Russia: Human geography / Demographics & ethnography Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

Not "disputed".

We can just add that Russians don't agree with it but nobody cares.

OK: Let's assume that tomorrow Russians say that Alaska belongs to Mother Russia. Should we change the status of Alaska to "disputed"?

Yes, we can say that Russians occupy Crimea, but Ukraine controls air and sea in Crimea according to the international law. I think the fact that Russians don't respect international law, is Russians' problem, not ours!

Sobsnobel (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea is disputed regardless of what the UN thinks.

"OK: Let's assume that tomorrow Russians say that Alaska belongs to Mother Russia. Should we change the status of Alaska to "disputed"?" yes

"but Ukraine controls air and sea in Crimea according to the international law." that doesn't mean that Crimea is not disputed Durranistan (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclaimer: I in no way support Russia's attempts to conquer territory. However, I am of the belief that the reality on the ground be reflected on Wikipedia, harsh as it may be. We accepted that with Crimea, I don't see why it should be different here.

That said, with Russia set to annex multiple areas of Ukraine in the coming days, at least two of them will become republics of Russia; Donetsk and Luhansk. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia's ultimate status within Russia remain undefined but will likely be standard oblasts. I already have a template set up to accommodate the changes, however, I'm well aware the situation is fluid and the borders will frequently shift as the war drags on, rendering these additions controversial to say the least.

The changes would mainly be reflected in the republics list and the "Status of Crimea" section which would be expanded to include these areas. All relevant notes would be added to highlight their "disputed" status. Thoughts would be appreciated. Otherwise, lacking any consensus here or significant opposition at all, I will make the changes.

Cheers. ProjectHorizons (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jargo Nautilus:--Panam2014 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support @Cambial Yellowing's decision to remove the LPR and DPR from the list of republics. Indeed, I personally believe that Crimea should be removed as well. I disagree with the notion that we accepted that with Crimea; I personally never accepted the situation with Crimea, although I wasn't around to challenge its status up until now. In terms of the reality on the ground, Russia's annexation of the four territories did nothing in reality. It was all on paper, and nothing on the ground actually changed in comparison to the pre-existing military occupation. The borders are also highly inaccurate in the new version of the map that has been edited by @ProjectHorizons, because significant chunks of northern Zaporizhzhia Oblast and northern Donetsk Oblast are not under Russian control, including the crucial city of Zaporizhzhia. This is not just a small discrepancy with the border (which you might be able to argue with Kherson and Luhansk); this is a massive anomaly that we simply cannot ignore. It is incorrect to say that Russia has annexed these regions in reality; in reality, significant areas that Russia claims to have annexed are still under Ukrainian control. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind also that the situation on the ground has indeed changed dramatically from back in 2014... and not in Russia's favour. Crimea might have previously been "accepted", but that was during a time when Ukraine was weak and isolated on the global stage. Now, the tides have turned, and Russia is a pariah in the international community. The number of countries siding with Ukraine has increased significantly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly still mention the DPR, LPR, and Crimea in the article, but they should not be in the main list or in the main map. They should be indicated in a separate section lower down in the page, and they should explicitly be described as disputed territories whose statuses as "Russian republics" are not recognised by most of the international community. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources do not support their inclusion, so we do not include them. There is a strong case for saying the same about Crimea, even though its status is different. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters: Russia's Federation Council ratifies annexation of four Ukrainian regions

Washington Post: Russia celebrates Crimea annexation while Ukraine looks to West for support

Reliable secondary sources that say Russia annexed the regions. That took two minutes to find. But regardless of that, this article is about republics as defined by the Russian constitution. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not support the content you added. Do not add unsourced content. No, this article is not about "as defined by the Russian constitution". It's about the subject the article title states it is. If you want to start an article about another subject then do so and see how long it lasts at AFD. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No, this article is not about 'as defined by the Russian constitution'."

Literally the first sentence of the article is "According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics". So yes, it absolutely is about definition under the Russian constitution. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What someone put in the first sentence does not define what the article is about. The subject is the article title: Republics of Russia i.e. republics that reliable sources state are part of Russia. The sources used are reliable secondary sources. Just because the Russian government makes a claim about something does not make it a fact. If you fail to understand the distinction this may not be the website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first sentence of an article does tend to define what it is about. Eduardog3000 has cited a number of reliable sources that Russia claims these territories are Republics. That Russia makes that claim is itself a fact and we shouldn't seek to hide that. At the same time, we can and should make clear that what the Russian government claims and what the international community accepts are different things. The npov way to deal with this issue is to provide further information, not to suppress it. As I've noted below, this is WP's practice in a wide range of over situations around the world. Many of these claims are similarly heated, similarly divorced from the reality on the ground, and some are similarly illegal. Furius (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we should not seek to "hide that" the Russian government has claimed these territories. No-one has sought to do so. We include an entire section in the article – Status of southeast Ukraine – that discusses precisely this issue. The infobox and any tables represent facts i.e. what is established by secondary reliable sources. We do not represent claims by the Russian government, Putin, or supine Russian lawmakers as facts, because they are not reliable sources for any facts, they are only reliable sources for their own point of view. This is not about what the international community says - though that should be included, as you say - it is about what secondary reliable sources say. Secondary reliable sources do not support the Ukrainian republics as a part of Russia. Therefore Wikipedia does not represent them as a part of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The facts being represented in this article are the facts of Russian law, not facts of international recognition or even territorial control. Russian law says they are republics and reliable secondary sources have reported such. eduardog3000 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you inserted do not say they are Russian republics. Either you haven't read the content, failed to understand it, or are lying about its content. They do say Russian president signed laws admitting them into Russia. This article is not merely about the facts of Russian law. It's about republics that part of Russia. The unsourced, unsupportable content you added does not fit with the subject of the article as a fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source I gave in my edit note did: "Al Jazeera: This month, the Russian president also signed laws admitting the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics..."

And this article is absolutely about facts of Russian law, because "Republics of Russia" is a creation of Russian law. "Republics" here means the legal status given to federal subjects by Russia. The DPR and LPR were given such legal status, so they belong. Your "republics that are part of Russia" is a misunderstanding of the nature of this article.

But even then, the DPR and LPR are republics, and they are part of Russia. Donetsk oblast and Luhansk oblast might not be part of Russia according to Ukrainian or international law, but the entities of the DPR and LPR are absolutely part of Russia. We're talking about legal entities here, not land. eduardog3000 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeera says the Russian president signed laws admitting the (already existing since 2014) Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. It does not say they are Republics of Russia, which is the subject of this article. Therefore, at the most basic level, you are adding unsourced material which is original research.

This article is written from a neutral point of view. It does not ignore secondary reliable sources and preference the view of the Russian government because you want it to. I've misunderstood nothing about the nature of this article. You do not understand how Wikipedia is written, and I recommend you read its policies and guidelines.

We are not only talking about legal entities. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a fucking map at the top of the page would there.

Russian law does not apply on the territory of Ukraine. Territorial disputes are governed by international law, not by Russian law. Under international law, and in reliable secondary sources, these regions are not Republics of Russia, because they are not in Russia. The Russian government claims they are, and that they are therefore Republics of Russia. The Russian government is wrong on this point, and reliable sources agree on this. The sources you posted say "Kremlin/Putin signed a law that says...." or "Russia has claimed..." No-one disputes that they said this or claimed this. That does not make it a fact. This article is not merely a repetition of Russian claims: that would not be a neutral point of view. It would be absurd and we would never do that. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map is a reflection of the (claimed) territories of the legal entities, as evidenced by it including claimed land that Russia does not control. The article itself is about the legal entities as again "Republic of Russia" is a creation of Russian law. This page is not about internationally recognized borders, it's about borders as defined by Russia, and my edits are in line with other related pages such as Donetsk People's Republic. eduardog3000 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page is decided by reliable secondary sources. It is not a collection of Russian laws. You might wish it to be about borders as defined by Russia. But it isn't. Secondary reliable sources do not support your proposed addition. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one wishing. This page has included Crimea for the past 8 years, so not only is it logically about Russian law, it has also been accepted as so by 8 years worth of editors, making it the consensus. And again, the literal first sentence of the article, the one that on most pages defines what the article is about, says: According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics. It couldn't be more clear that this page is about the status of Republic as defined by Russian law without literally saying "This page is about...". eduardog3000 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You already made this argument above. It remains as fatuous as it was the first time. Your argument amounts to, in essence: "Because of how an editor worded the opening sentence, we should ignore WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:NOR and present Russian government claims as fact." We're not going to do that. Read the linked policies for a detailed explanation of why. The Status of southeast Ukraine is covered in the article. The purpose of the infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. It is not to POV-push the view of the Russian government. It remains a fact, which unlike your proposal is supported by reliable secondary sources, that these regions are in Ukraine and are therefore not republics of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not presenting Russian claims as fact, we're presenting the fact that Russia makes those claims. And we're also rightfully including notes that said claims are disputed. "Russia considers this one of their republics" is an NPOV fact, and is used as such in many other articles on this site, including Russia, Donetsk People's Republic, and Federal subjects of Russia.

The purpose of the infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article

What? The article literally includes the DPR and LPR, as it does Crimea. My edits to the infobox don't supplant anything. They summarize the table. eduardog3000 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any consensus that the first sentence of the article defines the scope of the article. The scope of the article is defined by its contents, or otherwise by some kind of discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed edit is not presenting the fact that Russia makes those claims. You sought to situate those claims amongst other regions that are supported by reliable secondary sources as a republic of Russia. You are incorrect that your proposed edit is not presenting Russian claims as fact. The infobox is a box that presents quick-reference facts, and you have proposed adding two regions as Republics of Russia. Your edit does not separate off these regions into a separate section about "claims made by the Russian government" but presents them alongside other areas which are accepted by reliable secondary sources as Republics of Russia. Adding an efn template does nothing to mitigate that. Adding a section about "claims made by the Russian government" is not appropriate to an infobox. The other articles you refer to do not include these claims in the infobox, but regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-style arguments do not carry weight. The list is also incorrect and I've removed the sections that are not supported by reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made them italic to indicate disputed status and included the note saying as much. This is the same as Crimea, which I remind you has been there for 8 years and is in the same situation as the DPR and LPR yet you haven't even attempted to remove it. My edit is stating the fact that Russia makes those claims as again, the whole article is about what political entities Russia calls "republic".

And sure, we can put them (and Crimea) in a separate section right below. I was just following the format that was already in place for Crimea.

You removed the DPR and LPR from the table, but not Crimea. Why is that?

Also, your edits are going against most other related articles as I noted above. Federal subjects of Russia lists the disputed territories at the end of the table with a note on their dispute. We can do that too.

I'm not trying to sneak them in so people think they're the exact same as other Russian republics. In fact it would be inaccurate to do that. But it's also inaccurate to not include them at all. eduardog3000 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing, how's this? (the format, the wording can be changed to whatever) eduardog3000 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the whole article is not about what political entities Russia calls "republic". Continually repeating that inaccurate, unsupported, and contrary to Wikipedia content policy claim will not make it so.

The article is about entities that the Russian government calls a Republic and that reliable sources have accepted and stated are Russian Republics. Russia has decided and stated in the past that Sakha etc are Republics. In those cases, reliable sources have accepted those claims and reported them as fact. This latter criterion is why they are included. The reason they are included is not that Russia said they are Russian Republics (but Russia did say this of them). They are included because reliable sources reported that they are Russian Republics.

The latter has not occurred in these cases, so you do not have a reliable source leg to stand on. It is right to include mention of Russia’s claim. It is already mentioned in the article with proper inline attribution.

A single sentence at the beginning of the article does not make the entire article a series of Russian viewpoints about their real or imagined entities. Like all Wikipedia articles, it relies on reliable secondary sources.

The infobox is for facts. Reliable secondary sources determine these. We do not include your proposed additions for the same reason we do not include Abkhazia or Transnistria. Some leaders of those regions have claimed in the past that they are part of Russia as a republic. We do not include their claims in the infobox, because it is for facts. The Russian leaders are not special here, even on this article. What matters is what reliable sources say are the facts. No, "it’s a fact that they expressed their opinion" is not a valid argument that it is a relevant piece of information for the infobox.

Until and unless you have reliable secondary sources that indicate these as Russian Republics, there is little to discuss. No such sources exist.

p.s. saw your proposal after I had written this. I only reiterate that the views expressed by the Russian government are not more appropriate to the infobox than claims by the leaders of Abkhazia, Artsakh, or Transnistria. All these should be covered in the article, and they are. They are not infobox material, given their complex political situation and the total lack of RS stating they are a Russian Republic. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continually repeating that inaccurate, unsupported, and contrary to Wikipedia content policy claim will not make it so. Because you're the one repeating the inaccuracy.

Look at Districts of Israel, it lists Golan Heights (as a sub-district) and the West Bank ("Judea and Samaria Area") despite neither having international recognition. It even has a note about it

The figures in this article are based on numbers from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics and so include all places under Israeli civilian rule including those Israeli-occupied territories where this is the case. Therefore, the Golan sub-district and its four natural regions are included in the number of sub-districts and natural regions even though it is not recognized by the United Nations or the international community as Israeli territory.

By your standards here those shouldn't be listed. Try to remove those and see how it goes. eduardog3000 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @ProjectHorizons as they are the one that initially added them to the table and started this thread, and most importantly they have been an active contributor to this page for years. eduardog3000 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add two things. First, some users on this discussion are claiming that Crimea was not accepted. This is misleading as very few people challenged Crimea's inclusion to this article and other relevant ones for years on a large scale, making it de facto accepted. Second, I started this discussion well in advance of the annexations and nobody bothered to engage until after the fact. A consensus could have been reached before this whole fiasco began.

I agree with some users that it should be added as disputed territory. I even made that clear in my initial comment. Like it or not that is the reality on the ground. As for the insistence that sources are absolutely necessary then fine, so be it. But common sense dictates they'd be republics. I mean, they have "republic" in their names. I tried looking for sources on the matter and found one in Russian regarding Luhansk. [1]. But I'm sure Cambial Yellowing will insist it is not a good source or something. ProjectHorizons (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the requirement on Wikipedia for reliable secondary sources. You link to the website of the Russian puppet government forces (see 1, 2). The mind boggles. No, the website of a party to the conflict is not a secondary reliable source, and you need to familiarise yourself with the policies on what constitutes a reliable source. If you fail to understand why that is not reliable Wikipedia may not be the website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a republic? --> OneRepublic.

Just because something has "republic" in its legal name, that doesn't make it a republic in reality. Just like how North Korea -- officially the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" -- isn't democratic in the slightest. Or how the "People's Republic of China" is only for some people and not others (looking at you, Uyghurs and Tibetans). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProjectHorizons - I think you and I have very different ideas of the "reality on the ground". The DPR/LPR are not republics just because they and Russia say so. At the moment, they are lawless areas under military occupation in the midst of an ongoing war. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardog3000, there is no reason, and I have no intention of, looking at a different article about a different region of the world. Your argument rests on the obviously and trivially specious idea that all territorial conflicts are the same and should be treated the same. They are not the same. Reliable sources do not pretend they are the same. So they are treated differently. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All editors agree that reliable sources support the following facts:

1. Russia claims the territories as republics (and other federal subjects)
2. The vast majority of the international community does not recognise Russia's claims and considers these territories part of Ukraine.

The disagreement is about how the article should present that information and specifically about whether it should be included in tables and on that question, I think the discussion has reached an impasse. This is an issue that a lot of editors are likely to have opinions on (going by recent deletion discussions), but so far we've heard from only five (and largely from two), so I think the way forward it to have an actual RfC, dealing with this page, Federal subjects of Russia, and oblasts of Russia, with clearly defined options. As I understand it, the possibilities are:

1. Include the claimed republics in the table with notes indicating that the Russian claim is not recognised by the international community (on the model of the current version of Federal subjects of Russia) OR
2. Exclude the claimed republics from the table and infoboxen altogether.
3. (no one is proposing to include them without notes and no one is proposing to exclude mention of the claims from the article text, so I exclude those permutations from consideration)

Are there any other options that should be considered in this RfC? Have I misrepresented the possibilities? If not, I'll set about opening a proper RfC tomorrow. Furius (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought, but this topic about Ukraine's potential recognition of Chechnya as a sovereign state (has not been finalised yet) came up recently. If Zelenskyy actually signs and ratifies this bill, then this will be a glorious taste-of-your-own medicine trolling by Ukraine against Russia. You get what you give. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moral of the story; you can't just "recognise" a piece of another country as an independent state -- and worse, annex it shortly afterwards -- without repercussions. Who is to stop other countries from recognising parts of Russia as independent states and breaking them away? Dagestan, Yakutia, Ingushetia, Tuva. So many good options to choose from. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do take note that Ukraine has already recognised the Southern Kurils as a part of Japan, so this is already a major blow to Russia's territorial integrity. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius - We definitely should not include the DPR, LPR, and Crimea in the table of Russian republics. If you think that we should, then if Ukraine actually recognises Chechnya, we need to add that country to the table in the article "List of sovereign states". Bear in mind that certain editors were adamant about adding Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast to that article after Russia recognised them as independent countries for one day before annexing them (September 30, 2022). If Ukraine recognises Chechnya, I don't see how that would be any different? According to that article and this one -- "List of states with limited recognition", the bare minimum requirement for a country to be listed in either of those articles is being recognised by at least one UN member state. Given that Ukraine is a UN member state, Ukraine can literally recognise anything as a country (it doesn't even have to possess land or a government) and it would qualify for inclusion in either of those lists. The power is unlimited and the possibilities are endless. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, User:Jargo Nautilus; I'll consider it in more detail once I've opened the RfC. User:Cambial Yellowing, I see that you've reverted your comments, but I think you're right that it is better to limit the scope to just this article. Furius (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign states are defined by international law and recognition. Russian Republics are defined solely by Russian law. That means the standards for List of sovereign states and this article are different.

But sure, you can include the Chechen Republic next to Abkhazia and Artsakh, though there should be a note that the country exists entirely as a government-in-exile. eduardog3000 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be included as disputed territories, with the appropriate notes on the difference between Russian claims and reality. This is what is done with other claims around the world, e.g. Subdivisions of Cyprus, Somalia, N + S Korea subdivisions, as well as Taiwan as an administrative division of the PRC and the Chilean claim to Antarctic. Furius (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. Panam2014 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the table and infobox in this article include Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic (with notes indicating that the Russian claim to these territories is not recognised by the international community, on the model of the current version of Federal subjects of Russia = [2]) OR exclude the claimed republics from the table and infobox ?

Editors are asked to make clear their opinion on both the table and the infobox. Furius (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I checked the China and Administrative divisions of China articles since the situations of Taiwan and the Line of Actual Control would appear to be relevant here. All the relevant maps on those pages note China's uncontrolled claims in secondary colors, so it seems to me we need a new image for this article. RAN1 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial disputes, and their description in reliable sources, are not all the same. Each case is different, and we do not use the same formatting or presentation for entirely different circumstances. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We must remove Crimea or add the 4 regions. Panam2014 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian and Western views on this are both reliably-sourced, we can and should represent both. RAN1 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Representing both views uncritically is an instance of bothesideism. Russia's claims should be mentioned somewhere, but they shouldn't be given prime real-estate in the main info-box. They should be hidden in a less conspicuous section of the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference from the Chinese example is Russia actually controls these regions, in part or in whole; this cannot be said about Taiwan. The lead of the article implies there are 89 federal subjects in Russia, which would include the 6 annexed ones (the 4 newly annexed regions + Crimea + Sevastopol); and furthermore Russia's constitution claims 89 regions. I think its fair to note that the status's are disputed, all RS say this, but not mentioning the regions at all ignores the real life situation. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  00:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally no-one has suggested not mentioning the regions at all. The article has a section devoted to them, and that section is summarised in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The real life situation is that the majority of the world's countries have condemned Russia's actions as blatantly violating international law in various United Nations resolutions.

- Crimea 2014 UN res

- UN SC 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine res

- Russian invasion UN res #1

- Russian invasion UN res #2

- Russian invasion UN res #3

- Russian annexation UN res #4 <-- 143/193 countries voted in favour of condemning Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territories, whereas only 5/193 countries (including Russia) voted against the condemnation.

This is the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that nearly the entire world stands with Ukraine, whereas Russia stands more alone than it ever has before. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference is both PR China and Taiwan ROC and the rest of the world agree that all of China is China: the dispute is who governs it. The proper disputed-territory maps of PRC and ROC are negatives of each other. But virtually the entire world says that the Kremlin’s partially occupied claims are part of Ukraine and not part of Russia. —Michael Z. 16:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The island of Taiwan possibly does not belong to the ROC (let alone the PRC) according to the "Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan". Many of the major world powers -- including Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom -- did not recognise the ROC's annexation of Taiwan post-WWII (Taiwan was previously a core region of the Empire of Japan), and the issue was swept under the rug following the Chinese Civil War. | EDIT: Hence, your comment "the rest of the world agree that all of China is China" is incorrect. The rivalry between the ROC & PRC and the Chinese annexation of Taiwan are two separate issues that should not be conflated. Only the PRC and the ROC (i.e. not the entire world) agree that all of China is China, and even then, only the Pan-Blue Coalition in the ROC supports this viewpoint, whereas the Pan-Green Coalition views Taiwan as a separate country from China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in info-box, Support with appropriate NPOV portrayal in table/list: Russia's claims to Donetsk (DPR), Kherson, Luhansk (LPR), and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts are only a few weeks old, whereas the other examples from other countries that have typically been cited as "WP:OTHERSTUFF" are all several years or oftentimes decades old. Even the dispute over Crimea (including Sevastopol) is several years old, which makes it more significant than the four newly-annexed territories. The DPR and LPR were nominally "breakaway states" for eight years (arguably Russian puppet states), but Russia never officially laid claims to Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts up until 30 September 2022 (and during preceding weeks). "WP:NOTNEWS" is relevant here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: See the lead for WP:NPOV. We have reliable sourcing for the Russian view, and representing it in the infobox of an article about Russia's government structure is fair and proportionate. We can easily show the Western view with secondary colors, inline links to war-related articles, and notes. RAN1 (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Russia's claims to Ukraine were declared much more recently than most other major territorial claims around the world, and the claims (occupations+annexations) are also clearly a violation of international law, which is more unclear in many of the other cases due to how old they are (often tracing back to before "international law" as we know it even existed). Russia had recognised Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts as parts of Ukraine for three decades prior to invading and "annexing" them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not have reliable sources that support the Russian POV. Having sources which are reliable for the Russian government's opinion is trivially true: we can use the Russian government’s website. But we do not have sources which state the Russian government’s opinion as a fact, and facts are what we include in the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We post what reliable sources say about topics, and most I've seen mention Russia's claims with caveat, so we can state something along the lines of widely unrecognized claims in [secondary color] and put in notes for context, preferably in-line, ref'd otherwise. RAN1 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We do state what reliable sources say. No reliable sources whatsoever say that the Luhansk and Donetsk regions are part of Russia. Zero. No editor has provided any reliable source. The infobox is not for a collection of opinions. If it were, per NPOV, we would need to include Chechnya in a different colour because the leaders of the Chechnyan independence movement say it is not part of Russia. And their opinion has been reported in RS. The infobox is not a space for collections of opinions. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding Chechnya, technically, we don't count the leaders of the separatist movement in Chechnya on their own since they are a government-in-exile rather than a de facto state. However, recently (a few days ago), Ukraine reportedly recognised the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as a sovereign state (under Russian occupation), which means that at least one UN member state currently disputes Russian sovereignty over Chechnya. Georgia also historically recognised the CR of Ichkeria (as did the Taliban government, which currently controls Afghanistan), although it's unclear whether Georgia still recognises it. Some editors over at the article "List of states with limited recognition" have disputed the notion that Ukraine has recognised the CR of Ichkeria as a sovereign state, suggesting that the recognition was only partial or symbolic. I personally believe that the recognition was fully legal in effect, although we are still waiting to collect more information and sources on the matter. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, interesting. I would only add that on WP we do not privilege the opinions of governments or their leaders over others. Being in government does does not give them a special place as a point of view. We simply go by reliable sources, and WP:RSOPINION. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that a consensus has been established to draw a distinction between state-to-state disputes and disputes by separatist movements that don't control territory. If no distinction were to be drawn, the list of entities that have a disputed status would be nearly endless. State-to-state disputes are regarded as being more significant on Wikipedia since these disputes can actually result in real-world territorial changes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Infoboxes are just as subject to NPOV as the rest of the article. As for the Chechnya case, it hasn't seen anything like the UNGA resolution condemning the annexation. RAN1 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We've been over this. We aren't trying to say they are recognized parts of Russia. We are simply saying that Russia claims them, which reliable sources do indeed say. In the same way the map is presented on the page Russia. eduardog3000 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion in the table and infobox, with clear indications that the Russian claims are widely disputed (using the model of Federal subjects of Russia = [3], where the disputed territories are marked off in a separate section, with different formatting (that article uses italics), with a clear note that most international observers consider them part of Ukraine. In the infobox, this might include depiction in the map with cross-hatching (as in Federal Republics) and the separating out of the names (at the end of the list, in brackets and/or in italcs). The indications need not be exactly these, but should be at least as clear.

It's important that WP not appear to endorse the Russian claims and I understand the point raised by some that the tables and infobox might appear to present the claims as an objective fact, but I think the precautions outlined here would make it explicit even to a casual reader that the territories are not really or legally part of Russia. It remains useful to have the information on the Russian claims about official names, capitals, languages, flags, and borders tabulated, to help readers interpret accounts of the war and of the Russian constitution.

In the discussion of WP:RS in the preceding discussion, editors have tended to talk past each other, so to be clear: I don't think sources that the regions 'actually are' part of Russia or that the regions 'are widely recognised as part of Russia' etc are required, because I don't think the article will be saying that they are (nor do I think it should). There are many reliable sources for the fact that Russia claims the territories as Republics and all I want the table to do is to indicate the details of the Russian claims. In this respect, the degree of actual control, mentioned by some above, seems irrelevant to me - if Russia claims Scotland or the Moon as Republics of Russia next week, I'd support their inclusion in this manner as well. Furius (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, in that article ("Federal subjects of Russia"), the info-box map is not good. It still looks like it is supporting Russia's claims (due to the bold colours and outlines), especially considering that it depicts the full borders of the oblasts/republics (despite the fact that all four of the newly-annexed oblasts are not fully under Russian control). With that being said, the table lower down in the article looks reasonably good to me, so it's just the info-box and the map that have problems. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree on the map (it is hard to make the hatching clear, given how small the territories end up being beside the rest of the map), but I think working out how to display their status in a clear manner is a secondary issue to whether or not to display it at all. Furius (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, or show with distinctive NPOV visual treatment  It must be clear that these are not regular republics. In the infobox, add a separate list for the three claimed “republics of Russia” in Ukraine, perhaps labelled A, B, C, and give them distinctive visual treatment, showing the international borders of Russia and other states as bold, with the disputed republics indicated with diagonal stripes (the current map showing Crimea as part of Russia violates WP:NPOV). In the list, add a subhead row at the bottom for claimed “republics of Russia” in Ukraine, include maps with their locations in Ukraine filled with stripes and outlined with dashes. —Michael Z. 16:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the map has been changed out now. —Michael Z. 17:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that the map should show them as disputed. Other than that, every textual inclusion or attempted inclusion of Crimea, DPR, and LPR has made it clear that they are disputed. Your proposal sounds in line with the one I mocked up here (text only, the map still needs changing). eduardog3000 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, too recent per WP:RECENTISM. With hotly-disputed territorial claims like this we should wait until the dust settles a bit, or at least until there's sufficient secondary sourcing indicating how they're being treated elsewhere, before putting them in general lists like these. And on top of that, what secondary sourcing does exist is giving Russia's claims here far less diffidence than the other examples you mentioned - it's being treated essentially as a tactical maneuver in the war rather than a serious territorial claim. --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in infobox; and Oppose in list. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is crystal clear: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Users agree that no reliable sources state that Donetsk and Luhansk are republics of Russia (the only exception is one user who advocated for inclusion suggested this as a RS. It is the website of the Russian puppet government in the region^[1][2])

The infobox is for key facts. The inclusion of the various opinions and claims and counterclaims of interested parties in the ongoing territorial dispute is not appropriate. Those regions that are stated by reliable sources to be republics of Russia are included. The opinions of the Kremlin are not to be privileged and elevated to the quick-reference key facts part of the page. The only logical reason for doing so would be pro-Kremlin bias, which does not maintain NPOV.

Sortable lists present a problem in that any separate section into which disputed areas are placed will disappear whenever the list is sorted by, say, population or area. There is already a short list of claimed or pseudo-republics in the section titled "Attempted Republics", and the regions of Ukraine can be added to the shorter list there. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made some good points about the info-box. The DPR, LPR, and Crimea should not be included in the info-box for the reasons you mentioned, especially "facts". However, they can be mentioned lower down in the article, either as a subsection of the main list or as an entirely separate list (i.e. "disputed republics of Russia"). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in infobox; and Oppose in list. Premature and we don't want to look like we are legitimising Putin's puppet states. If the situation is unchanged in say 2025 we can have another look at it. John (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good point. A lot of editors who have been involved with reporting on the Russian annexations on Wikipedia seem to have been very enthusiastic on reporting about every tiny detail at the exact moment that it occurs. For example, several users were adamant about adding Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast to the article "list of sovereign states" after Russia recognised them on 29 September 2022, even though Russia immediately annexed them the next day. Meanwhile, other editors have been adamant to closely monitor the Kremlin's official decrees, even arguing that the annexation didn't actually occur on 30 September 2022 but instead on 5 October 2022, which is when Vladimir Putin ratified the agreements that had been outlined earlier (note: reliable secondary sources typically say that 30 Sep is the exact date of annexation, so that is the date that I myself personally recognise, and I consider the 5 Oct date to be semantics and also a part of the Russian propaganda/narrative). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support including per reasons given by other in this RfC as well as my own discussion in a previous section of this page. I have previously made a mock up of how I think the information should be presented. Clearly showing that the regions are disputed. eduardog3000 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with RAN1's arguments. Since for the Russian Federation they are Russian Republics, there is no reason not to include them in the Infobox. However, we should also make it clear (using colours, adding a separate list or explanatory notes) that the status of these territories is controversial. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the member states of a federation are determined by the federal constitution, not by international law or international consensus, as the article itself makes clear from the opening sentence: According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That clause in the introduction might have been added specifically for the purpose of supporting Russia's claims to Crimea and other territories, rather than the other way around. The sentence could have originally read "The Russian Federation is divided into 83 federal subjects." | EDIT: Well, I was correct, I guess. --> Republics of Russia (April 24, 2013): "The Russian Federation is divided into 83 federal subjects (constituent units), 21 of which are republics." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  it's more likely that that clause was added to relativize Russia's claim to Crimea etc. In fact it is obvious that the constitutive elements of a federation are determined by the federal constitution rather than international law or international consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  [4] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Re this particular edit, I'd like to note, that concept of 85 (then) regions in the "de facto membership of Russia" is not something very hard to find in RS. Seryo93 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've encountered the user who made that edit once before. The only time I've ever interacted with him, I caught him blatantly lying about some simple information. It was such a plain lie that I wasn't sure whether he was intentionally lying or not, so I had to ask him to confirm. It ended up being confirmed that he was gaslighting me and other editors on purpose. Indeed, even he himself knew that he was lying and yet continued to lie. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please @Jargo Nautilus avoid personal attacks on the talk page. If you have any quarrels with the author of that edit (that is, @Seryo93) you can discuss on their user talk page or bring them to WP:AN/I, but casting aspersion is against policy (WP:NPOV and WP:CIV). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not only is it in fact not "obvious", it's directly contrary to reality and to site-wide community consensus. What gets described here as the constitutive elements of anything whatsoever is what is stated in reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation? RSs saying that the territory of Crimea and Donbas is not internationally recognised as a part of Russia are irrelevant: they're speaking of something different. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not start from a position of assuming that any nonsense claimed by the tyrant of an aggressor state is true until RS state otherwise. There are probably no sources that state the sky is not green, but we'll not state it is green because no reliable sources say it is. Content must be reliably sourced. That's the be-all and end-all of this website. If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) Could you please stop with the "this may not be the website for you." I don't think you intend it to, but it comes across as rude and patronising.

  (2) The question of sourcing is something of a red herring, since there are plenty of reliable sources that Russia claims that the territories are constituent republics and no one is seeking to claim that "they really are" (fwiw, as an aside, I think the general position in international law is that the LPR and DPR do not legally exist at all.).

  (3) So the real issue is the npov one. Excluding the Republics from the table altogether (rather than adding them with appropriate qualifying statements) seems to me also a violation of NPOV. One could argue that inclusion is WP:UNDUE, but I think it is difficult to claim that the viewpoint of a sovereign state (even an aggressive one ruled by a tyrant) on what its administrative subdivisions are is not "a significant minority viewpoint" under that policy. Putin, the Russian state, Russian legal scholars that have claimed the DPR and LPR are federal subjects of the Russian federation are clearly "prominent adherents" under that policy. Furius (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've stated in one of my other replies, Gitz's logic regarding sourcing is a bit nonsensical. You need sources to prove something exists, rather than sources to prove something doesn't exist. That should be obvious from a logical perspective. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a clear distinction between saying "Russia claims these territories of Ukraine" versus "These territories of Ukraine are a part of Russia; look, it's in the info-box and it's on the map". We need to avoid any kind of format wherein it would appear that Wikipedia is actively endorsing Russia's viewpoints. If it comes to the point that Wikipedia actually ends up endorsing some of Russia's criminal actions, then I will boycott this website. By the way, I currently subscribe to this website and pay a small amount regularly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've had the same sort of argument with religious people, and it always boils down to this... The burden of proof always lies on the person claiming something exists, rather than on the person claiming the same thing doesn't exist. If Russia claims that some federal subjects exist, then the burden of proof is on Russia to demonstrate that they definitively exist, not on the rest of the world to demonstrate that they don't exist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This information isn't "obvious". A lot of politics in general is not obvious. From a layman's (ordinary person's) perspective, it's more important what the de facto situation of geopolitics is, not the de jure situation. Politics is just words, whereas the reality can be objectively observed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand how the de iure/de facto distinction might be helpful here. If by any chance you wanted to entry Crimea right now, from whom would you ask permission (i.e. apply for a visa)? "De facto" Crimea and certain areas of Donbas are under Russian control now. The question, however, is "de iure": which and how many "republics" are subjects of the Russian Federation? This is a question of Russian constitutional law. Obviously the article should also say that the international community doesn't generally accept Russian's claims to Ukrainian territory - it upholds Ukraine's territorial integrity. But in the opening sentence we are providing an information about Russian constitutional law (although Cambial Yellowing thinks differently: [5]): "the Russian Federation is made of N members" (republics, territories, regions, cities, etc.). It's not difficult, there's plenty of reliable sources on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Crimea is de facto under Russian control.

  2. Crimea is de jure recognised by the international community as a part of Ukraine.

  Is this not clear enough? The reality of the situation is on Russia's side, but the law certainly isn't. What you are trying to do here is to make both the law and the reality on Russia's side, by pushing Russia's legal interpretation of the situation as the definitive fact. Nobody here denies that Russia controls Crimea; that is plain as day. But there is a lot of opposition to the idea that Russia's control of Crimea is legitimate and justified, and rightfully so. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note the distinction between international law and constitutional law. Take for example the opening sentence of List of states and territories of the United States. Does the sentence "under international law, the United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states" makes sense to you? No, it's false: international law doesn't regulate this matter. What about "according to international consensus, the USA is a federal republic consisting of 50 states"? This sounds almost equally weird. However, "Under U.S. constitutional law, the USA is a federal republic consisting of 50 states" makes perfect sense. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've pointed out below, Russia's constitutional law is meaningless because it can be amended to show whatever Putin wants whenever he feels like it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As for Russia's constitution, the fact that it can be amended at a moment's notice kind of invalidates its sacrosanctity, don't you think? Indeed, according to Russia's original constitution, Russia only had 83 federal subjects. The constitution currently says that Russia has 89 federal subjects because it was amended in 2014 and in 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been asked to provide sources on the point under discussion: should the Infobox include the same contents as the article, i.e. According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics, or should it rather include different, more agreeable contents? In particular, I have been asked to provide sources to support the claim that, according to Russian constitutional law, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are federal subject of the Russian Federation. So here are some sources on the subject: Aljazeera (Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed four federal constitutional laws on the entry of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions into the Russian Federation), Ukrainska Pravda (Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed "the laws on acceptance" into the Russian Federation of the occupied territories of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts, ABC (Russia's President Vladimir Putin has signed laws absorbing four Ukrainian regions into Russia, a move that finalises the annexation carried out in defiance of international law); Article 65 of the Russian constitution (listing the Republic of Crimea); the website of the Russian government (listing the Republic of Crimea, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitz6666 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The polities in question exist as Russian republics under Russian law, to not include them would great an NPOV issue for the article. All such disputed political subdivisions are included in tables of similar states, for examples see Pakistan and India which reference the Kashmiri polities they control.XavierGreen (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference between Kashmir and eastern Ukraine is that the former region has been officially disputed between India and Pakistan ever since both countries were established in their modern forms (1940-1950), whereas Russia officially recognised eastern Ukraine and Crimea as belonging to Ukraine up until only a few years ago. Russia may have held expansionist views towards these territories on an unofficial basis beforehand, but they weren't codified into law until recently (2022 for the DPR and LPR, even though Russia has supported them as puppet states since 2014). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These are not regular republics. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for completeness, at least in the table. Of course they should be clearly marked with an asterisk, parenthetical, and/or different shading to reflect their lack of international recognition. As for the infobox – it's possible the list in the infobox should be removed. An infobox is intended for key facts (as User:Cambial Yellowing notes above), and the dispute about which republics are legitimate may be too complex for the infobox to cover adequately and neutrally. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. By design and purpose, an infobox is excellent for listing terse, simple, unambiguous information, and correspondingly very poor for anything else. A long, nuanced discussion with multiple points of facts and examples about whether a subject belongs in an infobox is the surest sign I know of that it doesn't belong there. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But isn't it weird that the article begins with According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics while the infobox lists only 21 republics? How is this a simple and unambiguous way of providing information? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is weird that the article starts that way, completely inappropriate, and problematic that an editor changed it from the earlier neutral opening. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text of any article can, of course, fully state any subtle complex information that doesn't work in an infobox. A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:A D Monroe III, does your opinion here apply also to the table? Furius (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Info listed in a table typically shares the same strengths and weaknesses of an infobox -- appearing to be simple black-and-white facts instead of some complex mixes of shades of gray. I think there might be ways the table could handle this, but without a specific proposal of how this might be done, I'd have to oppose that as well. Maybe a short paragraph immediately after the table? A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I had in mind the way this is done on Federal subjects of Russia (which bizarrely has been totally uncontroversial while this page is mired in controversy), where the "annexed" subdivisions are in a separate section of the table, written in italics, and there are notes explaining the disputed status. Furius (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support of course. Russia claims these as their republics and there is no valid reason to exclude them. Most countries don't recognize these claims as valid, but that doesn't mean these claims don't exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Best to wait until the invasion is over. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's no way to show the information in an unambiguous way. The current inclusion of number (being 21-24) is how it should be done, but just listing them is wrong. I know using other examples is not a great argument, but if you look at the Israel article you'll see the map doesn't include the Golan Heights (the infobox gives varying sizes for the country because the annexation isn't accepted by most countries). Russia can makeup anything it likes and say it's true, but we shouldn't be showing that as if it was accepted fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that using other examples is actually a good approach, as it makes the issue less contentious and more objective. However, I'm not sure that the case of the Status of the Golan Heights is similar because, as far as I understand it, Israel is not claiming sovereignty over that area: it is an occupied territory controlled by Israel, but it's not part of Israel's territory according to the Israeli authorities. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Although Israel didn't use the word annexation in the 1981 Golan Heights Law, the effect was that the Golan Heights are treated under Israeli law as being part of Israel. Either way how it's handled in the Israel article is the situation here should be handled. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet I read that the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled in 2017 that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation", and that successive Israeli governments have used the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank. The Golan Heights might perhaps be a different case because the US recognised them as Israeli sovereign territory, which seems to imply that also Israeli regards them in that way - as an annexed region, that forms part of the national territory and of the Northern District (Israel) in particular. If so, Golan Height might actually be comparable with Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, the main difference being that this article is not dealing with external borders (which are determined by international law) but with the internal organisation of a federation (which is determined by its constitutional law). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I don't understand, of course this is an international border issue. Russia asserts that it's international border had changed to include these areas, so it is exactly the same as the Golan Heights issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand this RfC differently. This is an article about "Republics of Russia". Republics of Russia are an internal division of the Russian Federation: they are "federal subjects" together with krais, oblasts, cities of federal importance, etc.; they are basically an internal administrative division, as the lead of the article makes clear. So it's not a matter of international law to determine how many and which republics are part of Russia. We are just describing national constitutional law here, like we do, for instance, in U.S. state, States of Germany, Regions of Italy, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But the issue is that these are not internal districts of Russia, they are areas international recognised as being part of Ukraine. The idea that can be separated from that because of what Russia law dictates is just wrong. Take a look at Template:Kosovo-note and the amount of articles it is transcluded to. Every article that makes mention of these republics has to clearly show their disputed nature, how Russia defines its internal divisions has nothing to do with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that Every article that makes mention of these republics has to clearly show their disputed nature and indeed I expressed the same notion in my !vote for "Support". Since you mention Kosovo, please note the article Districts of Serbia for comparison. Kosovo is included in the map and the infobox mentions the disputed nature of Kosovo. I don't understand why we shouldn't do the same on this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If we remove the list of replublics from the infobox, and get an updated image that clearly shows the areas as disputed (as per the Districts of Serbia article). I would agree to that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I have not the technical ability to prepare such an updated image, but I agree with you. However, I don't understand why you would remove the list of republics from the infobox - it looks quite informative and useful with all those wikilinks. Of course we could and should signal (e.g. using asterisks and similar signs) that Crimea, LPR and DPR are "something different" and explain that their territory is internationally regarded as part of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A list of republics in the infobox needs to be reliably sourced in the article body. There are no reliable sources supporting the notion of the three regions as Republics of Russia, so their inclusion in the infobox under that section would be unsupported and completely inappropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have provided RSs on this here (in a comment here above that for some reason I forgot to sign). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Gitz6666, you have not provided any RS that support it, in that comment or elsewhere. Kindly refrain from inaccurately claiming to have done so. Websites or news pages that say the Russian government has claimed something, is not the same as their stating it as a fact. In addition, I would have thought this would go without saying, but Pravda is not a reliable source on this issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pravda is a reliable source on this issue. It is Ukrainska Pravda, as I wrote, and we quote it all the time. Plus I quoted ABC, Al Jazeera, etc., all explaining that the two republics LPR and DPR have entered the Federation according to the Russian "laws on acceptance". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, so I read the Ukrainska Pravda article. Like all the others, it says the notion of these as Republics of Russia is only a claim by the Russian government; something that is as reported by Russian propagandists. It says this multiple times. An article saying "X thinks Y is true" is not the same as an article that says "Y is true". It's a crucial distinction. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is the list of replublics. Remove it and leave the list in article text where the status of the areas of Ukraine claimed by Russia can be covered correctly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no strong views on this. However, I suspect that many editors would object to having a map showing the 3 contested republics (albeit marked by a different colour) as parts of the Russian Federation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The point of the map would be to show Russia claims the territories, that's not a disputed claim. What's disputed is that they are part of the Russian federation, and the article should make sure it doesn't imply that. As to other editors in general it's always best to cling to WP:AGF. It's OK for us to disagree (even vehemently) but I stick to the idea that those who disagree with me are here to improve the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not doubt their good faith but I am quite sure of what I said: they would object (in good faith) to having a map showing that Russia claims those territories as its own republics. Am I wrong Cambial Yellowing? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not just describing national constitutional law in this article. This is not an article that is about a set of legal constructs, but about actual geographical areas and their inhabitants and governance. ActivelyDisinterested is correct in stating that how Russia defines its internal divisions has nothing to do with it - it's how reliable sources define Russia's internal divisions that is the relevant topic. Theoretically, one could create an article about "Constitutional definitions of Russia's internal administrative divisions", but such an article would not attain sufficient notability for inclusion. This article is about the actual, reliably reported Republics, not those believed to exist only by the aggressor state's government. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid you're wrong: "Republic" is not a geographical concept, and "Republics of Russia" are not, as you think, geographical areas. Please, read the article: is it about geographical areas and their inhabitants, as you claim? No, it's entirely about political entities or administrative unites - exactly like U.S. state, States of Germany, Regions of Italy, etc. In that respect, it is identical to Krais of Russia, Oblasts of Russia, Federal cities of Russia, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Autonomous okrugs of Russia, which all form part of the main article Federal subjects of Russia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is you who is wrong; you have unfortunately neglected to examine the facts in reliable sources and the article content. The political entities cover geographical areas - land area, exactly like the articles to which you wikilink - and this is made clear, to those for whom is not already obvious, in the reliable sources cited (i.e.^[3]). They are constructed by political choice, but refer to the administration and governance of land area and its inhabitants. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "the current inclusion of number (being 21-24) is how it should be done," if you think that they should not be mentioned in the infobox or table at all. Furius (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The number field currently states:
  21 (excluding Crimea, Donetsk
  24 (including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk)
  This is the disambiguation that is needed, which wouldn't be possible if they are added to the list of republics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, this is the issue that I allude to above. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Discussions aren't helped when they are dominated by a small group of editors. Does anyone have any ideas of places we could notify to try and bring more editors to the discussion? I won't do so without other people's thoughts first, this is obviously to heated to be making unilateral invites.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I notified NPOVN a while back (I think it was before the start of the RFC). Not sure how many eyes it has brought to the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I notified the various wikiprojects named at the top of the talk page at the start of the discussion. I agree that it would be good to bring in more users (and perhaps it might be good for users like me, Cambial, Jargo, and Gitz, who have had our say, to take a step back for a bit). Perhaps it's worth taking this to the Village Pump (policy) page? NPOVN again would also be good. I also missed WikiProject Russian invasion of Ukraine, since I didn't know it existed. Furius (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Furius, I haven't commented in this discussion (not counting this comment) since November 1. I've already said most of what I wanted to say. Some parts of what I've already said have been deleted by me at the behest of another user. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambial Yellowing, you added this paragraph to the lead on 19 October, even mentioning scholarship which is irrelevant and not even mentioned in the body or sourced. Then you reverted all my changes to the page without any explanation.[6] I left a message on your talk page (I in fact did read your notice) because it was not just about article content, but you reverted this anyway. You then partially restored your wording[7] which makes it unnecessarily longer. But you restored this instead and I am not sure if you were trying to insinuate something in your edit summary here. Mellk (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The invasion and the annexation are separate events, by definition. So your suggestion of it being unnecessarily longer is incorrect. What is your point? It’s not clear from your comments what this section was opened to discuss. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about republics of Russia. Russia annexed Crimea and so claims Crimea (minus Sevastopol) as a republic. You tried to make it unnecessarily longer because instead we can simply say "Russia annexed Crimea", there is no good reason to remove "annex" and beat around the bush (while at the same time linking to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation). There is also no good reason to write unhelpful edit summaries. Mellk (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No-one tried to make it unnecessarily longer except in your fertile imagination. The annexation did not spring from nowhere and the context is, quite obviously, wholly relevant. I think Furius’ edit does a good job of incorporating both the invasion and the annexation. You complain about lack of edit summaries; now you complain about edit summaries. Are you merely seeking something to complain about? Again, what is the change in the article you want to discuss? Cambial — foliar❧ 00:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't simply add "invaded", you changed the language so that it was beating around the bush instead. And what "context"? Should Euromaidan, Yanukovych, the referendum, little green men, declaration of independence etc also be mentioned, is that wholly relevant? You also did not mention the 24 February 2022 invasion, is that "weird"? I created this section after you reverted me (again), since nearly all your edits in the past few days are a bunch of reverts, and after you reverted my comment on your talk page, so don't act surprised on why I created this section. Mellk (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's not wrong. Russia ostensibly did invade Crimea in order to annex it. Let's call a spade a spade. Russia invaded Crimea; that's undeniable. Whether Russia's invasion of Crimea was justified is another matter (I don't believe it was, but that's just my opinion). | EDIT: To argue that Russia did not invade Crimea would be to argue that Crimea was not previously a part of Ukraine prior to Russia's acquisition of it. According to the official Russian narrative, Crimea "declared itself independent" from Ukraine a few days before it was annexed by Russia, which according to Russia justifies the annexation as an expression of self-determination. The international community doesn't recognise the Crimean declaration of independence and views it as a political manoeuvre whose ultimate goal was to annex Crimea into Russia (and away from Ukraine). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether Russia invaded Crimea or not. And generally annexation refers to illegally seizing land by force. I just do not see an improvement in changing "Russia annexed Crimea" to "the Russian military invaded Crimea and the Russian government then claimed it as a Republic of Russia" (also removing "annexed"), and so on. It's unnecessarily long, especially when writing "the Russian military" and "the Russian government". The current version also implies that the whole of Crimea is the (Autonomous) Republic of Crimea. Mellk (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...annexation refers to illegally seizing land by force." - This is not true. Indeed, Wikipedia's article about "annexation" portrays the concept in such a way, but I think that article in particular contains original research, because that definition is relatively narrow. My own understanding of the word annexation is that it refers to both legal and illegal acquisitions of territory. For example, when one country cedes a piece of land to another via a treaty, I myself typically say that the other country has "annexed" the newly-ceded piece of land. I don't tend to make the distinction of "illegality".

It is true that there's not much of a distinction between Russia's invasion/occupation and annexation of Crimea due to the very short timeframe between these two events occurring. In the situation of the DPR and LPR, the window between these two events is much greater (over eight years), so the distinction is more important. With Crimea, Russia invaded it and then annexed it a few days later, so, in the context of an eight-year-long period of time, the annexation is significantly more important in the grand scheme of things. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See for example this article. Annexation and cession are different. For example "annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition". As such annexation is generally considered an illegal act[8] and is why the Kremlin does not like it when this label is used to refer to Crimea. Mellk (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't control the way that people speak. There's a difference between jargon and common language. The fact that I myself don't make the distinction between annexation and cession in common speech, which is the same for countless other people, means that the distinction primarily exists only in the jargonistic sense. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is anecdotal. Mellk (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not anecdotal. Ask any random person on the street (who speaks English) what the word "annexation" means. If they've even heard of that word before, they will probably think the same way that I do. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not say that the U.S. "annexed" Alaska from Russia. The distinction is clear. Mellk (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do say that the U.S. "annexed Alaska after Russia sold it to them". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the word "cession" is problematic as an alternative to "annexation" because it goes in the opposite direction from annexation. i.e. "Russia ceded Alaska to the U.S." vs. "U.S. annexed Alaska". I can't say "U.S. ceded Alaska"... I have to say "U.S. acquired Alaska when it was ceded".

One euphemism that I know for "annexation" is "incorporation". e.g. "The incorporation of Tibet into China" vs "The annexation of Tibet into China". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read any texts that refers to the Alaska Purchase as an annexation. Where "annexation" is used, for example the Britannica article says "some supported the decision as a step toward the annexation of Canada" and it is something similar in the WP article. Indeed Tibet was annexed by China and this was legitimized by recognition. Mellk (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you also cannot say "Russia annexed Alaska" instead of "Russia ceded Alaska"? I did not understand the point you were trying to make. Mellk (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the words "cede" and "annex" are simultaneously different in both political meaning and verbal meaning. They are opposites of one another, syntaxially. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the difference between "I give" and "I take". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so how does that mean that "annexed" is used instead? Mellk (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation is unilateral (so the US didn't annex Alaska). It is not necessarily done by force, but in practice almost always is - per the ref in the annexation article "Rothwell et al. 2014, p. 360: "Annexation is distinct from cession. Instead of a State seeking to relinquish territory, annexation occurs when the acquiring State asserts that it now holds the territory. Annexation will usually follow a military occupation of a territory..." Furius (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation is the act of a state absorbing new territory into itself. It does not have to be "unilateral", see for example the Texas annexationXavierGreen (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not all acts of absorbing new territory, because exchanges of territory between states by treaty (Alaska, Louisiana) aren't annexations. Furius (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are officially russian republics, russia controls that territory. I believe we are ignoring the facts by showing a map that does not include them, atleast mark them as disputed on the map 31.217.3.174 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored the talk page [9] as it was before Jorge Nautilus' attempts to delete and edit their comments as well as mine [10] [11] [12]. Contrary to what Cambial Yellowing is now accusing me of doing [13], I've never deleted any comments, but I've tried to collapse JN's soapboxing posts per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC here [14]. Following various explanations on JN's talk page [15] and mine [16], I assume that these attempts at deleting and editing their comments were made rather clumsily but in good faith by JN. It's up to them to decide whether they want to strike through their personal attack on Seryo93, and it's up to any uninvolved editor to decide whether JN's soapboxing comments need to be hidden under a collapsible template, as I've tried to do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally acceptable for an editor to amend their own comments to which there has not yet been a reply. So your editing of another editor's comments is not acceptable, and that warning – not an "accusation" as the fact that you edited another editor's comments is readily apparent from the page history – is entirely appropriate. I've reminded both you and Jargo to maintain adherence to WP:TPO in a contentious RFC. Please do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there had already been a reply to JN's comments; besides, it had already been three days since they had made them.

1. JM should not have deleted their comment at 23:44, 28 October 2022 [17] [18], as I had already replied at 21:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) (Please ... avoid personal attacks on the talk page);
2. JM should not have edited and removed their comments from 00:47, 29 October 2022 onwards [19] because it had already been three days (not a "short period") since JN had made them and I had already reacted to them by putting them in a collapsible box [20]. As per WP:TALK#REPLIED, you may continue to edit your comments for a short while to correct mistakes and So long as no one has yet responded.

As far as I understand, I did not edit another editor's comments, but I revered these edits by JN that were incompatible with WP:TALK#REPLIED. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate refactoring of another editor's comments in a RFC is not a reply to them. If you think another editor has changed their comments too long, in your opinion, after initially posting them, the thing to do is to message them on their talk page asking them to strike instead or add an edit note, and take it up at an appropriate conduct noticeboard if they refuse and you think it is that important. It is not to start breaching WP:TPO in the middle of a contentious RFC. It is not relevant that other parts may have been better left alone: revert only what is necessary, and request users amend their own edits rather than opting to change the text and meaning of other editor's comments. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing off-topic and soapboxing comments is already a reply to them, and it's also a pretty clear and conclusive reply. If comments in a collapsible box could be freely modified and removed by their author, the box would become absurd and the talk page would become messy. Your interpretation of wp:TALK#REPLIED doesn't look convincing to me: given that usually nobody replies to comments in a box, would their author be allowed to modify them and delete them so long as they wish? It's absurd. And to prevent this, what would be the point of requiring editors to write a formal reply ("hey, you're off-topic") before collapsing an off-topic discussion? The justification for collapsing can be expressed in the title of the box, and that's all the "reply" one needs to put an end to an off-topic discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently understand the difference between the collapse template and a reply. No-one is interested in pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy, and this is not the place for such a discussion (I only replied here because you insisted on continuing here). "Because you think you're right" is not one of the exceptions to WP:TPO. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only agree that this is not the place for such a discussion, so I will now reply on your talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm breaking my three-day streak of not commenting on this talk page to inform you, Gitz, that, no, collapsing another user's comments on the charge of being "off-topic" is not a reply. You love to talk about things that are "obvious". Well, in my opinion, this information is pretty obvious. | EDIT: Repeatedly stating information with utter confidence that is completely incorrect is not a good look -- Gitz -- in my opinion. But hey, that might be just me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of futher discussing this here since we're already discussing at WP:AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concern about behaviour during an ongoing RfC at Republics of Russia Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply addressing the fact that your statements here are incorrect, which is something that I don't want to discuss at ANI because you made the statements here rather than at ANI. Unless you want me to quote you verbatim there. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]