely an improvement from the current one. Personally, I do not like the use of the term "Russian puppet", since it is a biased term, which means generally the same thing as: (Russian backed, Russian supported, Russian controlled, Moscow backed, pro-Russian, Moscow's, or [no descriptor]). The words in parentheses are the terms that are found in the second table above which was created by doing a google search of: "breakaway" + "Donetsk" + "republic" + the source from each row in the first table. Then a random result article was opened and the above descriptor sentences were copied. This process should give a general idea of the due weight for the different descriptors. It should be noted that puppet never showed up in any of the random searches using those key words.
- A possible lead sentence building off of Jargo Nautilus's suggestion above could be:
- "Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. The Russian-backed republic is currently occupied by Russian forces and does not have clearly defined borders because of ongoing war."
- Variations on the above sentences avoiding "puppet" would also be fine. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- IMHO this would be an improvement. On not having clearly defined borders and population we need a source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- My general opinion is that this survey has gone nowhere. Have we contributed anything useful? Not really. Have we made any progress? No. Is anything going to change? Maybe, but we didn't need an entire survey to do that. Literally any changes could have easily been made with a bold edit if they were within reason. The only purpose of holding a survey was to try and push a more extreme POV alteration, which has not worked as far as I can tell. There is overall no consensus. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Human Rights section
I cleaned-up manual templates "Undue weight" and "duplication" because I didn't see here on talk page comments about "Human Rights" what to clean-up or rewrite. PoetVeches (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant comments might have been archived by a bot. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ooops, yes, there was a big discussion on archive re Human Rights that I didn't notice. Thank you for acknowledgement. If you think there an urgent need for the maintenance templates, you can back them. My opinion, it looks there is just a need to shorten a bit the section (and all article), because the article looks very long. PoetVeches (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)