Talk:Luhansk People's Republic

Economy, GDP?

I know that East Ukraine was/is the most industrialized part of Ukraine. Granted I don't know how much anymore since the government shellings. But what is the region producing? Are they still producing minerals or machines? Are they still exporting to within Ukraine or to outside of Ukraine?

-G

Infoboxes

There is a discussion of infoboxes at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#How many infoboxes the article should have, and which one should it be that is probably relevant to this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

---

I propose that Lugansk People's Republic be merged into Novorossiya (confederation). I think that the content in this article can easily be explained in the context of Novorossiya (confederation). The LPR is a subentity of the Novorossiyan "confederation". Fakirbakir (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – We don't know that either the LPR or DPR are "sub-entities" of New Russia. They are still described as being independent entities. If anything, the New Russia article should be merged. Personally, I'd support blowing up the LPR, DPR, and New Russia articles, as they are not serving any real purpose other than as coatracks. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - exactly as per RGloucester. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately the Lugansk People's Republic terrorist organisation really does exist on the ground. The Novorossiya (confederation) seems to be more or less a fairy tale.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WOW Toddy1, you call them terrorist organisation even in talk? that doesn't show you exactly ready to write a NPOV article does it? Even the Ukrainian Government has not declared them a terrorist organisation (although it refers to them as terrorists, which is legally different from a declaration)KoolerStill (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Don't make much sense to merge into an article that probably should be deleted anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Requested move 28 February 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. The participants in this discussion as well as the Google results favored Luhansk. Using Google News seems justifiable for an entity whose life might be mentioned in months rather than years. (Google Books went the other way, but we may assume that GB will lag behind current usage due to the time it takes to publish books). If the Luhansk People's Republic continues in existence for some time, it's possible that its name will come to be mentioned in more English-language references. If so, it may be appropriate to run a new set of Google searches in the future. Though common sense may suggest that the Republic is supported by Russian speakers, thus making 'Lugansk' more logical, I don't see anything in our guidelines that implies that we defer to the language of the people who belong to the political unit. We only care about the most common usage in English. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Lugansk People's Republic → Luhansk People's Republic – User:RGloucester has been running a change of name discussion for this article since 22 February 2015. It is clear from the discussion that there is some support for his/her initiative. If it is to be proceeded with, there must be a requested move. Listing this on requested moves will open up the discussion. Proposing this move is purely procedural, and does not endorse the proposal. Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?

At present, we use the title "Lugansk People's Republic" for this entity. The region of Ukraine is referred to as "Luhansk Oblast", and the city is referred to as "Luhansk". The city and the oblast are almost always referred to by their Ukrainian names, and Wikipedia naming conventions at WP:P-NUK and WP:UKROM dictate that those names should be used. It seems as if the People's Republic is another story, however, as it isn't clear if it falls into the scope of the guidelines on Ukrainian places. The claimed territory of the LPR does contain many Ukrainian speakers. As far as I can tell, they are less gung-ho on the Russian business than the DPR. Ukrainian is an official language of the LPR, along with Russian. Is there any real reason why this article should not be called the "Luhansk People's Republic", to match the articles on Luhansk and Luhansk Oblast? RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support use of Luhansk – From what I can tell, "Luhansk People's Republic" is more common in sources than "Lugansk People's Republic". A quick Google search shows 223,000 results for "Luhansk People's Republic" and 196,000 results for "Lugansk People's Republic". Google News shows 18,800 for Luhansk PR, and 4,330 for Lugansk PR. While the preference for "Luhansk" isn't overwhelming, I think WP:CONSISTENCY comes in play, suggesting we should use the same transliteration for the republic as for the oblast and city. "Luhansk" is the best choice. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming - The nominator presented Google search results without quotes although they stated that number of hits are for search with quotes. When this mistake is corrected the quoted search results without "wikipedia" gives 50% advantage to the current title with LuGansk (48,900:62,700). I think that the appropriate way to rename an article would be RM not RfC. I came here after I saw notification at WikiProject Military history.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, you used the Serbian Google, which is entirely inappropriate. Please do not use foreign search entities. This is the English Wikipedia. Secondly, excluding Wikipedia doesn't make a difference, and I have no idea what the "quotes" do. The Wikipedia article is named "Lugansk People's Republic", so excluding Wikipedia should not boost Luhansk's numbers. Nor did you challenge the Google News results, which show a strong preference for "Luhansk" in high-quality sources, even in Russian-origin English sources. This is not an RM. This testing the waters. RGloucester — ☎ 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to do this as an RFC is inappropriate. The correct process is WP:RM-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to rename the article, now. I'm just trying to figure out what people think. That's why I requested "comments", not a move. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Google.com and not excluding "wikipedia" results with the significant advantage (almost 20,000 hits or more than 30%) for the current title (Lugansk People's Republic):

• "Luhansk People's Republic" - 57,600
• "Lugansk People's Republic" - 75,500

RM discussion serves exactly to learn what people think about name change.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because the result of an RM is either to move or not to move the article. I don't want to move the article. I just want to see what is thought about the present title. I don't know how you got those results. They are nothing like mine, above. Regardless, you are forgetting Google News, which is prioritised because it selects high quality RS, rather than blogs. In Google News, "Luhansk" has a great advantage. There is also the WP:CONSISTENCY argument, which you forget. RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator - if you are doing search counts, you get better results if you page through to the last results. When you do this, the number of hits drops. I got much the same numbers as you on the first page of my searches. But when I had paged through to the end, the numbers were orders of magnitude less, and showed a different preference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at page 16 of the results for Lugansk People's Republic it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 160 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." I called that 160 results.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The google search hits I presented prove that nominator's statement "A quick Google search shows 223,000 results for "Luhansk People's Republic" and 196,000 results for "Lugansk People's Republic"." was incorrect. If only last page of search results is used, sometime G prevails, sometime H. That is not solid basis for renaming. Google Books Ngram Viewer gives significant advantage to G version.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about the city or the oblast, only the republic, and that data is outdated anyway. My statement was not incorrect. Click the links. Those are the results I got. Google News has not yet been refuted, and that is a solid basis for renaming. RGloucester — ☎ 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You just refuted your position. The results you got were without quotation marks and include city or the oblast. When quotation marks are added LuGansk version has significant advantage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What? I still don't understand what this inverted commas do, but regardless, Luhansk PR still wins Google News with inverted commas. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you really don't understand "what this inverted commas do" why did you say that Google search results you presented are for terms in quotation marks (diff)? That is simply not true and you should openly and clearly acknowledge that and strike trough your statement with false information that gives additional weight to your position. If you don't do that you may deceive other people to believe that you presented search results for a particular term which would not be true. I hope that is not your intention? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in standard English usage, which you may not be familiar with, inverted commas are used when one is referring to a specific term. It would've been incorrect to write, "The results for Lugansk People's Republic are XXX", as the distinction between the search term and the results is not made clear. Inverted commas are required, indicating what was searched for. Only what is inside the inverted commas is what was searched for, i.e. "Lugansk People's Republic" indicates the search term. As a foreigner, perhaps you are not familiar with standard English usage? RGloucester — ☎ 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that you presented false search results and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian is not applicable. It "describes how Ukrainian is romanized in Wikipedia. It is subordinate to the naming conventions and the manual of style, and to common sense." It is not relevant to a Russian-language organisation such as Lugansk People's Republic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) is a Ukrainian-nationalist POV document. The statement "Do not use transliterations derived from the Russian language" is at variance with Wikipedia:Core content policies. Wikipedia has a core policy that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias."-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming. I agree with Toddy1's statements directly above, and it seems clear that applying those guidelines to this page would violate WP:NPOV. In the absence of an English WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the name used by a majority of the oblast/republic's residents, which is the Russian transliteration, Lugansk. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a "Russian-language organisation". Ukrainian is an official language of the LPR, and northern Luhansk Oblast, which is claimed by this organisation, is largely populated by Ukrainian speakers. We follow WP:UCN, and UCN dictates use of Luhansk. Luhansk is much more common in sources, and is WP:CONSISTENT with Luhansk and Luhansk Oblast. RGloucester — ☎ 14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Our Luhansk Oblast article states "more than 68.8% of the population consider themselves Russian speakers, while Ukrainian speakers were only 30.0%", while Luhansk proper had 85.3% Russian speakers (both as of 2001). I would argue on the same lines above that Luhansk should be at Lugansk, but Luhansk Oblast should probably stay where it is, given it's a Ukrainian administrative division. IgnorantArmies (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

30% is a significant number, and as I said, that 30% dominates northern Luhansk Oblast. Regardless, that's not how we decide to title our articles. We are not titling our articles as Луга́нськ or Луга́нск. We use the English-language common name, which is "Luhansk" for the city and oblast, and "Luhansk" for the PR. "Luhansk" is not "Ukrainian", but an English-language name for the city, oblast, &c. Who speaks what where is irrelevant to WP:AT. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support use of Luhansk in order to facilitate consistency with articles across Wikipedia and the fact that more reliable sources use LuHansk over LuGansk. § DDima 05:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support use of Lugansk: I don't think Gbooks is the proper way to decide the article name. The fact that the Lugansk People's Republic is pro-Russian, and officially uses Lugansk, I do not support the Ukrainian romanization (as per the oblast and city) of this self-proclaimed state, as that would be considered POV.--Zoupan 10:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it PoV? Again, Ukrainian is an official language of the Republic, insofar as anything can be official there. I hope you realise that there are many more languages than Russian in Russia. Being pro-Russian has nothing to do with it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

People who use the Ukrainian language when dealing with the separatists tend to be beaten severely. The claim the Ukrainian language is an official language in the separatist republics is a propaganda fairy tale.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support use of Luhansk. Despite the hopes and dreams of the separatists, Luhansk remains a part of Ukraine, even if that is (internally) under dispute. As such, and to keep things consistent with regard to names on enwiki, we should use Luhansk People's Republic as the page name. If such a time comes that the separatists successfully break away from Ukraine, perhaps then we can visit the idea of using Lugansk instead. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support move per WP:COMMON and WP:CONSISTENCY. Looks pretty open-and-shut. I'm sure the editors who want to default to the Russian name because it's the separatists' preferred language and transliteration would be happy to support a move of Kiev to Kyiv? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Kudzu1: I want Kiev to get moved to Kyiv but I don't support the Russian name for Luhansk. It feels like you're implying things there. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Google search results

News search Google.com (America) English language only.

• "Luhansk People's Republic" 432 results
• "Lugansk People's Republic" 328 results

Web search Google.co.uk (Britain)

• "Luhansk People's Republic" 198 results
• "Lugansk People's Republic" 160 results

Web search Google.com (America)

• "Luhansk People's Republic" 199 results
• "Lugansk People's Republic" 164 results
• "Luhansk People's Republic" (including omitted results) 610 results.
• "Lugansk People's Republic" (including omitted results) 620 results.

Books searches were unimpressive. The search mechanism did not work well, producing many false positives and for "Lugansk People's Republic" other odd behaviour that made it hard to count.

Google Books - Google.co.uk (Britain) English language only.

• "Luhansk People's Republic" 22 results
• "Lugansk People's Republic" 27+ results

Google Books - Google.com (America) English language only.

• "Luhansk People's Republic" 23 results
• "Lugansk People's Republic" 33+ results

Comments

• I appreciate the provision of these statistics. I think the Google Books search is a waste of time, given how recent these events are. I can't imagine a book has been written about the LPR. RGloucester — ☎ 21:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I did the book search for completeness and to show lack of bias. You are mistaken in your imagination.

• Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands, by Richard Sakwa, pub 3 January 2015.
• Ukraine Crisis: What It Means for the West, by Andrew Wilson, pub 4 November 2014.
• HC 219-xi - Ukraine and Russia : EU Restrictive Measures, published in paper format by British Government's "The Stationary Office"

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The British government one is not a "book" in the conventional sense. I'm surprised about those two, though. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Google news search on name of the city

Google.com (America) English language only.

• Luhansk 489 results
• Lugansk 305 results

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?

A person or entity should be called as it itself deems. Excepting in-fighting over the same name (e.g., copyright, trademarks where a ownership is contested), we call persons/entities as they would deem. Even if one does not adhere to Catholicism, the head of the Church of Rome is still "the Pope". And so, the "Dalai Lama", even if one does not deem him personally as such. There is no contestation here. The entity names itself "Lugansk" and distinguishes itself from "Luhansk". The advocates of the latter naming believe that by denying it the name Lugansk, somehow, this incorporates into Ukraine. It is the opposite, by it calling itself "Lugansk" it identifies that it is not "Luhansk" that seeks independence, but an upshot group (from a Ukrainian perspective) that seeks to do so. This silliness needs to end. Nothing in the archived discussion prevails on this point. If I were sufficiently versed in Wikipedia editing, I would implement all the needed changes myself. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"A person or entity should be called as it itself deems." This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. See WP:OFFICIAL. Actual usage in English-language sources is preferred as a guide for article titles on Wikipedia. We don't care what the political unit wants to call itself. We only care how it is generally referred to in English sources. In some cases this may be the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Normal English usage is preferable; hence East Germany not "Deutsche Demokratische Republik", and Mark Antony not "Marcus Antōnius Marcī fīlius Marcī nepōs". Self-identification should carry weight though. It is much better to call someone by the name they call themselves, than some name made up for them by Wikipedia editors.

In the case of Lugansk, both "Lugansk" and "Luhansk" are almost equally common (see searches in February 2015 above). There seemed to be slightly more use of "Luhansk". If you think you can make a case for changing to the "Lugansk" spelling, you would need to make a case based on English-language usage. If you have the evidence to support your case, make a proposal at WP:RM.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The observation on native vs. English language translation is relevant here (it would be if the site were in Russian or Ukrainian). In questions of principle, word counts are not relevant: first, they are, by definition, dated, and secondly, do not augur any moral value. And, more so, I may be adamantly opposed to names such as Chelsea Manning, Mohammad Ali, Mr. T, Caitlyn Jenner, Malcolm X, etc., (some of which I am), but my assessment of their names, too, is not the point. The process that Wikipedia has in place to sort this out is likely not up to the task, but I stand by this point nonetheless. Tachypaidia (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unclear what point you are making. Are you expressing disagreement with the policy at WP:Article titles? You appear to be saying that it won't give the right answer regarding 'moral value.' If you check current move discussions, you will find that page hits are often used to decide what term is most widely used for a certain topic. From WP:AT, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness." EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point, at a glance, Lunansk People's Republic yields 371,000 hits, while Lugansk People's Republic yields 136,000 hits. I see no argument for changing the title of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The point I am making, to clarify per EdJohnson's request, it that it's a terribly pedestrian view, and even a bit bigoted, to resolve this question in this way. There were many, as I recall back in 1964, and well thereafter, who adamantly maintained the name Cassius Clay, refusing to admit the name change. Were Wikipedia in existence in 1964, what result would the "hit count" give? Where is the "naturalness" is that? In this instance, the case is even aggravated, since this is a self-proclaimed entity. If Lugansk survives, and is not forced to revert back into Luhansk, the point will be self-evident. Tachypaidia (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, your arguments remind me of the Talk:Kiev/naming debate. Secondly, you already know that we don't make predictions. When/if it becomes self-evident, it'll be evident to everyone. Your comparison to Muhammad Ali is a non-starter because this is not a potential BLPVIO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that all the English-language news coverage of Eastern Ukraine has increased usage of the "h" spelling for Lugansk, the "i" spelling for Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

yes toddy! you would know toddy! we know that you are russki saboteur-on-dnipro. wrong spellings, ha. 138.128.180.226 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

One cannot even speak of any "accepted use" for this nascent entity, as the extant "hit counts" are nothing but artifacts of polemical shill outlets intent on imposing their own terms of identity. Tachypaidia (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Respect for self-identity is the ethical factor here. If there is a religious splinter group that self-identifies as the "Ladder Day Saints", I’m not going to respell and rename it to my liking. Divining this by a “hit rate” is Wiki-fundamentalism. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing our role in not taking sides for that of our role being one of WP:ADVOCACY. We're not dealing with a potential BLPVIO here. If your postulated religious splinter-group was predominantly reported on as being "Lader Day Saints" as opposed to "Ladder Day Saints", that would be the TITLE of the article... except for the fact that it wouldn't happen simply because one of the things you could count on is that RS fact check. Our only concern would be that they weren't actually "Latter Day Saints", but RS would clarify that issue for us, too. What you're actually basing your argument on is the transliteration into English, and we only use our Romanization transliteration system where there is no clear RS COMMONNAME convention in the English language. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to read the Talk:Kiev/naming debate. The crux of that discussion was WP:COMMONNAME policy; this discussion is distinguishable. Obtainment of commonality takes time (and so, too, a change of commonality). Lingual usage evolves, reaching a local equilibrium ( i.e., "common use".) The new-born republic (27 April 2014) was only 3 days old at the initial posting of the Luhansk article (30 April 2014). Deletion was proposed the same day. Thereafter followed a dizzying alternating use of Lugansk with Luhanks--of which shill usage must be admitted. Amongst the LPR founding principles was Russian language usage. In such an instances, given that the name Lugansk is self-same with its existence, any other use here promotes a particular point of view. Tachypaidia (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Look - please do one of three things:

1. Accept that this is going nowhere, and stop posting messages on this topic, and wait to see if other people agree with you.
2. Write lots of letters to newspapers using your preferred spelling; if any of them were published it would have the effect of increasing usage of your preferred version and might induce the newspapers to copy you instead of copying the other usage.
3. Make a formal proposal at WP:RM for a change, not just to this article but all articles using Lugansk in the title. This would have the effect of drawing more people into the discussion. Even if you only really want the change for the Lugansk People's Republic, you should propose the change for all, because one of the major arguments made last time was that it was better to use the same spelling for Lugansk throughout Wikipedia. It may be that consensus would be for some articles with one spelling and some for others. If you were to propose that all articles on Ukraine used the spellings standard in English in the 1970s and 80s it would be a huge improvement - but there is not a hope of this happening, because English newspapers now use 'i' when they should use "o" or "e" and use "h" instead of "g", etc.

Please do one of these.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to wait a bit--especially to see if Iryna Harpy weighs in with any additional feedback on this last point, then I might venture a try at WP:RM Tachypaidia (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Toddy1 has made good points about a prospective RM. Yes, for the sake of parity across articles using the 'h' rendition of Luhansk/Lugansk, it would need to be made as a request across the board. Personally, I don't see this as standing much of a chance of being accepted as an exception to the rule. This would mean that you would need to make a very strong case for the use of pre-independence nomenclature/transliteration in the English language. I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether you want to try an RM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be called Lugansk, because that is how it is normally spelled and how they officially spell it. Nuke (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't how it is normally spelt. Look at the requested move above, and you'll see that the vast majority of English RS use "Luhansk". Furthermore, nothing having to do with the LPR is "official". RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The LPR's official language is Russian. The LPR's official leader is Igor Plotnitsky. Might as well say the official language of the English Wikipedia isn't English because the UN hasn't recognized it. However, I see you're correct on the first point now. I maintain my vote. Nuke (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't a !voting matter. You've seen the recommendations provided to Tachypaidia. Short of that, it's simply not subject to WP:CONSENSUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In need of updating

The article is bogged down in content primarily dating back to 2014 with a smattering of information from early 2015. Given that a lot has happened since then (and it should be up to information like this). I've tagged it as being out of date and will try to find some time in the next few weeks or so to at least turn the present tense into the past tense and find more up to date, reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Updating and the lead

Why is
"According to LPR estimates, the Republic rules over 1,220,000 citizens, roughly in line with the Ukrainian government's assessment."
deemed to be WP:ITSIMPORTANT for the lead? These estimates are from November 2014 and, given the enormous amount of displacement and exodus from the region over the past year, it doesn't represent anything other than the LPR's estimate of the number of 'citizens' it rules over in November of 2014. Is the premise based on the fact that because it's sourced and verifiable, it merits inclusion? My own take on it is that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, therefore I've removed it from the lead where it was added on 16 November 2014. It may have been relevant then, but it is no longer relevant: it's outdated and is presented to the reader as if it were a current estimate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

LPR - terrorists

Terrorism is they prime ideology popularized on the media. Intimidation and public torture of women visiting bars and cafe, intimidation of LGBT or Ukrainian speakers, creating and populating of scared image of Ukrainian, EU and USA peoples. All of those facts not just a methods they used, it is clear ideology. Like killing slavic and jews people was ideology of nazy. They sow fear and terror to everything which is not Russian or supported by Russian President. They creates distorted reality in the media (including Wikipedia) to populate the fear of western civilisation. It is definitely name of this ideology: Terrorism --Ipadm (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Let us keep the discussion at a single place, which is Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#DPR - terrorists--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Attention All Editors

Please refrain from changing the infobox until a consensus is reached. I have restored the infobox to it's pre-edit war state. DO NOT change it until a couple nose uss has been reached on the matter. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It is discussed at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, which you are very well aware of, and you actions therefore constitute edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How is this edit warring? The discussion is still ongoing. The infobox should not be changed unless a consensus for change is reached. Anasaitis (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, don't think I didn't notice the fact that YOU are one of the ones arguing for change. It appears you are abusing your administrative privileges.You're one of the users who started this edit war in the first place. Would you like me take up your little POV-pushing up with the other administrators? Do you want to be reported again? Anasaitis (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I am so, SO sorry I snapped there. I'm just frustrated by this whole turn of events. You see, This discussion/edit war is identical to a previous edit war that happenned some time ago. It even involves some of the same users. I will admit that I got involved then. I was fairly new on Wikipedia. I was fairly new on Wikipedia, and I didn't know as much as I do now. I saw the discussion, and noticed that what was being suggested as the new infobox appeared contrary to what has been the standard for dealing with unrecognized political entities here on the site. So I got involved. Little did I know that I had just got myself involved in what would become a long, frustrating affair in which tempers would flare and calm discussion would give way to protracted arguement. Multiple users were banned because of this one dispute. It quickly became clear to me that I had gotten myself in over my head. Still, I was adamant, and I continued to attempt an explanation of why unrecognized political entities usually recieved the country infobox. Unfortunately, tempers continued to flare and level heads failed to prevail. I grew frustrated as the same arguments were made by both sides again and again. I'm ashamed to admit that It got to me. I e ded up stepping over the line. I soon realized what I had done and tried to apologize, but before I could do so I was blocked. It was only a temporary block, but I was ashamed and humiliated. I briefly considered leaving Wikipedia for good, but I later reconsidered. Still, I never forgot that incident, and it haunts me to this day. I felt ashamed that I let it get to me (though I have never admitted it until now), and angered by the fact that such a stupid, trivial issue like the choice of which infobox to use had gotten so out of hand. It wasn't even that big of a deal, and yet despite the insignificance of it all, some stubborn users had seen fit to start what termed into a nasty edit war that quickly escalated out of control and required admin intervention. All because of some stupid infobox. Still, I felt that everyone had learned their lesson, myself included, and that such a ridiculous problem would never happen again. Sadly I was mistaken. While combing over some articles, I stumbled over the current discussion, and to my dismay I recognized some of the same people that were involved in the last dispute. They had started the same issue all over again! Hasn't this dispute caused enough frustration? Haven't enough users been blocked? Do they not understand what they're starting? The idea that the same users would raise that same issue after all the trouble it caused last time is an outrage. That stupid edit war waged off and on again for close to a year, and now they want start it all over again? Are we just going to wage the same debate over and over again? Can't everyone just suck it up and leave things as they are? Why can't everyone see that this arguement has left the realm of facts and degenerated into an arguement over opinion? I don't expect any sympathy, but please try to understand where I am coming from. I don't want to get involved, but I don't want everyone making the same mistake again. Anasaitis (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wait until the RfC gets closed and continue discussing, not reverting, in the meanwhile.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Anasaitis, I've responded to you on my talk page about this. Please stay cool headed. It isn't worth getting yourself blocked over something that doesn't need to be fixed right now. There's certainly a serious discussion to be had over a consistent use of templates across articles, but this isn't the time or place for it. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am relieved to see that this issue has been resolved with sensible heads prevailing, and without anyone getting banned. That is a huge relief. Now, if everyone will just drop the matter and move on, we can put this mess behind us without anymore heated arguments on the talk page. Anasaitis (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello editors.

Hello everyone We need to change the name "Luhansk" to "Lugansk" because: a) That's the correct pronunciation. b) BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY !!! THAT'S THE MOST COMMON NAME FOR IT!!! Please google search each name and see for yourself that "Lugansk" gives you almost double the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.59.96.64 (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read talk pages before you change content and post new comments here. The subject has been discussed at length here. Just read the sections above. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

156.59.96.64 - this exercise has been done. The results were recorded at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Requested move 28 February 2015. It turns out that when you look at pages in the English language, they do not come out the way you thought. In case you think, "ah but that was February 2015", you can repeat the search using the links. For example:

Web search Google.co.uk (Britain)

• "Luhansk People's Republic" was 198 results, now 203 results.
• "Lugansk People's Republic" was 160 results, now 169 results.

For the purposes of what the article should be called on English-language Wikipedia, only English-language usage matters.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the word itself.

Folks please search the word "Lugansk" and "Luhansk" .

Lugansk gives you almost double the results(several millions more).

And it references exactly the name of the peoples republic of Luganks.

Also 178 results vs 198??? You've got to be kidding me. That is honestly just pure ridiculousness...

It's not even a couple of hundred results...Which means it could be easily altered by you or me..

Search results for Lugansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Lugansk About 5,380,000 results

Search results for Luhansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Luhansk About 3,190,000 results

It gives you the same result with or without quotation marks.

To change or create 20 pages and therefore alter the "most common way" people refer to "Lugansk" would take me about a day on the internet...

To alter or create 2 million plus pages on the internet ...Would take me 300 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or if someone took the task of altering this (say perhaps some government wanted to do this... it would take a huge chunk of their time/investment to do that.So they are not going to do that...

So 2 million+ (2 200 000) results more for Lugansk ...CLEARLY SHOWS YOU THAT LUGANSK IS THE COMMON WAY TO REFER TO LUGANSK and therefore Lugansk People's Republic!!!