Talk:Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations

Untitled

This page should not exist, as it is legitimize criminal act against international law.--78.102.112.124 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How exactly does making an article detailing the actions between Russia and the militant group DNR legitimate anything? Should we remove articles on anything illegal? Noneal14224 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2022 (EST)

@78.102.112.124 and Noneal14224: Its pretty much nonsensical to even raise this issue; WP:NPOV is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, and we should never forget that. There are articles which existence we don't like, and we would want to have them removed – as a citizen of Serbia, I can say that about Kosovo–United States relations, but I am aware that we need that article. We must always keep on our minds how much neutral point of view is valuable for Wikipedia. —Sundostund (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Official Donetsk People's Republic coat of arms.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Ukraine

• @WikiCleanerMan: Why did you put foreign relation of Ukraine on Donetsk–Russia relations? If there is no valid reason, I intend to remove.--Beta Lohman (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted content

• David Priestland (2014-05-17). "'Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991', by Orlando Figes". Financial Times. Retrieved 2022-03-21.

The financial times states the relevant relations back to 1918. I will recover the deleted content. --Beta Lohman※Office box 14:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleted content 2

• @Volunteer Marek: Oppose redirection, and Wikipedia does not use ethics or justice as a standard for including articles. The operation will be reverted, if you wish to delete it, run AFD.--Beta Lohman※Office box 02:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to as "ethics or justice" but put quite simply, this is a made up topic. There's not a single source in this article that's actually about "Donetsk People's Republic–Russia". Any meaningful info is already covered elsewhere. On top of that the purpose of this piece of garbage is very clearly a WP:TENDENTIOUS intent to push a POV. Volunteer Marek 03:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic is not a fictional country, or a fictional subject. Also the deletion of the content is obviously meaningless. And this deletion is clearly from the standpoint of not liking the entry.--Beta Lohman※Office box 03:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not a real country and it's "relations" with Russia are basically "Russia runs it". Please present sources which discuss this topic of "DPR-Russia relations". Volunteer Marek 03:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly a worthwhile topic, that the article has gone into quite a lot of detail. I mean, perhaps it should be renamed to say Donbas–Russia relations? Definitely shouldn't just be randomly deleted. As after all the current conflict is all because of the Donbas/Russia relations, that can't be all ignored. Mathmo ^Talk 03:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's a "worthwhile topic" let's a see an actual source that covers it. The fact that 90% of this article was about a 1917 republic is kind of a fucking give away that this is made up garbage. Volunteer Marek 03:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You've shown yourself to be unwilling to be productive whatsoever in helping build up the article, you started out with multiple times just blanking/re-directing the article. Then when you got called out over your actions you've instead resorted to just deleting large chunks out of the article until it turns into a skeleton you can then delete outright. Mathmo ^Talk 03:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing to build here!!!! It's a made up topic! I'm asking you for a single source which actually discusses "Donetsk people's Republic relations with Russia". I've deleted large chunks of the article because they're about something else entirely (a briefly existing - and maybe not even then - "republic" from 1917) and are merely being used to pad this article to make it look like something real when it's not. If you want to be "productive" then start coming up with sources or this gets removed. Volunteer Marek 03:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely not a "made up topic"! It is just a viable article as any of a million other articles on wikipedia discussing the relations of two neighboring countries. But yes, you've made your own personal views very very clear that you believe this page should have no content and must be blanked. Perhaps you should excuse yourself from "editing" (destroying) this page and refrain from doing any more deletions from this page due to your conflict of interest? Mathmo ^Talk 03:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

These are NOT “two neighboring countries” and the fact that you are pretending they are kind of gives away your WP:AGENDA here.

And of course I think this garbage should be removed. No, that is not a reason for me to “excuse” myself from editing it. Now, making WP:FRINGE claims like that DPR is just another country rather than a geographic area invaded by Russia? THAT looks like a pretty good reason for YOU to step back here. Volunteer Marek 04:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

And an article on "Donbas-Russia relations" (sic) makes about as much sense as an article on "Texas-United States relations" or better yet "East Turkestan-China relations" (or maybe "Uighur Republic - China relations"). Volunteer Marek 03:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That needs some experts to write. But historically, Texas was an independent state and makes sense on the article. --Beta Lohman※Office box 03:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Dude... you just killed your entire (already very weak) argument! There literally exists that page... Republic of Texas–United States relations! That's a very good page, and maybe one day this current brand new baby page will reach those same standards, if you users like yourself stop edit warring and constantly deleting/blanking content right off this page instead of constructively building up the page! Mathmo ^Talk 03:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Dudddeee, did you actually read that article?

Relations started in 1836 after the Texas Revolution, *****and ended in 1845****** upon the annexation of Texas by the United States.

Are you saying this article should be about relations between Russia and the 1917 republic? Then change the title. Volunteer Marek 04:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a historical article, this article is both about history and currently evolving current events. Mathmo ^Talk 04:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this article is about a made up fiction - not supported by a single reliable source - that a Russian controlled entity, DPR, has “relations” with Russia itself as if it was a normal country. It’s just bullshit Russian propaganda/hoax and it has no place in an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 04:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You're denying their existence?? Well, that's an interesting stance to hold! You're free to hold (your clearly very passionate) opinions. But it isn't the kind of NPOV that's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Mathmo ^Talk 13:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Mathmo: I will separate as two articles, according to the relative topic of Republic of Texas-United States relations.--Beta Lohman※Office box 03:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Beta Lohman I think at present time, it makes a lot more sense to keep it is one larger article than to spin it out into multiple smaller articles. Mathmo ^Talk 04:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Also to Mathmo, try using {{Cite web}}. Tass is a bare link.--Beta Lohman※Office box 03:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Mathmo:, There may be a good way to change the title of the article to Donetsk Republic-Russia relations. But the chapters are separated from each other, and there is one more chapter called "Origin of Donbass" in order to discuss the status of Donbass in history.--Beta Lohman※Office box 03:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• User:Volunteer Marek made the edit comment of "→‎Passport: lol, so supposedly it’s a separate entity yet Russia gives them all Russian passports?", are you going to be logically consistent and thus then claim all of Western Ukraine is also a "puppet state" of Russia? Because Russian passports have been offered to all of the people living there as well. Mathmo ^Talk 04:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it was a hoax editing. --Beta Lohman※Office box 04:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the sentence is marked as fact check. I am not sure if it exists on the previous version. Could it explain from two sources of USA today?--Beta Lohman※Office box 04:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Mathmo: Should I restore the deleted content? Or is it better to submit a move request?--Beta Lohman※Office box 04:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beta Lohman: - you removed the tags from the article despite the fact that the issues have not been addressed. Please restore them. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You could propose what issues still have.--Beta Lohman※Office box 05:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously notability, as you still haven’t produced a single source which discusses “Donetsk People’s Republic-Russia relations”. And since there’s no such source, original research and synthesis too. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant - the tags need to stay until the dispute is resolved. Volunteer Marek 05:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I will check if this issue still exists. A hour. --Beta Lohman※Office box 05:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue still exists and it’s not up to you to decide since you’re involved in the dispute here. Put the tags back please. They’re meant to bring in other users. Volunteer Marek 05:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• The single sources introduced the relations.

"困於數百年東西裂痕 偏倒一方非烏克蘭解方" (in Chinese). HK01. 2021-12-19. 事實上，頓巴斯地區與烏克蘭其他地區是如此疏離，以致於在蘇共初期掌權之際，該地要求成立獨立的頓涅茨克-克里沃羅蘇維埃共和國（Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic）...如此政治撕裂終在2013年底達到頂峰，當時亞努科維奇在俄羅斯施壓下中止與歐盟簽署《政治和自由貿易協議》，激發了大規模的親歐派示威。當亞努科維奇2014年2月倉皇出逃、俄羅斯次月吞併克里米亞半島後，烏克蘭東南部也趁機掀起了分離主義示威浪潮，其中尤以頓巴斯地區為甚，俄羅斯則順勢派出民兵和武器相助，最初促成了頓巴斯地區兩州分別獨立成國。

"什么是"顿涅茨克人民共和国"？". 地球知识局 (in Chinese). NetEase. 2022-02-24. 比如，乌克兰东部的卢甘斯克、顿涅茨克，南部的敖德萨和克里米亚等地，有着普遍的俄罗斯认同。...这些地方的历史，跟俄国藕断丝连，关系不浅

"Putin signs decrees on recognizing Donetsk and Lugansk republics". TASS. 2022-02-22. Later, Putin met with the DPR and LPR leaders, Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, and signed with them the treaties on friendship, cooperation and mutual aid between Russia and both republics. The ceremony was held in the Kremlin's St. Catherine Hall, which hosted the meeting of the Russian Security Council. At this meeting, the Security Council's members called for recognizing the independence of the DPR and LPR.

--Beta Lohman※Office box 06:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• No need to move this page. Mathmo ^Talk 04:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Volunteer Marek that this is "a made-up topic!", for very much the same reasons (and much the same answers from Beta Lohman about the Republic of Texas).
  I am currently having the same discussion on the French WP: this article is a POVFORF, as well as a WP:SYN, as Beta Lohman well knows from our discussions (in English) on the French talk page.
  Actually, this is just plain progaganda, that reflects Putin's 2021 essay, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, to try and obliterate the existence of Ukraine as an independent State, even after the collapse of the USSR. Azurfrog (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic is not Donbas. Panam2014 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Support Donbas–Russia relations to do not have a duplicate about Lugansk. Panam2014 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Panam2014:: Donetsk is a part of Donbass historically. I have found reliable sources. So it is not synthetic material or original research. You are even a contributor from the French wiki, but have come to influence the English wiki. So I don't think the further topic will be constructive, you two seem to be here to discuss politics only.--Beta Lohman※Office box 04:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What "reliable sources" would those be? Still waiting on that. And what does the fact that someone contributes to French wikipedia have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek 04:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You weren't waiting for anything, just deleted the articles. Like this. --Beta Lohman※Office box 04:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What "reliable sources" would those be? Volunteer Marek 04:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you have already reported the matter to the administrator's bulletin board. I think the case is already at a similar stage to the judicial process. So I will not answer this question now, even though I have the information. It will have to wait until after the announcement process. Of course, the page editing will be suspended as well and reverted to the previous version.--Beta Lohman※Office box 04:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So let me get this clear - there are NO reliable sources, but you claim there ARE reliable sources, but when asked what these are, it turns out that "you won't answer that question", yet you still insist on edit warring on this article.

You either produce these reliable sources or the info gets nuked, as this is a made up topic. At the very least stop claiming there are reliable sources and then refusing to produce them. Volunteer Marek 05:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have them. But if you're eager to nuke bombing of the article. Feel free to go AFD. Or try another way.--Beta Lohman※Office box 05:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have them then you need to show them. This is kind of basic. Volunteer Marek 05:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Nuke bombing"? Again?? We are not on Russia-1, are we? With Russia-1 insisting everyday that they can totally wipe out UK in 202 seconds, and that they can nuke any country in the world thanks to their new unstoppable Sarmat missile.
The more this goes on, the more I am inclined to agree with Xx236 that this article is "a part of Russian information war and should be removed". Azurfrog (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This article still needs sources which address the purported topic. Volunteer Marek 15:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations are bilateral relations between the Donetsk Republic and Russia.

The relations are simple - Russia rules, Donetsk people obey and die. The relations are similar to Tuva, but we have no Tuva-Russia relations. Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no such Russian Wikipedia article. I would accept their expertize. Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

One of the Fathers of the DPR was Igor Girkin, a Russian citizen, Minister of Defense of the DPR. Not mentioned here. Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add sourced info about Igor. WP:BEBOLD Mathmo ^Talk 13:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

His biography quotes more than 120 RS.

This article is a part of Russian information war and should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary is simply false and is just being used an excuse to revert. Volunteer Marek 15:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Donetsk People's Republic" in the topic of this article does not exist

The "Donetsk People's Republic" in the topic of this article does not exist. The article should get deleted and the contents moved to some article on Russia's efforts to take over a part of Ukraine. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted article

The article on Donetsk People's Republic already got too many details on how Russia has supported the Ukrainian separatists.

Why do we need a new article for this?

There are no articles like Northern Alliance–United States relations (US supported Northern Alliance and overthrown Taliban) Pakistan–Khalistan relations (Pakistan supported Khalistan insurgency), China and Maoist–Naxal relations (see Naxalite–Maoist insurgency), and any other articles.

This article and Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations should be deleted or just redirected to their main articles (Luhansk People's Republic‎, Donetsk People's Republic) which would be a better solution. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Tone of the article

The current article has a tone that leans in favour of the Donetsk People's Republic against Ukraine. This needs to change.

For example, it says that the DPR held a referendum and then declared independence, but the DPR actually declared independence several days before the referendum had been held.

Furthermore, it says that Ukraine instigated the violence because it suspected Russian involvement in the creation of the DPR. This is a very bold and biased statement, given that it places the majority of the guilt for the war on Ukraine rather than on the DPR or on Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Referendum section (deleted/revised)

I've just straight-up deleted this section. I was initially trying to rewrite it just a moment ago, but I soon found myself just copy-pasting some sentences from the Donetsk PR's main Wikipedia article, particularly from that article's introduction. I ultimately decided to delete both my new rendition of this section as well as the original version since there's no point in regurgitating information that is already easily accessible from the main article. This is basically just POV-forking. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that some of the information in the referendum section was just plain wrong. As I've said in a comment above, the Donetsk PR actually declared independence several days *before* the so-called "independence" referendum was held. Bear in mind that I personally wouldn't even describe the referendum as having been about "independence", but more so about "agreeing to the creation of the DPR", which is not the same thing. Furthermore, other bits of information in this section were biased or misleading, such as the bit where it said that Russia had invaded Ukraine's Donbas region as a direct result of Ukraine having arrested some DPR leaders. To me, this framing of the events was not encyclopaedic in the slightest, and the references didn't even seem to support this assertion anyway. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've figured out where the citations about the "Russia invades Ukraine" sentence came from. Obviously, given that most of the info in this now-deleted section was just background info rather than topical, it had been copy-pasted from various articles surrounding the topic of the DPR that were more highly-detailed. - In response to the deteriorating situation in the Donbas, Russia abandoned its hybrid approach, and began a conventional invasion of the region.[36][562] <-- This sentence is taken from "War in Donbas (2014–2022)". The two citations associated with this sentence match the equivalent citations in the old revision of this article *exactly*. So, this sentence was obviously copy-pasted from that article to here and then rewritten. The problem with the way it was presented is that a new clause was added at the beginning, "After Ukraine arrested some of the separatist leaders", which itself was not backed up by a citations. However, a person reading the article would have no idea about this given that it wasn't specified that this info was separate from the main clause in the sentence. Indeed, the Kofman PDF does say that Ukraine arrested some of the local separatist leaders prior to the deployment of Russian proxy leaders (in an earlier page), but it's a bit of a synthesis to imply that this was the *reason* for Russia's invasion of Ukraine back in 2014 (i.e. not the 2022 invasion). Ukraine had every right to arrest these separatist leaders. Russia had no right to invade in response. So, even though the information might have been technically correct, the framing of the info was inappropriate or misleading. In any case, this citation should be able to be revived as well, and I will do so shortly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Background section (new)

I've created a "background" section to replace the deleted "referendum" section. The referendum section was basically serving that purpose, i.e. it has nothing to do with the main topic of the article itself, although it does provide context to a certain degree. I believe that the info that was being presented before was a bit off-topic. Also, the section should have been named "background" from the beginning, not "referendum". The new background section that I've written borrows elements from the old referendum section, but it presents the information in both a more casual and neutral way. It also directs the reader to go and have a look at the main articles for more details, because there's no point in copy-pasting paragraphs directly from the main articles. The info is already there; we don't need to repeat it here, at least not in a great deal of detail. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, that section that was called "Passports" has been rearranged to now read "Unofficial relations", and it has been positioned appropriately within the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Redefining the scope of this article (and Luhansk)

Volunteer Marek - I think we should rename this article to "Russian influence in the Donbas", and then streamline the contents of the related Luhansk article into this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should redirect it to the appropriate section of the main DPR article, but your rename would be a second best option. Volunteer Marek 02:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

They both sound good, and the current title is terrible. North8000 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Quote: "These tags is from the POV of one editor violating NPOV"

@WikiCleanerMan - This is a strange view of the concept of NPOV. As soon as one editor disputes something, then the content can be regarded as disputed. Then, we have to have a discussion about how to reach a consensus. You can't just say that their opinion doesn't count because they are the only one disputing the info. This is especially when the amount of people *supporting* the info is similarly low. If it was 100 to 1, then, fair enough. But it's more like 3 vs 3 or something, at the moment. That's when you include me, @Volunteer Marek, and @North8000. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This topic is not even mentioned in Russia's own foreign relations article

In the Foreign relations of Russia article on Wikipedia, it does not even say that Russia maintains diplomatic relations with the DPR, nor does it even make note of the fact that Russia has officially recognised the DPR as a sovereign state. Indeed, one would think this topic would be worthy of note over in that article considering how much of a fuss people are making about it over here and also at the article "list of states with limited recognition". At the unrecognised states article, the DPR is featured in the main list (alongside the LPR), but it seems that all of these various other random articles are making a bigger mention of it than the main article, the aforementioned "foreign relations of Russia" article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I created this article because it seemed to be of note, but the article may still need to be linked to other pages. Joesom333 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not even a matter of linking it in... The last time I checked, the "foreign relations of Russia" article didn't even mention the DPR at all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Article is insignificant

See: Talk:Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations#Article is insignificant. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)