Talk:Luhansk People's Republic

The hyperlink for the anthem of the LPR in the infobox should be replaced with a link to State Anthem of the Luhansk People's Republic. The infobox should have a link to a page about the anthem, like all other Wikipedia pages about regions with their own regional anthems.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add “puppet state of the Russian Federation” in the status section. Curiousperson2 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Not constructive. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

So being objective and admiring this neede supper from Russia to exist is “not constructive”? Curiousperson2 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, you'll need a reference to a reliable source that supports the change you want made before this could be considered. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeesh, I thought it was taking about the state from 2014 to 2022. They were dependent on Russia militarily and collaborators politically. Redbox definition of proxy warfare through puppet states. Curiousperson2 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to provide reliable sources to support your proposed edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh I tohugh this arrive was one the pre 2022 state oops Curiousperson2 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: copying my comment from another thread: Explaining it in a easy way: Donetsk Oblast is part of Ukraine (de jure administrative division), Donetsk People's Republic is Russia's version (though unrecognized). They're separate of eachother. Second one is part of Russia, Ukraine doesn't claim such entity. The particular entity can't be a disputed region, though the region is disputed, and the article isn't about "Donetsk region", which doesn't exist. See Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (Russia). We can take these as examples. It's not that hard. (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Ukraine claims the entire area, and stating as fact that it's part of Russia in the infobox doesn't explain the actual situation. That the Donetsk People's Republic is part of Russia does not have international recognition and that Russia says it is isn't a defining fact. Infoboxes are very poor at explaining disputed situation, and those details should instead be explained in the articles prose.

This is very similar to the discussion that was had at Republics of Russia and why File:Republics of Russia (labeled, without Crimea).svg is used in the infobox, and that the number of republics is listed as 21 and not 24. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree on that part. Added Republic back to Donetsk People's Republic. Beshogur (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing you may not be aware of this discussion.

For |settlement_type= would something like Republic (contested) linking to the Status of southeast Ukraine section of the Republics of Russia article work? That section details the situation, competing claims, and international reaction, while the text both has Republic and that it's disputed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ukraine doesn't contest the type of settlement [wiki-jargon] the LPR is. What is contested is the underlying territory, irrespective of the political/administrative structures that may overlay it. This confusion is also in the lead paragraph. (Compare the clearer wording of Taiwan (People's Republic of China province): "The territory of the claimed province, including the entire island of Taiwan, is in actuality administered...".) CMD (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thats true, but the issue is that in an infobox it's not possible to give that nuance. So if we include it we need some way, even if technically wrong, to inform the reader of the underlying issue. The other option is to exclude it from the infobox and explain in article prose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a general issue with infoboxes, it's hard to fit wiggly pegs into square holes. That said, whatever the infobox does or doesn't do, it should be explained in the article prose. The current lead paragraph does a reasonable job, outside of that not quire right and effectively redundant anyway use of "disputed". CMD (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)