Talk:Luhansk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions. Irpen 20:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move (1st)[edit]

Talk:Luhans'k – Luhans'k → Luhansk – to reverse the current redirect. Luhansk is currently used in English language media and most encyclopedias and dictionaries. Discussed and arguments in support presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support This name corresponds to the standard transliteration used for geographic names in Ukraine, and is the most likely version to be used in the English media. —Michael Z. 2005-04-6 20:56 Z
  • Support. Use for more common English name recommended. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support . This name is used in today's media. This name is also used in Britannica and Oxford dictionary articles. Therefore, Luhansk, should be used for the article name. Lugansk and Voroshilovgrad may be used in other articles depending on the context. Irpen 17:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the incorrect text from the article[edit]

'Historically the territory that was inhabited by the Don Cossacks, which explains the very large Russian minority and the almost dominant Russian language'.

Historically only one forth or even fifth of the Lugansk region was inhabited by Don Cossacks, and that does not explain almost dominant Russian language in the region cities. Don Cossacks did not founded Luhansk and never were its major inhabitants.

Also I have added all Luhansk twin cities (only Cardiff was mentioned before).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazata~enwiki (talk contribs) 23:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Great page![edit]

What a nice, concise and beautiful article! Thanks for this, Hu Gadarn 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is so called "Luhansky Raion"? There's nothing like that here :)[edit]

"as well as the administrative center of the surrounding Luhansky Raion (district) within the oblast"

There's no such "raion", because raion is the Ukrainian word for oblast' county and city district.

Luhansk itself consists of 4 districts:

1. Leninsky (Ле́нінський район, Lenin's), former Klimovsky (Клімовський, Klim's in the name of Kliment Voroshilov) — central district.

2. Zhovtnevy (Жовтне́вий, October's in Ukrainian) — the most populous district of the city.

3. Artemivsky (Арте́мівський, Artem's in the nickname of Soviet military leader Sergeev).

4. Kamyanobridsky (Кам’янобрі́дський, Kamennobrodsky in Russian, named after Kamyany Brid village — its name means Stone Ford) — the oldest district of the city.

As for the oblast' counties (such as Milovskyi, Novoaidarskyi, Novopskovskyi etc.), Luhansk does not belong to any of them.

There are so called міста обласного значення (cities of oblast' importance), they are Alchevs'k, Antratsyt, Bryanka, Kirovs'k, Krasnyy Luch, Krasnodon, Lisichans'k, Luhans'k, Pervomays'k, Roven'ki, Rubizhne, Severodonets'k, Stakhaniv and Sverdlovs'k.

Also there are cities, that are within the jurisdiction of the other cities or raions, e.g. Almazna is within the jurisdiction of Stakhaniv, one of Oleksandrivs'ks is within the jurisdiction of the Luhansk city Artemivsky raion Council (Rada) etc.

All such cities (cities of oblast' importance and 'satellite' cities) do not belong to any raion and have their own territory.

Exceptions are only Popasna and Krasnodon cities, which are the capitals of Popasniansky and Krasnodons'ky raions, but exception prooves the rule: raion administrations and councils are located in these cities, but these government bodies govern only the raion territories, and not the cities, where they are located.

I hope this information can be used somehow for the article correction (I don't try to correct the article myself, because I am not the English native, and my text can be overfilled with mistakes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkony (talk • contribs) 11:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don Cossacks in Luhansk[edit]

There is no such thing as Soviet Occupation, the city was part of the Don Cossack Host prior to that, and its name during Soviet time was Voroshilovgrad

When Luhansk was a part of the Don Cossack Host? It was a part of Zaporozhian Host till the second half of 18th century. Then it was on the territory of Slavo-Serbia. And left a part of Yekaterinoslav Governorate till 1918 and became one of the cities of Ukrainian People's Republic. You shouldn't confuse Luhansk on the right bank of Siversky Donets and little town Stanytsia Luhanska on the left bank. (Siversky Donets was such a border) Stanytsia Luhanska really was in Don Cossack Host till 1918. But Stanytsia Luhanska, not Luhansk. They are absolutely different settlements, they names are similar because of Luhanka River they both stay on. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New map[edit]

Raions of Luhasnk

Please, add to the article. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Luhansk[edit]

I am running information project about Luhansk. Well, everybody use Lugansk, because 90% of people in Luhansk speak Russian and the transliteration "Lugansk" is much better for this, because this is how it sounds when you actually get here, and if you try to say it "Luhansk" people will not understand you.

Anyway, here is a link for my website where I put 144 photos of Lugansk, places, building, events, people. http://www.luganskukraine.info/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuganskUkraine (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is great! I'd be happy to add these photos to the article where appropriate. Right now there is a licensing issue, since your web site states " All rights reserved". Could you release the photos under a Creative Commons License? Or just upload yourself at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. Basically, photos on Wikipedia can be used by anyone for anything as the original author is mentioned. Heptor (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move was a mistake[edit]

Page move from Lugansk to Luhansk was a mistake:

There has never been a city named Luhansk, the correct name is LUGANSK. There is a big credibility issue with Wikipedia if we leave it as Luhansk. The illegitimate name Luhansk was introduced by the Ukrainians (where indeed a case can be made for Luhansk as it is pronounced in such way, something in the way if spell LANDAN instead of LONDON, because it is pronounced so...), but since the advent of LNR independent state in 2014 there is formal justification for using the correct spelling, LUGANSK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.91.73.65 (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The official web site of the city is http://www.lugansk.ua/
  • Kiev (which is sometimes refered to as Kyiv) establishes a strong precedent on English WP, and current naming is simply inconsistent. Please refer to Talk:Kiev/naming details on methodology and policies that apply.
  • Google search for lugansk returns 1 160 000 hits, while Luhansk returns 275 000. This suggests that Lugansk is by far the most used name in English. The picture at Google Scholar is similar.
  • Top results return, Lugansk state medical university (http://www.lsmu.com/) and Lugansk art gallery (http://www.artgallery.com.ua/index.php).


The page should be moved back to Lugansk.

Heptor talk 10:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First site isn't official at all. All other links are just links to firms. As contrasted with it, main Luhansk university gives only Luhansk. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luhansk is the official name. Lugansk is the Russian way of spelling. Nothing doesn't have to be moved. Luhanks is not Russian city. Luhansk is Ukrainian city and should be written in Ukrainian way, not Russian. By the way, no one likes Russian and Russian language in the world besides Russians themselves. ;) --68.32.136.151 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, which is why Russian langauge students in universities in Britain and United States is rising with each academical year... --Kuban Cossack 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure that Russian is the most common language in the eastern parts of Ukraine. Most people from Lugansk would spell it just like that. -- Heptor talk 18:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than enough time has passed and the concerns I mentioned have not been answered. Riwnodennyk only ever tried to answer one of my original points against the move, the one www.lugansk.ua. I am officially disputing the naming of the article.
If you support the article move back to Lugansk, please write a message below this one. -- Heptor talk 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Google books search, English language only, 10 September 2009:

  • Lugansk - 902
  • Voroshilovgrad - 900
  • Luhansk - 660
  • Luhans’k - 280
  • Luhanske - 37
  • Luzhansk - 7

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that based on WP:Naming Conflict, there is no doubt that the article should be Lugansk. Google, Google news and even UN agree. -- Heptor talk 11:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's too late to vote, but I would vote for moving this page back to Lugansk. It's the most common English version of the name, and it's also the name that the vast majority of the people who live there use. And I would say the same thing about moving the Kharkiv page back to what the city is best known in English, Kharkov. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Luhansk → Lugansk — - Per Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references. See discussion above -- Heptor talk 11:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is the English spelling. I'd be happy with "Luhansk" if Ukrainian was the main language of the town, but it's not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You indicate it's the English spelling but then cite a predominance of Russian-speakers in the town?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that "native name" carries some moral authority [for me and] for many people. It's in the territory of Ukraine, but despite this as Ukrainian isn't the predominant language of the city I don't buy the moral argument. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nomination. -- Heptor talk 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against According to the traditional transliteration of Ukrainian it's Luhansk. What is also the most popular English name of the city in the official sphere.--Riwnodennyk ✉ 09:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against Per BGN database, Lugansk is only a variant, Luhansk is "BGN Standard" English usage.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really the opposite of the truth. Lugansk was pretty much the only spelling before the fall of the Soviet Union, Luhansk is the Ukranianised variant (g>h) that only came into any decent English use in the mid-to-late 1990s when the Ukrainian government's spelling priorities began to have an effect. Lugansk still dominates (e.g. it has double the google books hits). Maybe like Kiev-Kyiv, Luhansk will become the dominant spelling, but currently it is not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. You're right about pre-"fall", Google books runs around 9:2 in favor of Lugansk up to 1990. After 1990 it's close to dead even. I prefer to cite BGN because it's reputable and has no POV — which is why I support Kiev over Kyiv but Luhansk over Lugansk. I also clarified my use of "S"tandard (capital S) above, I meant Standard per BGN as opposed to a general statement. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lugansk seems to have remained the preferred English version even after Ukrainian independence (see for example use by BBC, CNN and New York Times)Anonimu (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against Per Riwnodennyk, above. The language of the city dwellers has no bearing on what the city should be named in English. Ukrainian language is the only official language of the land. That is the way the government spells it on its official website. This, however, is not the dicisive factor. A preponderence of one variant over the other would the one. For the monent I don't see more frequent use in English of Lugansk over Luhansk, in fact Encyclopaedia Brittanica gives Luhansk as well. Both names are used quite frequently, which is reflected in the article. To tip the balance to one variant over the other has to have more persuasive reasoning than have been presented so far. --Hillock65 (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanna consult the discussion Digwuren and I had above, on the question of popularity in English. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with move. Ukrainian doesn't usually (with noted exeptions) use the "g" sound even when it is written, but Russian does, and the Russian pronounciation is the internationally more known one. Which is logical, after 70 years of Russian communist rule of the Ukrain. The facts are established by third-party sources. E.g. a Google search turns up twice as many finds for "Lugansk" with a "g". Debresser (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Russian variant[edit]

This has been discussed on many other Ukrainian city talk pages and a clear consensus has been reached that the Russian variants of these city names will remain in the info boxes since they are, by and large, the most common English versions of the city's name. Do not remove the Russian variants, especially for eastern Ukrainian cities where half or more of the population actually speaks Russian as their first language. --Taivo (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian variants do no require citation[edit]

Standard Wikipedia practice in eastern Ukrainian, where as many as half of the population speaks Russian natively, is to include the Russian variants on placenames. No citation is necessary any more than a citation is necessary for placing the Ukrainian variant in placenames where the majority of the community speaks Russian as their first language (as in the Crimea). The citation tags were nothing more than WP:POINTy editing by an anonymous editor who is pushing an anti-Russian Ukrainian POV. Citations are not necessary for these things. --Taivo (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name. Is this a joke?[edit]

Whose idiotic idea it was to name it Luhansk! It is Lugansk in Russian, Lugansk in Ukrainian but some English speaking people will tell us how to pronounce it!? What the hell is going on here! I know it's customary for Brits and Americans to pervert the names of cities they come to live in (Limassol, Beijing, Seoul, etc), but this is WAY over the top. This articles name MUST BE CHANGED!!! Nomad (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that indicates that "Lu-г-ansk" is pronounced as "Lugansk" in Ukrainian? Some Ukrainian words are, indeed, pronounced with a "g". Is this one of them? --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://gorod.lugansk.ua/ might give you a hint as to how the city thinks the spelling should be in English.
  • Oh look http://www.zarya-lugansk.com/home.php the football club thinks the same. So maybe FC Zorya Luhansk should be renamed too.
  • When you look at sites where the English language name of the city is the name chosen by ordinary people from Ukrainian cities, they almost always choose the name that Ukrainian nationalists who are citizens of Canada and USA and dominate Wikipedia do not approve of.[1], [2].--Toddy1 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, Toddy1, that's not the question. We all know that Lugansk is the Russian name of the city. My question is about the comment that Leo711 made that "Lugansk" is also pronounced "Lugansk" in Ukrainian rather than "Luhansk". --Taivo (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, no: in Ukrainian it is pronounced as "Lu-H-ansk". Nevertheless, I do agree with Toddy1 that there seems to be no valid rationale for not using the common English names for some Ukrainian cities in Wikipedia. --Garik 11 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, only Kiev and Odessa are spelled using their most common English spellings. But the problem that arises with other cities in Ukraine is that they are so rarely mentioned in the press or outside Ukraine that we cannot really draw any statistically valid conclusions about what is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Dnipropetrovsk got press last week with the bombing, so in a simple Google search (and we know all the caveats about simple Google searches), there were 942 results for "Dnipropetrovsk bombing", but 3680 results for "Dnepropetrovsk bombing". But when is the last time Kharkiv has been mentioned? Or even more rarely, Lugansk? Start a request for move and see where it goes. --Taivo (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. There's also Gaspra and the long-abandoned Justingrad. Those can be left as-is, as the former is recognized by BGN as the most common English spelling (owing probably to the asteroid named after it), and the latter was disbanded long before the independence of Ukraine and the 2010 adoption of the new transliteration. However, I did notice we still had Gurzuf and Bagerovo, which I changed to Hurzuf and Baherove respectively. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... So the right spelling has to win a VOTE to be used? Well, I don't care. I know the correct spelling, I see the correct spelling in the Russian, Ukrainian, Azerbaijani, Belorussian, Bulgarian and at least two dozen more articles, ALL Cyrillic ones using "g" and not "h". If the English speaking community want to make fools of themselves and use the spelling based on... what did you say you base this on? Google search?.. I don't give a monkey f*ck. Want to be ignorant? Knock yourselves out! Not the first time. Especially here on Wikipedia. Nomad (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one said "vote". What I said was that you have to prove that the most common English spelling is "Lugansk" per WP:COMMONNAME. Prove it with hard evidence, not just your profane rants. --Taivo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose a change, and make the case for a change.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that it's Lugansk in two most spoken languages in the city AND in the two countries who it belongs to now or beloned to in the past is not "hard evidence"? The fact that both Ukrainian and Russian versions of this article say Lugansk is not "the case for a change"? And you don't find it strange that you foreigners are telling US, Russians and Ukraninans how to pronounce the names of our cities?
How do I propose a change here? Nomad (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian pronunciation pronounced [luˈɦɑɲsʲk] doesn't look any closer to Lugansk rather than Luhansk, does it? --Riwnodennyk ✉ 22:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just means you can't read transcription. If you give an effort to look closer at this transcription, you will see a tiny little thing on top of that "h". It's the way Ukrainians pronounce "g" sound, with a slight hint of "h".
This is beyond ridiculous!!! Somebody went on tour of Ukraine and misheard the pronunciation, another one misread the transcription - and the whole Wikipedia article got screwed up! And now I have to "give hard evidence" that this travesty is wrong! And they say Wikipedia is not an anarchy! Laughing out loud.
What's next? Giving hard evidence that the Earth goes around the Sun and not visa versa? Nomad (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The spellings "Luhansk" and "Lugansk" both conform with several common Ukrainian romanization systems. I expect that in cases where the subject has no commonly accepted English name, it is usual to default to its own preferred transliteration, in which case we must go with "Luhansk", which is the spelling specified by the Ukrainian government. If their spelling is an issue for you, please take it up with the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I see the proof that the Ukrainian Government has specified to pronounce the name of that city as Luhansk? Would you be so kind to provide a link to the government order that says so? Or did you just make it up? Nomad (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. It's Decision no. 55 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 27 January 2010. You can see from the table that Г must be transliterated as H (or as GH in some special cases). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the document you're referring to, you will see that there is a difference between Гг and Ґґ. In the word Lugansk, is it Гг or Ґґ? Nomad (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's Луганськ with a Г, as has already been stated in this discussion and in the article itself. The official transliteration is therefore H, not G. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, mom was right, arguing with stubborn people is no good. So I reverse to my previous statement. Wanna make fools of yourselves - go for it. Nomad (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Leo711/Nomad will now leave the discussion to more level-headed civil editors? Anyway, the question of whether the name of the city contains a Г or a Ґ is definitively answered on the city's own web site here. It is a Г, so the official transliteration of the name is Luhansk. End of story. The only option for the "Luganskophiles" is to actually come up with hard evidence that "Lugansk" is the most common spelling in English per WP:COMMONNAME. Simply claiming, without any hard evidence whatsoever, that "that's the way people say it" is simply unacceptable as evidence. --Taivo (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Lugansk&word2=Luhansk — At the moment I get 489k hits for Luhansk and 1,190k hits for Lugansk. So it seems to me that the latter should be adopted. As a bonus, it happens to be what >85% of the local population calls it. —Lexoka (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of comradeliness and restoring friendly relations, could I ask Leo711/Nomad to voluntarily withdraw the personal attack against his fellow editors which he has disguised through misleading wikilink texts? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) BGN lists Luhansk as Approved (primary, no common English usage superseding) with Lugansk as (secondary) Variant. What is transliterated from what to what is not material, so let's not create significance or nationalist/linguistic preference where there is none. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The whole point whether it is Lugansk or Luhansk is very simple, but extremely political: - Lugansk is the Russian Name, up to the desingtegration of Soviet Union and from May 2014 when LPR was proclaimed. - Luhansk is the Ukrainian Name, which was used in the interim period.

I strongly recommend reverting the article name to Lugansk, because Lugansk de facto is under the control of LPR, and as things stand, it will not change in the near future. Wikipedia is not a political platform (there are many opposed to the idea of changing the name to Lugansk exactly on these grounds), but is a reflection of reality, and that reality is that Lugansk is populated by people and occupied by forces (government) to whom the correct spelling is Lugansk.Michailchi (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change from Luhansk to Lugansk is not a mere spelling issue, but has the same implications as renaming the article as "Voroshilovograd" instead of "Lugansk," i.e. at some point in the past "Vorshilovograd" was the correct name, but...Michailchi (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article should not be moved at this time. This is a temporary, fly-by-night name change. Wikipedia values stability more than the whims of pro-Russian propaganda or Russian mercenaries who have invaded eastern Ukraine. If Luhansk is not reunited with Ukraine in a year or so and has achieved some sort of stability (even as part of one of putin's "frozen wars"), then the issue can be revisited. But the situation is much too fluid at the present time to be blown about by the winds of Russian propaganda and Russian military adventurism. --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been over a 'year or so' What now? Stable enough for you? 80.229.10.135 (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you addressing? If you have reliable sources demonstrating that Luhansk has been recognised as a sovereign state, bring them to the table. Otherwise, stop using talk pages as a personal WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article[edit]

Surely this article could be expanded. I'll do some research and see what I can come up with. It also needs some clean up, which I attempted but failed at. Zamdrist (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the fiction of "life returning to normal" while under control of an invading army[edit]

The so-called "Luhansk People's Republic" is largely a fiction as they are no more than Russian mercenaries without any kind of government or control. Donetsk and Luhansk are simply lawless regions by and large (so adding "de facto" is a joke). And to call life in Luhansk "normal" is a joke, were people in Luhansk not suffering of miserably under the reign of terror brought by the Russian thugs. --Taivo (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some they are thugs, for some they are freedom fighters. No, life is not normal in the area. Yes, law and order is not yet restored. And yes, people in Lugansk are suffering, but due to the war and fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michailchi (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC) }[reply]

However, let us, and especially Taivo, not enter the politics. This is not the objective of Wikipedia. Even if "war tugs" occupy a territory, they "de facto" occupy it. Period. Think about Vichy and De Gaulle governments in WWII. One de facto ruled a certain territory. Even Ukraine tacitly recognized the occupation by ceasing to pay out pensions.Michailchi (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine didn't cease to pay out pensions because they recognize the so-called de facto authority of the Russian mercenaries. They stopped paying out pensions because the money wasn't getting to the pensioners, but was being siphoned off to buy war materials for the Russian thugs. There simply is no "law and order" and especially no "normal life" in the occupied Ukrainian territories. There is no de facto government either. Read the news and you'll see that just about every terrorist group has its own commander that doesn't report to any higher authority. --Taivo (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself - if each group has its own commander who acts as he wishes, then there could not be an organized "invading army". So you yourself just confirmed that the Russia is not behind it and this is indeed grassroot movement!" It is either or. I do agree that there is no normal life and little order. Michailchi (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if Ukraine can not deliver the money to the correct persons, then it is another proof that de facto they do not control the territory... However, the true reason behind that is to make suffer the russian population in the area so as to generate discontent.Michailchi (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Some vandal is reverting my editing "Lugansk is de facto capital of Lugansk People's Republic" for the third time. I am not sure to whom complain about it.Michailchi (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me, and no I am not a "vandal" nor did I revert you three times. Unless you are referring to some other edits you might have made somewhere else with a different account or something. The text you are trying to insert into the article is WP:POV and certainly does not belong in the lede. We could put something like that in the article but word it neutrally, like "since April 2014, Luhansk has been occupied by pro-Russian separatists who consider it to be the capital of Lugansk People's Republic". Volunteer Marek  05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this looks like block evasion [3]. Volunteer Marek  05:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The elimination of "capital" was done three times, but not today. Sorry if you were offended.Michailchi (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can build a WP:CONSENSUS for adding "de facto" in this article, Michailchi (or whatever anon IP you're using to evade a block), it's not going in. Just because your Russian handlers want to recognize the terrorists in Luhansk as some kind of "civil authority" when they aren't doing anything at all for the civilian population doesn't means that it goes into Wikipedia. Build a consensus here on the Talk Page first. --Taivo (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never "evaded" a block, I first edited without registering, and then registered for subsequent edits, because I can not stand by passively and observe the slanted political bias of this article in Wikipedia.

However, I can not argue with someone as biased as you, and I do not call Ukrainian forces terrorists, unlike you do, referring to the pro-Russian separatist forces as terrorists. Remember the Reagan's freedom-fighters in Afganistan? Suddenly they became Taliban terrorists... Personal opinions and emotions have very little to do with the facts and realty of history.Michailchi (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/186.10.32.27|186.10.32.27]] (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have guessed, I am Russian, proudly so, but there are no "my" Russian handlers. But unlike you, I can separate objective facts from political bias. And it is very appauling what I observe in Wikipedia

Once again to the facts:

Two Proposals[edit]

1. Include statement that "Lugansk is the capital the Lugansk People's Republic". The arguments for this are:

–There is an article in Wikipedia on Lugansk People's Republic.

–It is undeniable that this entity (Lugansk People's Republic) exists.

–It is also undeniable that it controls a large part of the Lugansk oblast' or whatever one might call it (as you may oppose my suggested wording "country").

–It is undeniable that it fully controls Lugansk city.

–It has officially declared that Lugansk is its capital.

Therefore, the statement "Lugansk is the capital the Lugansk People's Republic" is correct and must be included in the article.

Please note that I object the use of "de facto" in this case, because from the point of view of Lugansk People's Republic it is the de jure capital.

If this proposal is not accepted, then I propose to delete the article "Lugansk People's Republic". The reason for the deletion is that there could be no doble standard when evaluating historical facts. Either it (Republic) exists as do its deeds (including declaring Lugansk as capital, being terrorists or beeing freedomfighters) or it does not.


2. The name of the article "Luhansk" should be changed to "Lugansk".

There are two lines of arguments for this:

First, the political one:

- Before the Fall of the Soviet Union the correct and only spelling was "Lugansk."

- From 1990 or 1991 after Ukraine declared itself as a sovereign state (in the same vein as the Lugansk People's Republic), the correct name could have been "Luhansk," although "Luhans'k" would have been a more (politically) correct spelling.

- From April/May 2014 Lugansk became the capital of LPR.


Now, if we disagree on legality of LPR, etc., I propose to split the article into two articles, one "Luhans'k," covering the period 1991-2014 and the other "Lugansk," covering periods up to 1991 and from 2014.

Second, the conventional usage:

- It was extensively covered in the Talk section of this artice.

Briefly, there are more references both on the web/google and in literature to the city as "Lugansk" rather than "Luhansk", the population which is living in Lugansk knows and pronounces it as Lugansk, etc.

I strongly believe that original renaming of the article from Lugansk to Luhansk was politically motivated, and now there are sufficient reasons to revert it.


Michailchi (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether the article on the so-called, but practically nonexistent, "Lugansk People's Republic" exists or not. It has no effective control over any territory, since there are numerous sources showing that the part of Luhansk oblast occupied by Russian mercenaries and Russian regular forces is virtually lawless--both with and without nominal "allegiance" to the Russian military authorities in Luhansk. Changing this article's name to "Lugansk" is utterly premature and based on nothing more than Russian ultra-nationalism. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia that is blown here and there by current affairs. This isn't the first time or the first article where Russian propagandists have pushed changing names in the Donbass to Russian variants. In every case, the WP:CONSENSUS has landed squarely on the side of "wait and see". Wait for what? Some kind of stability to develop. For example, while Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia represent Russian territorial theft, they have stablized with identifiable borders. Donbass is in no such stable state after the Russian invasion of Ukrainian sovereign territory. In one or two years, if putin's land grab hasn't yet been reversed, then you might be able to build a consensus for your Russian theft. But not yet. --Taivo (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a Ukranian flag and go waive it in Lugansk to see under whose control the city is, I bet you will be rounded up by some military faction of LPR within minutes, probably beaten badly, if not worse, and if very unlucky, shot. Maybe this is lawless, but this would prove that there is 100% "effective control" over the territory.Michailchi (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to your idea of wait and see: we must than use different spellings depending on what we are referring to, if it is capital of LPR, it is Lugansk (calling it Luhansk is utterly incorrect), if it is ex-Ukrainian oblast, it is Luhansk. So we are entering the wonderland of double-talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michailchi (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I feel it is not correct to take biased stance as you do, your response is peppered with it: "territorial theft", "land grab," "Russian theft," "occupied by." On your personal page it is stated that you are profesor, but I would not expect such a bias from an academic.--Michailchi (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2014
No, on both counts. Original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michailchi - you have completely misunderstood Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). With some events such as the murders by Myra Hindley, we report the points of view of mainstream sources, and significant minority viewpoints. This does not mean that we have to talk about the murders as if they were acceptable. Regarding the Russian invasion of Lugansk, User:Taivo has a mainstream point of view: he/she disapproves of torturing and murdering people. This does not represent unacceptable bias on his/her part! It means that he/she is normal and well informed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your split proposal is covered by the Wikipedia policy WP:POVFORK, which says that it is unacceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin towns and sister cities[edit]

I noticed this was covered twice. It doesn't need to be covered twice, once is enough. --John (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. However you did not notice that the lists are different. You must merge the lists, rather than randomly delete one of them. -M.Altenmann >t 02:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Must I? Why are there two different lists? --John (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yes you must. (2) mistake. -M.Altenmann >t 06:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them again. We definitely cannot repeat this (somewhat trivial) info twice. If you want to include St Etienne, you'll need to find a source for it. --John (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it needs source, put {{cn}} to give people time to find sources. Running around and deletion random texts (unless it is clear nonsense) is not how wikipedia works. Neither it works with edit summaries like this -M.Altenmann >t
I stand by my assertion that edit-warring to restore two slightly different flagcruft lists, one unreferenced, is indeed madness. How on earth would this help our readers? --John (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As is the standard for articles on cities, twinned cities/towns are usually depicted in the body under their own subsection and not in the infobox. Nevertheless, I believe that moving these down to a dedicated subheader with a cn request is reasonable. At the end of the day, it isn't difficult to find citations or eliminate unreferenced entries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVILITY is madness as well to be ignored? Calling sister cities "flagcruft" is blatant disrespect to the city and its residents. Dwindling numbers of wikipedians not always have time to watch vigilantly 24/7 each and every article on watchlist against whims of arrogant people who tag "cruft" things they personally don't care. -M.Altenmann >t 02:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Luhansk. So far nobody agrees with you that we need two little collections of flags. Why do you believe we need this? I am afraid I stand by calling this cruft. It is. --John (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm back. i did not demand two collections. i objected deletion of info. plz read my very first comment. a disparaging opinion about a colleague does people a disservice: one becomes deaf/blind to arguments. fortunately iryna did what i did not have time for. case closed. -M.Altenmann >t 08:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so when you repeatedly made edits like this one, you did not know what you were doing. Please be more careful in the future. --John (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i was restoring deleted info in a rush. when info is deleted it is very easy to forget to put it back properly, if you recall the enormous amount ow work remaining. when i have time i am actually finding sources & doing other useful things. -M.Altenmann >t 15:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad the other work you do is valuable because this was not and has wasted a lot of time. Maybe next time you should not be in such a rush and should actually examine the edits you make. A proper look would have revealed that no information was deleted. Oh well. Try to do better next time. --John (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, John, you'd removed all of the information in the infobox without transferring it to the relevant subsection. While twinned cities may not be a major issue for an article, we're not talking about a large article and it would have been easy to open the entire page for editing and transfer it to the subsection in one shot. I'm sure that, as an admin, you have more than enough experience to know that all it takes is for a vandal or another editor to do some copyediting and the content would have been relegated to the blanked and forgotten archives. If other editors weren't watching, half of the twinned cities would have been lost. Notably, another high profile editor who has never been involved in this article kept the momentum up by removing yet another twinned city because it was 'uncited'.

In fact, this ego-based 'dispute' (including finger-wagging) has been the real editor energy sinkhole. Personal views as to the importance of any content aside, I would have facepalmed myself. How you respond is, naturally, your own prerogative... but your last comment above is, I believe, equally as applicable to you.

Nevertheless, thank you for cleaning out the infobox clutter: a pet hate of mine. I'll be restoring dates for twinning with an 'cn' where the sources don't cover this content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. It isn't a very good article but it looks incrementally less bad now. I wonder how many other articles have this unreferenced flagcruft all over the infobox? --John (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Well, I have a large number of 'city' and 'town' articles on my watchlist ranging from ex-Soviet countries to South American cities/town (in other words, right across the Wikipedia board from Southern Asia to Pacific islands, et al). Personally, I can't recall encountering anything outside of the use of standard parameters for variants on the settlement infobox. If there is any potentially crufty situations, it normally manifests in the form of flags and unverifiable/OR banners, and these are kept under control by regular editors reverting unsourced additions, or simply being aware of and removing cruft.
In terms of rationalising any infoboxes, it appears to be the standard practice. The only infobox problem that appears to be an ongoing concern is that of the refactoring of the ethnicity infobox. At some point, someone decided that introducing a gallery of 'notables' for any given ethnic group despite its not being one of the parameters. The 'image' parameter has now become a showcase, presumably under the guise of WP:ITSIMPORTANT. In effect, we have so many articles about ethnic groups that haven't seen any constructive content development for years, but end up as being editor energy sinkholes due to SPA and IP additions and subtractions to the galleries, that it's frustrating. Consequently, articles which have been subject to arguments as to how members of an ethnic group should be defined has resulted in consensus for the Romanians and Russians articles to remove the gallery due to it being more problematic than edifying. Nevertheless, there are a multitude of articles surrounding South American ethnic groups alone, which otherwise receive little attention, being inundated by POV changes to these galleries based on nothing outside of what is evidently favourite sportspeople, singers, actors, etc. To say the It's frustrating is an understatement. The only options are to revert changes rather than grappling with the onus of confirming that RS confirm that new additions do figure as being representative of the ethnic group in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. I wonder if there is a central place where this could be addressed? The flags thing has been a bit less problematic since WP:MOSICON gained consensus. Maybe something similar here would be in order. --John (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of flag icons for sister cities[edit]

I recommend against the use of national flag icons for sister cities. These cities do not represent their country or national government in their city-to-city relationships; the presence of the national flag icon implies otherwise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. The flags add nothing. --John (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they do add "something," John. The question is whether that "something" is appropriate when scrutiny is applied. Given that these are cities, not countries, and these cities that do no represent their parent countries in these "sister city" relationships, I would argue that there is an element of misrepresentation in using the national flag icons to designate the cities. Even more so when one considers the trivial nature of most of these sister city arrangements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is legitimate to use flags in long lists. In short lists like this example all they add is visual clutter which some people find decorative. There can be no possible argument on a tiny list like this that they aid recognition or navigation. --John (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City name changed categories.[edit]

I am not sure what is supposed to be in the Category:City name changes in Ukraine but it looks like it is for the Ukrainian cities that were ever known under different names. Then the category is applied correctly as during most of the Soviet period the city was known as Voroshilovgrad. Not sure about the category Category:Former Soviet toponymy, should the category be applied to Voroshilovgrad redirect? Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The City name changes in Ukraine category is a potpourri of nonsense. It includes cities that had a recent name change alongside cities that haven't changed their names since medieval times. Rivne, for example, has not changed its name for centuries. In fact, Rivne has carried that name since it was first mentioned in the 13th century--it has apparently never changed its name. --Taivo (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luhansk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Ukraina[edit]

Do we translate hotel names? Also, according to this, it's not active at the present: "На данный момент гостиница находится в нерабочем состоянии, некоторые её помещения сдаются под офисы, кроме этого на первом этаже расположен книжный магазин и аптека." --37.203.168.77 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's really a matter of taste, and there are no hard and fast guidelines. In this instance, however, it's possibly best to use their own English language translation, being Hotel Complex "Ukraine", but "Hotel Ukraine" is also fine. Whether it is currently functioning or not is not of relevance to this article because, per WP:TITLE, it is not a current affairs article: the subject is the city and its general history, and should be kept on topic rather than being treated as being topical. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hotel Complex "Ukraine" is a hotel in Lutsk, not in Luhansk. The reason why I mentioned the current status of the hotel is because if it's no longer an actual hotel we should probably not use the word "hotel" with lower-case H. Moreover, we could add the word "building" to the name implying that it's a historic landmark. --37.203.168.77 (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that it isn't functioning as a hotel at the moment is probably neither here nor there (and fairly self-evident), but a lower case 'h' should cover it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation/control[edit]

The term "occupation" is not neutral and is not used in any other article with a similar subject, for instance, in Stepanakert, the capital of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (it reads "Country: de facto part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic") or in Dubăsari, a city in the unrecognized Transnistria republic. Therefore a more neutral term "control" could be used. --37.203.168.77 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaking what the WP:NPOV policy actually means. If you check articles surrounding the recent events in Ukraine, you'll find that the WP:CONSENSUS stands at according to reliable sources. The LPR and DPR are unrecognised states and, according to the Minsk II protocols, are globally understood to be illegal. The neutral rendition of this is "Occupied". I would, however, point out that the article on Donetsk has avoided falling into the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM traps by avoiding this type of information in the infobox and only addressing it the body of the article. Perhaps this article should follow suit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The West Bank is listed in its Wikipedia article as being under "Israeli military occupation". No need to apply different rules to Lugansk, which is currently under partial Russian occupation. 161.185.160.27 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no separatist group holding Ramallah. Much more apropos to the discussion is Ramallah, which is listed "[...] a Palestinian city in the central West Bank that serves as the de facto administrative capital of the State of Palestine[...]." More importantly, Israel does not consider itself to have legal authority over Ramallah, both in terms of it being Area C and in terms of Israel claiming no legal claim over the vast majority of the West Bank, and itself viewing its occupation of the West Bank as an occupation rather than rightful or independent territory. Under your own logic of using the West Bank, the Luhansk article should not use occupation-centric language Borawik (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the situation in the West Bank can be compared with the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor & official website[edit]

It appears that the city has got a new official website (the one currently mentioned in the article hasn't been updated since July last year), where, among other things, one can find out who is the current de-facto city mayor. [4] --37.203.168.77 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop politicising this article. You are trying to update information as if it were a recognised government, etc. This is not the purpose of the article.
As I'm going on holiday starting this evening, could I ask some other editors to keep an eye on changes being made, and whether they're appropriate or not? @Ymblanter, Alex Bakharev, TaivoLinguist, RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, and My very best wishes: I've said my piece, so I'll leave it to your discretion as to how this article should be best handled (and apologies for the imposition). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article up to date, not politicising is the purpose of my proposals. The current article mentions an old website (continued to be used by the unrecognised government, but later replaced by a new one) and (has mentioned) a mayor who is no longer in office (and has also served under the unrecognised LNR government). --37.203.168.77 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to write here about correcting Lugansk name it's Lugansk...[edit]

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!!!

To further prove my point please look at google trends that keeps track of all the searches over time.

By the way you can use google.co.uk or google.com or any other version of google for that matter...Results are pretty much the same...

https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=luhansk - Looking at the word "luhansk" and its searches over time.

https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=lugansk - Looking at the word "lugansk" and its searches over time.

The results above clearly show that lugansk was the most popular over time.

https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=lugansk%20republic - Looking at words "lugansk republic" and their searches over time.

https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=luhansk%20republic Looking at words "luhansk republic" and their searches over time.

The results above clearly show that lugansk republic was the most popular over time.

And to conclude Lugansk is the correct way to say and write it.And it is more popular.And is the most common way to reference it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.59.96.64 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I also think it should be moved. Lugansk is more widely used in the English language. Heptor talk 16:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the name of the article should be changed, you should use the process at WP:RM. Such a change would be controversial, and would need to be discussed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 February 2017[edit]

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: No move. As noted in the discussion, the Google search evidence showing that "Lugansk" is more common in English is not a reliable measure. Moreover, evidence provided by Toddy1 appears to show that use is mixed, with the higher caliber sources tending to favor "Luhansk". As such, I'm closing this as no move. Cúchullain t/c 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Luhansk → Lugansk – "Lugansk" is now more widely used as the name for this city in English, so it is the more appropriate title for this article. See for example Google: Lugansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Lugansk About 5,380,000 results; Luhansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Luhansk About 3,190,000 results. Google trends also show that "Lugansk" is used more than "Luhansk": https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=luhansk,LUGANSK Heptor talk 15:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are one of the most unreliable means of judging common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: I see what you mean. The problem with an ordinary Google search is that you get a lot non-English content:[5]

  • Nel Far West di Lugansk - Il Foglio 19 Mar 2015 - In tempo di pace, Lugansk contava mezzo milione di residenti. Oggi, a dieci mesi dallo scoppio della guerra in Ucraina, buona parte delle case ...
  • Zorya Lugansk: Aktueller Spieler Kader, News und Infos Der Kader des Zorya Lugansk: Erfahre hier mehr über Neuigkeiten, Kader, Ergebnisse und Spiele.
  • Donetsk và Lugansk sẽ kiểm soát các nhà máy của Ukraine từ 1/3 ... 10 hours ago - (Baonghean.vn) - Đây là tuyên bố chung của hai nhà lãnh đạo các nước cộng hoà tự xưng Donetsk và Lugansk, nếu Donbass không được dỡ ...
  • Rubla rusească va deveni valuta principală în „Republica Populară ... 6 hours ago - Valuta de bază în republica autoproclamată Lugansk va deveni începând cu 1 martie 2017 rubla rusească. Această decizie a fost publicată pe ...
  • Луганск - Новости Луганска и области сегодня. - Cxid.info Луганск - Новости Луганска и области сегодня. - Новости Луганска и области сегодня.

I did a search on Google books, only looking for all content published in the English language, and going to the last page as this reduces the numbers of false positives:

  • Lugansk (excluding Luhansk) 322
  • Luhansk (excluding Lugansk) 317

And also for Google news, again only looking for all content published in the English language, and going to the last page as this reduces the numbers of false positives:

  • Lugansk (excluding Luhansk) 372
  • Luhansk (excluding Lugansk) 337

What is very striking with a Google News search, is that Lugansk tends to be favoured by sources such as RT, TASS, Sputnik International, Belarus News; whereas Luhansk tends to be favoured by the BBC, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, Reuters, Newsweek, Ukrinform News, and Deutsche Welle. I think we can clearly conclude that English as written in Russia favours Lugansk, whereas English as written in England tends to favour Luhansk. Though, you can find examples of English newspapers using Lugansk.[6],[7]

Kyiv Post [8][[9] and Press TV[10][11] sometimes use one spelling and sometimes the other.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Luhansk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017[edit]

add Luhansk People's Republic83.220.239.88 (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 16:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017[edit]

add in change |subdivision_name =  *  Ukraine (de jure)

+ |subdivision_name =  Ukraine −

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done I'm overriding your response, Kuyabribri. 'De jure' was edit warred in by a blocked account/editor 2 days ago, so there was no consensus to use it in the first instance. If editors wish to introduce it, consensus needs to be gained first, not visa versa. 'De facto' for LPD would also need to be discussed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of precedent to follow, for example Jerusalem, Tiraspol, Pristina, Laayoune. Both de jure and de facto situations are usually mentioned. Heptor (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also Katzrin, Stepanakert. Summarizing those, de jure assertions don't seem to stand in the way of presenting the factual situation. Heptor (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luhansk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits about how to spell the name of the city[edit]

I noticed that the recent edits by М. Омельчук about the spelling of the name of the city had been reverted.[12] I would like to add that although this spelling is a culturally sensitive matter, the policy of Wikipedia is to follow English-language sources. For more details see Wikipedia:Official_names. Previous discussions on this talk page concluded—rightly or not—that "Luhansk" is the name that has the widest usage in the most reliable English sources. For details, see Talk:Luhansk#Requested_move_(1st), Talk:Luhansk#Requested_move, Talk:Luhansk#Requested_move_27_February_2017. I hope that this will not discourage people from improving the article in other aspects! Thanks, Heptor (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated claim[edit]

The edit by 45.150.184.123 on 23 January still has no citation. I feel the first sentence under [[13]] should be removed. Editor Ciara (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong values in Demographics[edit]

The values presented in the Demographic section do not match the official values cited in the source

http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/

Ukrainians = 1472.4 (58.0%)

Russians = 991.8 (39.0%)

Belarussians = 20.5 (0.8%)

Tatars = 8.5 (0.3%)

Armenians = 6.5 (0.3%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:DF29:8000:1954:7665:70F3:F441 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Occupied" is neutral term[edit]

There has been an edit war over whether the line control in the infobox should read "Controlled" or "Occupied". The edit summaries of the two editors favouring "Controlled" claimed that this is the neutral term. Being one of the two editors favouring "Occupied", I hold that "Occupied" is also neutral, since WP's neutrality means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. and "occupied" is used by all the reliable sources I've seen on the subject. So, I think we should call a spade a spade (see WP:SPADE). Rsk6400 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term controlled is widely used by RS: On territory controlled by Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups UNHCR, territory controlled by Russia Washington Post, to launch attacks on Russian-controlled towns in Luhansk El Pais, Pro-Moscow separatists have controlled parts of Donetsk and neighbouring Luhansk province since 2014 Al Jazeera. Alaexis¿question? 18:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim that "controlled" was not used by RS. I just claimed that "occupied" is used, too. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it's not used, I just don't see reasons to change the wording. Alaexis¿question? 21:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see a reason to change the wording, I think we can close this discussion here. The wording was "Occupied" before NicoVasc5 changed it to "Controlled" on Nov 20. I checked all the versions since Oct 14. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed in October from the stable version (Ru/separatist control).October 1, August 1 Alaexis¿question? 08:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The change was on Oct 2[14], but the previous state used neither "Controlled" nor "Occupied". Why should we want to change something that has been stable for 49 days ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the way it was displayed in the infobox, you'll see that the word control was used ([15]). This version was stable for months, before that it fluctuated between "controlled by" and "country (de facto)", which is also an acceptable option from the NPOV perspective. Alaexis¿question? 12:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by North Korea ?[edit]

@Blueginger2: You repeatedly claimed that North Korea recognized the annexation. I read somewhere that they "supported" the annexation, but since "to recognize" has a specific, well-defined meaning in international law, I'd like to ask you to provide a source for your claim. Also: Please don't call an edit "vandalism"[16] just because you disagree. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400 What are you talking about? There is entire Wikipedia page just on international recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts, that includes nunmerous sources proving both North Korean and Syrian recognition. Please educate yourself. You literally just Google search this and Google tells you that the countries revognise this. Don't negate the recognition, just because you don't agree with country's international stance. [Deleting true facts] and writing lies instead is VANDALISM. Blueginger2 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postcodes[edit]

Rsk6400 (also pinging Yeagvr), I think that lug-info can be considered reliable for the postcodes (as you know, reliability is a spectrum and has to be assessed for a given statement per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). There is no reason for them to lie about it and Ukrainian sources also mention the changes in some other cities of Lugansk region ([17]). Alaexis¿question? 10:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: said that "Lug" means "Lie" in German, but actually it is a Russian-language local source, and Lug is the abbreviation of Lugansk.
As a neutral encyclopedia, I think we should show the updated area code or at most both (former and current). Yeagvr (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeagvr, neutrality means that we neutrally report what reliable sources say, not that we are neutral between reliable and propaganda sources. lug-info.com is a Russian propaganda source and therefore normally doesn't qualify as a source for WP. I know that lug means Lugansk, that's why I mentioned the German meaning as a "fun fact". lug-info.com is such a disgusting site that I had to vent my feelings. Alaexis, you "think" that the source can be considered reliable for such cases as postal codes. As I see it, this "thinking" is already original research, because you trust your own judgment instead of waiting for RS to comment on the alleged change of postal codes. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, thinking is not original research, I was stating my opinion about the application of WP:RS to this case.
So why exactly do you think that this site is not reliable for this statement? Are there other media sources that contradict it? Or have they lied about basic non-ideological stuff before? Alaexis¿question? 19:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:V is a core principle of WP, I think that we really should take it serious. For the rest: See WP:ONUS and feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer my questions though? Maybe we'll be convinced and we'll save time the dispute resolution takes. Alaexis¿question? 08:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Local pronunciation[edit]

@LICA98: You seem to derive your claim about the local pronunciation from your knowledge of the pronunciation of southern Russian dialects and from the assumption that such a dialect is spoken in Luhansk. To me, this looks like WP:SYNTH. The other pronunciations given are also unsourced - true, but since they refer to the standard pronunciation of the language, they are much more easy to verify and so not likely to be challenged. There are two other reasons why I don't agree with your addition: If we add a Russian local pronunciation, we should also add a Ukrainian one. And: The parentheses are already very long, which gets us into conflict with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) we don't need to add a local Ukrainian pronunciation because there isn't one... it's the same as the standard pronunciation

2) you can put the pronunciations under a footnote if you think they're too long (like on the Astana article for example)

your claim that we also need to add a "local Ukrainian pronunciation" clearly shows that you have no knowledge about the Ukrainian or Russian pronunciations, so why are you even trying to argue about the subject? let the people who know this stuff do the job LICA98 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about local pronunciations in Luhansk, but that's not the point. WP is not about reporting our own unverifiable knowledge, but about reporting what reliable sources say. If you insist on your knowledge about local pronunciations, that's WP:OR. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well the source is on the IPA page exactly... you just removed it for no reason

here is a better explanation: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5

"hekanye", the non-standard pronunciation of letter Г (G), г (g) as [ɣ] or [ɦ] and [x] or [h] in devoiced positions, instead of the standard [ɡ] and [k] in devoiced positions as heard in Southern Russian (the European part, south from Voronezh), Ukrainian and Belarusian, also commonly by Russians or Russian speakers in Ukraine and Belarus.

but there is no source given for that so it is not reliable information according to your logic

so should I find a source that explicitly states "many Russian-speaking people in Ukraine pronounce G as [ɣ]"? or what needs to be done that the pronunciation with [ɣ] can be added? LICA98 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:INDENT would really help. "My logic" is certainly irrelevant here, what is relevant are our guidelines, which clearly state that information must be verifiable. So we need a source (without Russian colonialist bias) stating that the local pronunciation in both Russian and Ukrainian is what you claim it to be. If such a source should not exist, that might be because that detail is not relevant. I think this discussion has gone on for long enough now, feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the source is given on the IPA page... you are just trying to pretend that well they only say it's in southern Russia only and Luhansk is in Ukraine so that doesn't apply

and again why are you talking about "local Ukrainian pronunciation"? I never said anything about that because it does not exist, in Ukrainian the letter Г is always pronounced as [ɦ] whereas in Russian it's mostly [g] but in some areas including Luhansk it is [ɣ] LICA98 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LICA98, Rsk6400, usually sources are not provided for every instance of the phonetic transcription of names in a given language. Here they are not provided for the Ukrainian and the (standard) Russian pronunciation.
The Southern Russian dialects indeed replace voiced velar plosive /g/ with the voiced velar fricative /ɣ/.[1]
Btw I don't think that all that belongs to the lede. I'd suggest to rename the Etymology section to Name and describe it there. Alaexis¿question? 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sussex, Roland; Cubberley, Paul (2006). "Dialects of Russian". The Slavic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 521–526. ISBN 978-0-521-22315-7.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023[edit]

I request that in the country section Russia be added as (De facto) and Ukraine be put as (De jure) LegendaryChristopher (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The annexation neither happened in accordance with national and international law, thus the results of these 'referendums' enjoy almost no recognition and have no real impact on an international level. Frank-Horst (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag[edit]

Luhansk redesigned it's Flag and arms recently. I'm not an Extended Confirmed User and can't add it, so I need someone else to do it. Don't worry, Ruwiki said that they weren't under any copyright conditions. Anyways, here are the images:

Lugansk_c_scoa.jpg

Флаг_Луганска_2024.jpg Eehuiio (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luhansk&oldid=1218838837"