![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Luhansk, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions. Irpen 20:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
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.
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'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)
What a nice, concise and beautiful article! Thanks for this, Hu Gadarn 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"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).
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)
Please, add to the article. -- Riwnodennyk ✉ 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The page should be moved back to Lugansk.
Heptor talk 10:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Google books search, English language only, 10 September 2009:
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was no consensus. @ harej 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Luhansk →
Lugansk — - Per
Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references. See discussion above --
Heptor
talk 11:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) }
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)
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)
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)
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)
The elimination of "capital" was done three times, but not today. Sorry if you were offended.
Michailchi (
talk) 05:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
/186.10.32.27|186.10.32.27]] ( talk) 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ Taivo: I see what you mean. The problem with an ordinary Google search is that you get a lot non-English content: [5]
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:
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:
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Luhansk People's Republic 83.220.239.88 ( talk) 08:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add in change |subdivision_name = *Ukraine (de jure)
+
|subdivision_name =
Ukraine
−
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On territory controlled by Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groupsUNHCR,
territory controlled by RussiaWashington Post,
to launch attacks on Russian-controlled towns in LuhanskEl Pais,
Pro-Moscow separatists have controlled parts of Donetsk and neighbouring Luhansk province since 2014Al Jazeera. Alaexis ¿question? 18:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk) 06:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)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)
I see a lot of inaccurate info like "city in Ukraine", "annexed", the city is Russian both de jure and de facto while the article is showing a different picture etc. Klehus ( talk) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eehuiio ( talk) 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Luhansk, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions. Irpen 20:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
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.
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'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)
What a nice, concise and beautiful article! Thanks for this, Hu Gadarn 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"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).
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)
Please, add to the article. -- Riwnodennyk ✉ 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The page should be moved back to Lugansk.
Heptor talk 10:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Google books search, English language only, 10 September 2009:
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was no consensus. @ harej 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Luhansk →
Lugansk — - Per
Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references. See discussion above --
Heptor
talk 11:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) }
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)
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)
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)
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)
The elimination of "capital" was done three times, but not today. Sorry if you were offended.
Michailchi (
talk) 05:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
/186.10.32.27|186.10.32.27]] ( talk) 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ Taivo: I see what you mean. The problem with an ordinary Google search is that you get a lot non-English content: [5]
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:
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:
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Luhansk People's Republic 83.220.239.88 ( talk) 08:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add in change |subdivision_name = *Ukraine (de jure)
+
|subdivision_name =
Ukraine
−
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On territory controlled by Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groupsUNHCR,
territory controlled by RussiaWashington Post,
to launch attacks on Russian-controlled towns in LuhanskEl Pais,
Pro-Moscow separatists have controlled parts of Donetsk and neighbouring Luhansk province since 2014Al Jazeera. Alaexis ¿question? 18:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk) 06:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)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)
I see a lot of inaccurate info like "city in Ukraine", "annexed", the city is Russian both de jure and de facto while the article is showing a different picture etc. Klehus ( talk) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eehuiio ( talk) 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)