Talk:Russia/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Protests in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), March 1917.

• ... that the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, named after the month February, actually took place during the month of March? Source: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-was-the-february-revolution
  • Comment: I nominated Russia to GA status, and since the nomination passed, thought this would a nice fact. Since the revolution is widely known as the February Revolution, many, and arguably most people think it took place during February - although it took place in March.

Improved to Good Article status by Mspriz (talk). Self-nominated at 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - AGF
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - AGF

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - x

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - not needed
Overall: Mspriz Welcome to DYK and thank you for your remarkable work in bringing Russia to GA status. The article sure has some info for the DYK section but DYK has some other rules than GA and we should take our time. Further comments below.

• I'll review this one Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Article is long enough, new enough and qpq is not needed. With Copyvio I assume good faith as the article seems to be too long for the earwig.

The fact of the hook is not mentioned in the article, the image is also not used. The image I guess can be helped with easily, how February and March can be included, I am not sure and I'll let you figure out. You can also suggest additional hooks.

Then each paragraph of the article should end with a source which sources the info mentioned above. I am sure there are sources within the article that potentially source each phrase, but we still need some more and I am sure you can help Wikipedia a bit.

• In the post soviet era, the separatist islamist insurrections need an additional source. √

• For the head of the Russian government according to the constitution we need a source. I found one that it is the head of the Government, but not according to the constitution. Maybe you could find one like this?

• For the composition of the three branches of the government we would also need a source at the end of the paragraph. I guess the source above sources it, but it only sources the three branches, not their composition which is mentioned below. Best is to add a source for each point.

1. In Human rights and corruption a source for the kleptocracy description of Russia would be good. A prominent one better. Kleptocracy Removed

• In the first paragraph in Transport and Energy, on the business of Moscows airport there would also be needed a source at the end of the paragraph.√ Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess the block of the DYK nominator solves the issue? I have adapted the article a bit, sourced some phrases and added the image and the phrase needed for the DYK. The Government phrases are too much to find and I'd just approve them per AGF. But then the DYK would have to be approved by another reviewer as I am sort of a prominent editor of the hook:)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle are you intending to adopt this then or should it be closed? CMD (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I could nominate it for DYK. It's an interesting hook. Would I have to nominate it separately? I actually would have preferred a review credit. If you want to nominate yourself, go ahead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting factoid but I do not believe it's suitable for DYK. It is a bit of trivia that is certainly WP:UNDUE in the Russia article. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, who wants to go against Buidhe's advice? I won't. Let's close it then.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing then. CMD (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the nomination could be given another chance. It's not like our article on Russia would ever be eligible for DYK again given that it already reached GA status, and I'm sure there's plenty of material in the article that could be used as a hook, even if not necessarily the revolution angle that was originally proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it might get delisted soon, in which case a relist would be eligible. CMD (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm putting out a note at WT:DYK—we don't often get articles this widely viewed/important, we shouldn't pass this up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem with running that hook, aside from the fact that it's not presently in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The February Revolution hook is misleading – the revolution started in March according to the Gregorian calendar, but in February according to the Julian calendar, which was still used in Russia at the time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that in Russia, International Women's Day on March 8 is so popular that florists can earn profits of "15 times" more than other holidays? — Maile (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

From the article, "International Women's Day on March 8, gained momentum in Russia during the Soviet era. The annual celebration of women has become so popular, especially among Russian men, that Moscow's flower vendors often see profits of "15 times" more than other holidays."

• • I like it, and the special occasion posting it can go with. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Ooh, great idea! May i suggest the punchier

• ALT1a: ... that florists in Russia can see a fifteenfold increase in profits on International Women's Day compared to other holidays?

• • • We'll probably have at least one hook that delineates that March 8 is IWD, doesn't need to be this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    • also, for the cn tag, do any of these sources work? I'm not up on their reliability... [1] [2] [3] [4] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they)
      • I like ALT1a even better. Much more hooky. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Theleekycauldron I have checked some of the sources and to me all are available. Though I must admit, that for Russia to keep the GA status some better sources are needed. The article has just been nominated for reassessment and I think we should better wait. As the original reviewer, I won't review it in the current status. After buidhe voiced doubts on the sourcing and the recently detected ranges from 14% to 70% middle class population I just don't feel comfortable approving it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Fair cop, Paradise Chronicle—I've started a good article reassessment, and we'll put this nomination on hold while we do. If we end up having to reject, and this article then survives GAR, no prejudice against renomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Theleekycauldron: Given that March 8 is approaching, the GAR needs to be finished as soon as possible if the IWD hook is to be used. On the other hand, given recent events, there may be more roadblocks for the nomination at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: we're—we're not running this on IWD, right? that would be wildly inappropriate, even if russia pulled back all of its troops tomorrow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Theleekycauldron It might be a bad idea to run a hook about Russia anytime soon but I can understand the argument of "the hook should be fine because: 1. the nomination was started long before the conflict began and 2. the hook has nothing to do with politics or the military". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Narutolovehinata5: The fact that it has nothing to do with politics or the military is the problem—it'd be seen as us trying to change the subject from the fact that Russia is currently carrying out an invasion of a sovereign entity without international or popular support. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Would having a hook about Ukraine running at the same time or at a similar time help, or is the current situation simply too much for any hook about Russia or Ukraine to run anytime soon? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • If there was another cutesy hook about Ukraine to run, maybe we could put them together. But, then, given the victim-bully narrative in US media, as leeky points out, running a hook that paints Russia in this oddly sweet light could be interpreted as a deliberate action along the lines of "look, Russia isn't that bad", while the West at least would find the same statement of "victim" Ukraine to not be worth mention. Navigating this stuff is almost certainly impossible and to be safe, avoiding all mention, with a wide margin of error, too, is the way to go, IMO. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
            • @Kingsif: Would pairing this nomination with Template:Did you know nominations/Prayer for Ukraine solve the issues? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
              • @Narutolovehinata5: I, personally, think we should not post anything that could be related, positive, negative, neutral, whatever, and the idea of putting two kind of opposing POV hooks together to cancel out is not any better (possibly worse, it may be obvious to the reader that we are trying to do that. And we can't discount people thinking "WP wouldn't put up something about Ukraine without being nice to Russia, gross" - on the internet, any possible misinterpretation will happen, you know) - but as convincing as I want to rant, if people really want to put these on the MP, it always takes more effort to keep telling someone no. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Given that it appears that the GAR is leaning towards a delist I wonder if it would be time to close this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Given that the GAR is leaning towards a delist, as well as instability with the article, it doesn't seem to be ready for DYK at this time. If the article's GA status is kept and the remaining issues are addressed, there is no prejudice against renomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Economic sectors

@Moxy: With this edit, I have modified it to use the phrasing you added (removing the pre-existing phrasing which thereby became redundant), but changed it to be ordered by percentage of contribution to GDP from high to low.

If you don't feel this addresses your concern about the complexity, then I would ask that you elaborate on what there is about this presentation of economic sector data that you feel makes it too complicated for the average Wikipedia user to understand. Thanks. Fabrickator (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems ok... would have to ask the tagger what they dont get. Moxy- 11:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:, @Moxy:: Is the tag still needed? What type of "clarification" is still needed from this very simple sentence? I think this is very un-needed. The tag has stayed there for months. Stuntneare (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dont think we need it as it is right now. Moxy- 15:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: This change did not address the concern that the {{clarification needed}} raised, which is whether the information about economic sectors jibes with some (presumably common) belief about the actual significance of the different economic sectors. The tag actually hasn't been there that long, but IMO, the issue was raised and hasn't been addressed. Fabrickator (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What? make insulting or mocking remarks? say again ....how can we dumb it down more? Moxy- 22:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: @Chidgk1: I don't understand. It really feels like you're taking on opposite sides, on the one hand stating that the target audience for Wikipedia should be for an uneducable "layperson" (?) who can't handle percentages, then turning around and seemingly implying that it's now oversimplified. But what the commenter seems to be pointing out is that the stated facts do not conform to our understanding of reality. In any case, I would suggest treating this as a constructive comment. Oil is constantly mentioned in news about Russia's trade, yet a sector that includes oil is not even clearly identified. Did you look at the source he provided before deciding that his response ought to be dismissed without further consideration? Fabrickator (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Would never use that source.....that said ... I still not sure what they dont understand? What is not clear here? Moxy- 00:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy:, @Fabrickator: This user (Chidgk1) has a long history of tagging unjustly and trying to remove important sentences from the article one by one slowly, in the guise of either "too excessive" or "old data". The way he recently mass-removed important sentences, and then replaced the sentence about the Forest Landscape Index (latest data) and turned it into a sentence about wildfires says a lot. Even though a sentence about wildfires is mentioned in the Climate section. The sentence about the composition of the GDP has been tagged since months and months, previously for "old data" and now it apparently needs even more "clarification". Even a child would understand this sentence. Multiple country articles use the CIA World Factbook as a source, with the same sentence layout. What exactly is the issue? According to Chidgk1, any data before this month, is outdated. His goal is to get this sentence ultimately removed, just as he did to the sentence about the automotive industry, and of course replace it with some criticism. You do not simply tag sentences out of curiosity or random estimates. One thing I keep on noticing is that the only thing is he does is tag and leave, and the tagged sentence keeps on rotting, with no improvement ever done, as no one cares. Stuntneare (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare: Insofar as I am aware, "flag and leave" does not create an obligation to fix what you have flagged, and if the flagger has identified a proper issue, it is not a mark against the flagger if nobody fixes it. OTOH, there are parties involved here who have claimed flaws which (IMO) are without proper basis. To tell you the truth, I don't really have a bone in this fight, I'm trying to take more of a mediator role, and I would suggest that the participants would be better served by extricating themselves from this immediate area for a while, as this series of edits does not seem to be headed towards any material improvement of the article. Fabrickator (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:, @Moxy: I have tried finding more "recent" reliable sources over the composition of the GDP. This source from the World Bank, with data as recent as 2021, cites the composition of the GDP by different sectors: services (53%), industry (33.2%), manufacturing (14.5%), and agriculture (3.8%). This is about 4 years newer than the current source used, and as far as I can see, the newest official data. In the second para, there are two sentences written about the importance of the oil and gas sector (petroleum industry) and natural resources as a whole to the Russian economy. Stuntneare (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare Thanks for finding newer data. I suspect the World Bank is a more reliable source than the CIA for economics. If you amend the article with this feel free to remove the "clarify" tag I added Chidgk1 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 thank you for replying...we have had 5 sections about your recent edits and it's great to see you engage with us here. Anyway you can reply to the section belo....lets forget the other 3 sections for now. Moxy- 17:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea annexation

Should this be mentioned in the introduction? It seems like a very significant event in terms of delineating Russia's territorial extent and borders. It is more or less the "most recent polity admitted", comparable to the situation with Hong Kong-and-Macau re China. As it stands, the annexation of Crimea is mentioned in the timeline in the info-box, but not in the lead (except in a note that I added recently, to the area statistic). As for Hong Kong-and-Macau re China, even though the China article doesn't actually mention their respective annexations (i.e. transfers) in the lead, it does instead mention the two territories outright as Special Administrative Regions of China, because it explains China's administrative divisions in the introduction, which is something that the Russia article does not do. To me, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 is a significant enough event to be mentioned in the lead, regardless of one's political views on the matter. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I will also point out this... In the info-box orthographic map, Crimea is depicted in light green as a "disputed territory". However, this seems to be out of line with the standards of other Wikipedia articles about countries with disputed territories. Looking at the examples of China, India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North Korea, South Korea, and Ukraine. All of these countries have their disputed territories in light green (while the mainland of the country is in dark green). However, the catch is that all of the territories that are in light green are not controlled by the claiming country. Meanwhile, the territories that are under control are indicated in dark green, including territories that might also be disputed (e.g. Aksai Chin in China, Kashmir in India and Pakistan, Arunachal Pradesh and Junagadh State in India, and literally the entirety of Korea). We don't necessarily have to follow the exact same standards as other articles, but I do think there possibly needs to be some kind of an indication of who has control over Crimea. Because, from the map alone, it is impossible to tell; it's simply labelled as "disputed", and we have no idea who is controlling it or who is disputing it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of historical arguments; before 2014, Crimea was not part of Russia, and after 2014, it effectively has been a part of Russia since then, although the status is largely unrecognised by the international community. Historically, Crimea has fallen into and out of Russian control several times, I believe. Nonetheless, legally speaking, it was not part of Russia in any capacity from around 1995 to 2014. From 1991 to 1995, Crimea's status was disputed internally within Ukraine, as the "Crimean ASSR" (1991-1992) and the "Republic of Crimea" (1992–1995). Crimea was of course a part of the Soviet Union throughout its entire 69-year existence (1922–1991), having been transferred internally to Ukraine 1954 (whilst both Russia and Ukraine were parts of the Soviet Union). My point being, while I accept the historical arguments for sovereignty over Crimea from the Russian perspective, the territory absolutely wasn't a part of Russia for around two decades, which is significant enough to regard as a "permanent" territorial change rather than as a "temporary" status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea has been part of Ukraine for almost seven decades. —Michael Z. 14:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

As I specified, both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union, which was centralised around Moscow. So, Moscow had control of Crimea for the first fifty years out of those seventy, even though Crimea was administratively within Ukraine's territory at that time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Moscow is not Russia. Russia is not the USSR. Even though you stated a bunch of facts correctly, you wrote Crimea “absolutely wasn’t a part of Russia for around two decades,” which is absolutely wrong. —Michael Z. 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

When I say "absolutely", I mean 100%. Crimea had absolutely zero Russian sovereignty or suzerainty from 1995 to 2014. Previously, Crimea had been influenced at least to a partial degree by Russia. So, I am saying that Russia was not able to touch Crimea at all for those ~20 years. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea wasn’t part of Russia from 1954. “Influenced by Russia” is so vague as to be meaningless, but even it doesn’t mean part of Russia. —Michael Z. 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that many people regard Russia to be interchangeable with the Soviet Union. In many respects, it was, given that the Soviet Union primarily revolved around Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem of bias regarding Russia and Ukraine, and it even affects a lot of academics and experts in history, international relations, etc. But implying Crimea was “part of Russia” after 1954 is just factually incorrect. —Michael Z. 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the history portion of the lead is already too long. Not sure why it merits infobox inclusion either. CMD (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the 2014 Crimea annexation is "history" so much as it is a contemporary event. The issue with this article about Russia (which also affects most country articles) is that it's simultaneously about the history of Russia as a nation going back hundreds of years and about the current regime of Russia, namely the Russian Federation. So, it's a bit difficult to draw a line between these two perspectives. It has been argued, I think, that Crimea is not worthy of mention in the introduction due to its relative insignificance in the grand scheme of Russian history. However, I would argue that Crimea is very relevant to the contemporary history of Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The annexation is included as part of the History section, and the current regime is discussed at Politics of Russia. CMD (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There should be more information about the current regime and less about the hundreds of years history in the introduction. This is a debate between what the nationalists want and what the realists want. History going back to ancient (mediaeval) times is not relevant to the world of today. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like your looking for History of Russia (1991–present).....yes it could be updated. Moxy- 03:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Size of Russia, with Crimea?

The size of Russia is given as 17,098,246 km². This seems to include Crimea. If we look at what Encyclopædia Britannica writes, it is 17,075,400 km² (see this article) - and given that Crimea is around 27 000 km², it seems that the result - 17 071 264 km² - is quite close to what EB states.

If this is the case, then it should be corrected. There are only a handful of countries that acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (see "Pro-Russian stances on Crimea"). Ulflarsen (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it does include Crimea. Maybe it includes water? It is almost identical to the value in the infobox on February 15, 2014: 17,098,242.[5] (I wonder why the discrepancy.) —Michael Z. 17:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not checked that here, but I checked it in Norwegian Bokmål (which I mostly contribute to) and there it has been a change after the Russian occupation of Crimea. Seems it is connected to Wikidata, as we usually take such data from there. Thus I have manually entered the value from EB in the article in Wikipedia in Norwegian, and I have also added a similar note in the discussion page in Wikidata (see this thread.). Ulflarsen (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.  —Michael Z. 22:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

adhesion to the issues of PostEurop stamps in 1995 with the theme peace and freedom

hi, I was wondering if there could be a section where to mention Russia's adhesion to the philatelic program of PostEurop issues dating back to 1995 (when it issued its first EUROPA stamp with the theme - that year - "peace and freedom", showing the white stork (bird also used in 2019 in the European series stamps by Belarus and Ukraine, when theme was "national birds"; more about this here: Talk:White_stork#peace_symbol_on_first_russian_PostEurop_1995_stamp )

--151.44.32.191 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit too specific here but a nice pic so I added to List of birds of Russia Chidgk1 (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Is 10 history books in "further reading" too many?

10 of the books in the further reading section are either 20th century or have "history" in the title, and there are links to 3 bibliography articles. I think the list should be shortened to include only the best books, so readers don't waste time. But I don't know which are the best.

Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Russian Annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson

I noticed that the map of Russia shown in the infobox shows Crimea in light green as a "disputed territory". Today, it appears that Russia will announce the annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson; following the rigged referendums that they conducted this week. My question is, should these four regions also be shown in light green following these events? Bobtinin (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It is standard practice for significant claims to be added to maps (caveating that Crimea here does not follow standard practice). Presumably these will be significant claims, although given it's an active war zone who knows what will happen. At the very least, there is no deadline and we shouldn't be updating ahead of seeing some actual published maps from Russia showing the claims. CMD (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Abbreviation РФ RF

RF as an abbreviation (at least in Russian) is widely used among the government and its news outlets. Should we re add this? see search results Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be added only if it is widely used in the language of this Wikipedia. 2A02:AA1:1623:58B5:CD6B:5BF4:D56A:F8BD (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022 (2)

This page should now include the dispute of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.

Yeah Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. No. Volunteer Marek 20:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022 (3)

We should show the annexed territories of Ukraine as a claimed territory of the Russian Federation. My argument for this is the reflection of Golan heights as a claimed part of The State of Israel which is internationally recognised as a part of the Syrian Arab Republic, there is a discrepancy between them which should be corrected. 81.107.48.13 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Discussion is ongoing. Participate in the discussion rather than submit an edit request. Tartan357 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable change

Russia's illegal work in Ukraine should not be accepted as the world does not accept this Russian Freakshow! 194.230.160.132 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@194.230.160.132 Wikipedia should portray the truth, not propaganda, and not support any side. Just show things how they are. Bilikon (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bilikon: Please read the essay at WP:NOTTRUTH. General Ization ^Talk

The Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory is the unfortunate reality of the world. We should portray the world how it is, not how we would like it to be. The map should be updated with the light green color to show which territories are in dispute. Joseph Winowiski (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see you made sure to throw that "unfortunate" in there just in case. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors are permitted to have opinions, just not to share them using the voice of the encyclopedia. It was clear that Joseph was speaking in his own voice here. General Ization ^Talk 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a popularity contest, federal agent Rodriguez. A portion of territories from one country was annexed by another. Whether the NYTimes likes it or not is an entirely different deal, as this website's purpose is to state facts, not to ask as spokespeople for state approved facts spewn by western governments. EndocrineSystemEnjoyer (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph Winowiski I was supporting you, not criticizing your saying. Everybody can support whichever side they want, but when it comes to Wikipedia, we should ensure a neutral and unbiased interpretation of the actual happenings. Bilikon (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased language

The article used to state Russia's borders within the UN recognised boundaries and the de facto boundaries, this has been changed & does not reflect reality right now. Also the type of government has been changed from "Dominant party" to "Dictatorship", which again, does not really reflect the situation.

I hope we can rollback the changes. Ametica (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The article can still discuss Russia's claims. But the infobox should not reflect Russian nationalist POV. Volunteer Marek 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek It will not reflect a nationalist POV, it will reflect the factual basis of which the article used to be. By representing it as a claimed territory it represents both sides of the coin and should be included Ametica (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Annexed territory

Shouldn't we add the annexed territory and place them in light Green like Crimea and a different area size just like Morocco and Western Sahara or Israel and the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem 196.249.97.77 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@196.249.97.77 i agree Marmite037 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the best thing to do. Map was already changed now it is time for the area. UnixBased (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes we should, but there is no rush. UserXpetVarpet (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that President V.I Putin has formally annexed the territories, I think we should, even if it's under the disputed tag Sardukarfan (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the borders of the territorial claims are still unclear, since the war is still ongoing. Maybe a dotted line for the border? Or a different color for the claimed Russian territory that is currently under the Ukraine's army control? 80.117.44.138 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• 

I suggest this image could replace the image for the map if or when we are shown a map of the borders Russia has annexed. --Aaron106 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone forgot to remove the border between Crimea and Kherson Oblast. 𝕍𝕀ℂ𝕋𝕆ℝ𝕀𝕍𝕊 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's ok but we should also add the diff area sizes like we did for Russia without crimea and Russia with Crimea Nlivataye (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This sham map is pure nonsense and needs to be removed. Russia's borders have not changed, they remain the same. If a permanent situation arises in which Russia indefinitely occupies these territories, as Israel and Morocco do, a map change might be needed. While the war in ongoing and the frontlines change, it's a completely different situation. Jeppiz (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory is the unfortunate reality of the world. We should portray the world how it is, not how we would like it to be. The war will probably devolve into a frozen conflict. We should use our platform to uphold truth and unbiased information. The map should be updated with the light green color to show which territories are in dispute. Joseph Winowiski (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We should portray the world how it is The "world how it is" is that Russia has internationally recognized borders and that's what we will show. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Very funny.

2600:6C67:8700:9400:ED2E:400F:5CA9:BD15 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That is clear example of WP:OR. First, the proposed new map even includes territories not controlled by Russia. So these are Ukrainian territories, controlled by Ukraine, yet the map puts them in Russia. There is no precedence for that. Second, a frozen conflict may be the result, in which case we need to reflect that reality. There is no frozen conflict today, so WP:CRYSTAL applies to that claim. Third, there is no 'dispute' here, simply a claim by a war criminal, universally rejected. Jeppiz (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We should use the map, yes Russia does not control all of the annexed territories. That's why we have it in light green to show its disputed territory. With all due respect, The arguments for not using the map are just nitpicks.--Zyxrq (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A good example of this would be the map we use for Venezuela here: [6]. We represent the country as it claims to be on a de jure basis; regardless of whether it actually de facto controls the territory. Arguably, Russia's characterization is more accurate than Venezuela's in the sense that Russia does have de facto control over some of that territory and is fighting a war to try to take the rest; neither of which are true in Venezuela's case. It's not a statement on the legitimacy of the country or their claims to any specific territory. In fact, the light green (as opposed to dark green) indicates that their de jure claim is contested by another state party. We should display the map with light green for the claimed territories, maintaining consistency with how we display other conflicts/claims worldwide. Suntzu3500 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a relevant example, yes. However, this situation is less than 24 hours old and (despite lots of users 'wanting to be first') there is a policy in place that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. For such a thorny topic, waiting to how reliable sources describe it is the proper approach. The problem here is that some users want Wikipedia to be at forefront of declaring changes, rather than reporting on them. This is (or should be) an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Any "disputed territories" (sic) should be explained in the body of the article. These kind of nationalist claims have no place in the infobox. Volunteer Marek 20:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources, and reliable sources state that Russia claims those territories. This is done in every other country's infobox, so why should it be an exception here? I'd be remiss to accuse you (or anyone else in this discussion) of trying to right great wrongs, but your arguments aren't based on any WP policy or guideline. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly say in text that Russia claims these territories. What's POV and OR though is presenting these claims as legitimate in the infobox. This is NOT "donein every other country's infobox" for the very simple and straight forward reason that "every other country" has not invaded, brutally murdered and occupied its neighbors. My arguments are based on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a claim of legitimacy, just as North Korean claims to South Korea and Chinese claims to Taiwanese and Indian territory (linked for reference) are represented without lending credence to such claims. However, I do believe it should be changed to simply "claimed" territories, or something along such lines, while noting via footnotes that western claimed territory is internationally recognised as a part of Ukraine and part of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, while the South Kurils are part of the Kurils dispute with Japan. In this way, it does not lead credence to Russian ethnonationalism while still noting Russia's claims against Ukraine and Japan, just as Chinese claims against Taiwan and India are noted by English Wikipedia.

Mupper-san (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, on the opposite side, the uncontrolled territory of Georgia (again linked for reference) are shown as light green despite a Russian invasion and (admittedly not internationally-recognised, at least to my knowledge) ethnic cleansing. It is not a matter of the morality or legitimacy of such claims for or against the territory, it is simply a matter of whether those claims exist to begin with, and there's widespread documentation that they do here (see The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, NBC, and Reuters, though I don't have any doubt that you're already aware of Russian claims).

Mupper-san (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it legitimised the claims when it clearly stated that the areas in light green were contested. Showing a country's claims is very much done in other articles (though if it literally applies to every country, I haven't checked). You cite NPOV and NOR, but I'd argue they are the reasons this map should be included:

• NPOV: Picture represents content of article without "stating seriously contested assertions as facts".
• NOR: Map is based on RS (I assume, anyway. I didn't make the map).

ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So, Japan's claim to the Kuril Islands, should we remove that too? 24.54.79.144 (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 October 2022 (3)

Instead of disputed territories, we should put "occupied territories" when referring to the 4 provinces recently annexed. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

See #Why are the disputed territories not shown on the map for more discussion on this. nableezy - 15:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Federal Subjects Map

Along with the disputed Crimea and Sevastopol federal subjects, there should be a map showing the new (disputed) oblasts. StrawWord298944 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2022

Remove the text "under its control" from the map description in the infobox, as this statement is factually inaccurate. The map shows areas Russia claims and controls, but it also shows areas Russia claims but does not control. Physeters^✉ 06:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Done. —Michael Z. 06:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 October 2022

When placing mouse cursor on the protection icon it still says 'this article is extended-confirmed-protected'. Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an issue with the template, or the module behind it. It correctly displays a full protection icon and links to the full protection section of the protection policy, but the hover text isn't correctly generated. [7]

As a workaround (or proper fix, depending on how you view it), I'll fix the template choice in the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Could you also please remove the "POV" template? As it was added yesterday prior any discussion, and the reasoning behind its addition is also baseless. Stuntneare (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

shouild aslo restore goverment type as there was no tlak to change it......we have tried to talk to the person doing this but they dont reply to post they dont like Moxy- 13:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

During full protection, a template pointing people towards the talk page, especially if the template is about neutrality and the discussion was about neutrality, seems appropriate enough to keep... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The reasoning behind its addition is simply the map shown in the infobox, as the user who added it stated above, that does not seem fair. It is not based on any content that is considered not neutral, POV, or propaganda. Besides, the map reflects reality, not propaganda. So where exactly is the POV? You cannot challenge the "neutrality" of such a large article based on a map, especially when the latter reflects the de facto truth. Stuntneare (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You can indeed challenge it based off of that map. The map does not reflect the "de facto" truth that you state, because Russia does not even control all the regions of Ukraine that are highlighted, vast swaths of those oblasts are under Ukrainian control. The entire region is an active war zone, so extending Russia's supposed de-facto line of control into an area where that line keeps changing is a very slippery slope. And again, Russia does not control all those areas, far from it. If Putin claimed all of Ukraine as being part of Russia, would we show all of Ukraine as light green? No, because that is ridiculous, and so is this. The only thing this map does is give some legitimacy to Putin's claims, hence the challenge to its neutrality. Timothy2b (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No not really, if the template was added simply to one section, which is really what the user who added it has a gripe against, then that would be fair enough but to add it to the top of the page indicates that there is something wrong with the entire article, which there is not. (This is giving an inch anyway and saying that the map added 'challenges neutrality', which it does not and is addressed above by Stuntneare) Tweedle (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The neutrality of the map has been challenged (explicitly so, here). This neutrality dispute led to the full protection, so I won't remove the template during the full protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of important data

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

---

In 24th August, user Chidgk1 removed a few important sentences about the renewable energy production, import-export data, and the ranking in the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report from the article in the guise of "too detailed". The mass-removal was done without any consensus, and I don't see anything too detailed about the sentences, you can find them in FA class articles such as Japan or Australia. I think the sentences should be re-added since there was no consensus taken prior the removal. Stuntneare (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Zero reply.....say restore. Moxy- 11:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Stuntneare,

I didn't realise you wanted me to reply - I thought you were asking for 3rd opinions. I don't think being in other FA class country articles is enough to show the fact is important. Different things are important for different countries. So if you re-add something please could you write in your change comment why it is important for Russia - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

could you read this pls ....Authoritarian System ...will give you a few days.Moxy- 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy I guess as I am not watching this page I don't get notified of replies here unless you actually write @Chidgk1 so I only just noticed your reply. There seem to be several talk page sections now about changing "dictatorship" to something else - maybe you could close all the discussions as duplicates except one?

I did not know about the "UNESCO - Encyclopedia Life Support Systems (UNESCO-EOLSS)" before so thanks for that. I wonder why UNESCO charge for it. I suspect it is not worth me subscribing to as an individual because if I cited anything it would be hard for non-subscribed Wikipedia readers to check my cite was good. Re the linked doc I suppose according to that I live under "soft authoritarianism" here in Turkey? For example I can vote in next year's election but the party I would like to vote for, the Green Party (Turkey), is not allowed to put forward any candidates. But I don't think Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a dictator. Anyway I digress - once you have decided which talk page section to discuss this in and closed the others you can tell me and others why you wanted me to read the document. Otherwise people will get confused with discussions going on in several places. Have a nice day Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 3 October 2022

I want to change the figure of the area. The current figures show one including Crimea and one not including Crimea. I want to include all of the claimed territories of Russia. RayAdvait (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What does light green colour stand for?

Is there a rule how to use light green in all of Wikipedia?

In all wiki articles on various countries, I've noticed that dark green designates national territory. From what I've seen in other articles, light green is used for territory claimed by certain country, but outside of their control.

Examples:

People's Republic of China page > PR China claims Taiwan, PR China does not control Taiwan > Taiwan is light green.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/CHN_orthographic.svg/2048px-CHN_orthographic.svg.png

Republic of China (Taiwan) page > Republic of China claims all of mainland, Republic of China does not control it > all of mainland is light green.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Republic_of_China_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg/2048px-Republic_of_China_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg.png

Serbia page > Serbia claims Kosovo, Serbia does not control Kosovo > Kosovo is light green.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Europe-Serbia.svg/2045px-Europe-Serbia.svg.png

Pakistan page > Pakistan claims all of Kashmir, Pakistan does not hold eastern Kashmir > eastern Kashmir is light green.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/PAK_orthographic.svg/2048px-PAK_orthographic.svg.png

India page > India claims all of Kashmir, India does not hold western Kashmir > western Kashmir is light green.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/India_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg/2048px-India_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg.png

So shouldn't the same apply here?

Dark green should be parts which Russia claims and controls, and parts that Russia claims, but does not control should be light green, consistent with all other Wikipedia articles.

Russia claims and holds Crimea > Crimea dark green.

Russia claims but does not hold Lyman > Lyman light green.

78.0.5.233 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is not the place to map a currently ongoing war. CMD (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

well you also got Western Sahara in light green on the Morocco article even tho it's controlled by Morocco, so light green doesn't necessarily mean uncontrolled territory LICA98 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Not every one of those maps is the one consensus has placed in article titles. At least Taiwan is different, but see also China, India, Pakistan, and Serbia. But none of those examples are comparable.

The actual mapping project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps says “Claimed uncontrolled areas” are light green, and “Outside area” is grey. But it doesn’t say anything about active combat zones, and it could not have predicted an unprecedented “annexation” where Putin put “Russia” under the boots of advancing Ukrainian soldiers in Ukraine. As someone else here wrote, if he claimed all of Ukraine, would readers expect to see all of Ukraine coloured light green on a locator map of Russia?

Light green has long been used for Crimea and the South Kuril Islands: foreign territories that Russia has persistently and stably occupied. It should not be now extended into the combat zone or beyond it. There may be an argument to extend it to the parts of the DLNR that were occupied by Russian militants for seven years, but that is problematic because Moscow has only annexed it recently, after the front line has changed significantly and active combat is in progress.

I actually think we should revert to the old map with only Crimea in light green, and omit the war zone from a map of “Russia.” If it were 1942, how would we present what is “Germany” (compare)? Or in 1945, the “Soviet Union” (compare)? —Michael Z. 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Today, Putin’s office just made its first clear statement on the borders of the territory that was annexed on September 30: they don’t know. “The deliberation of the new Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions had not been decided.”[8] —Michael Z. 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It also said the DLNR will be in their 2014 borders, but the “republics” never had borders defined “de jure” in their constitution nor de facto on the ground. —Michael Z. 18:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is the map for this article using different coloring than other countries' articles?

From all the countries I've seen, the maps show dark green for "claimed and controlled" and light green for "claimed but not controlled". They don't factor in whether another country "disputes" it or not, as that isn't in the realm of de facto, only in de jure do "disputes" exist. Why does the map for Russia show dark green as "claimed, controlled, and not disputed", and light green as "claimed, controlled, and disputed"? There is a forced "control" factor and an extra "dispute" factor that no other country needs to satisfy. If India claimed the whole world as its territory, then the map for India should show the whole world as light green, with only the controlled territory being dark green. But if Russia claimed the whole world as its territory, the map would not show this claim at all, as the Russian map requires that it controls the territory for it to be any shade of green. This creates an odd situation where all a country needs to do is claim some territory that Russia claims and controls and all of a sudden it'll become light green on Russia's map. If China claimed all of Russia, without controlling any of it, then the Russian map would be entirely light green. This event wouldn't occur for other countries, since as long as a country controls territory (and claims it as well), no other country's claims will change the dark green status. Pakistan claiming parts of Kashmir that India controls doesn't make India's controlled-part of Kashmir light green, it still remains dark green, no matter the disputed status. This is what de facto means after all.

Any country except Russia: claim = light green, claim + control = dark green

Only Russia: claim + control + disputed = light green, claim + control + undisputed = dark green

The map should be updated to follow Wikipedia's standards, and make any territory that Russia claims as being light green (meaning the entirety of what it claims to have annexed, i.e. all of Donetsk Oblast, etc.), and the claimed territory that it does control as dark green (what is shown as light green on the map right now, i.e. all of Crimea, parts of Donetsk Oblast, etc.). Peter Njeim (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Godddddddddd! The same nonsense about "de jeure" and "de facto" AGAIN! Where is this crap coming from??? Every single account pushing a Russian nationalist POV uses these terms even though they are completely absent from sources! Wth is going on. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was hesitant to reply to you, since judging by your other messages in this talk page, you're acting in bad faith, and want to get reactions out of people, I have no doubt in my mind. Nonetheless, the instructions in Wikipedia:Disruptive user tell me that I should engage in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before reporting you. So that's what's happening here.

You will, upon replying to me, explain why you:

1. Used unnecessary emotional language which has no place on a talk page "Godddddddddd!"
2. Claimed what I said was "nonsense" (an incendiary term) without explaining what is nonsensical about it.
3. Used unnecessary emotional language which has no place on a talk page: "AGAIN!"
4. Claimed the concept of "de facto" and "de jeure [sic]" are "crap".
5. Claimed I was "pushing" (extremely incendiary term, instant bad faith assumption by me) a "Russian nationalist" position.
6. Claimed "de facto" and "de jure" are terms that are absent from sources.
7. Used unnecessary emotional language which has no place on a talk page: "Wth is going on."

Pre-emptive counterarguments:

1. Self-explanatory
2. Self-explanatory
3. This is your first reply to me, so I couldn't have repeated myself. Therefore the word "again" doesn't apply here. Obviously you are trying to group me up with other members of this talk page, however I don't associate with any but myself.
4. Both "de facto" and "de jure" are so notable and so well-sourced that they each have their own Wikipedia pages on them.
5. In my initial comment, the one you were supposed to reply to in a substantive way (if you had substance), I showed how this article's map wasn't falling in line with what most other countries followed. My motive was to make the maps consistent. You're committing a common logical fallacy by making claim number 5. You're insisting that because the change I'm promoting is something that you've seen prior being promoted by who you perceive to be "Russian nationalists", you assume that I must also be a "Russian nationalist". Not only do you assume I must be a "Russian nationalist", you also assume that I am only making the claim I'm making because I am a "Russian nationalist". Your only evidence being, that I happen to want to make the same change that other people I've never met in my life support, despite the fact that I already explained why I wanted the change in my initial post that you clearly either failed to read or deliberately misrepresented, either case being a bad faith action. That's called "guilt by association", a bad faith argument that has no place on Wikipedia. To beat this dead horse further, another bad faith argument I've seen you make throughout this talk page is making fun of people who explicitly claim they aren't supportive of Russia, as if when someone makes that explicit claim, they must automatically have nefarious motives, and are actually secretly supportive of Russia. Such assumptions are utterly unwarranted and again, bad faith in every sense. The really good thing about this whole situation is that it doesn't matter who is and isn't supportive of Russia, it doesn't matter if someone's request happens to also be requested by a group that they aren't a part of, what matters is whether or not the change is logical. So I will continue to not state if I am a "Russian nationalist" or not, as this seems to be your "ammo" in your bad faith messages here. You will continue to be left in the dark about this irrelevant piece of information about myself.
6. See counterargument 4.
7. Self-explanatory.

If none of the following take place, I will be reporting your account as a "disruptive user":

1. You apologize for making a substanceless reply, and move on (pre-emptive forgiveness has been given)
2. You make a substantive reply (pretend none of this happened, discussion will continue)
3. You counter my pre-emptive counterarguments (discussion will continue)

Thanks for reading! I don't tolerate bad faith behaviour, and this is the result of that intolerance. Peter Njeim (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Their edit history shows that they are acting in bad faith and editing with bias. If you look the history of articles such as Russia, Sevastopol, Simferopol, Yalta, etc, you'll see that they are participating in edit wars. Any edits that mention that the de-facto and on-the-ground reality that Russia controls Crimea and the occupied territories of Ukraine, are considered by this user to be "nationalist" propaganda. Plus they have been adding an issue box that says "This article presents Russian nationalist disinformation and its's factual accuracy is disputed." to any page that has something that opposed their views.

It is Wikipedia's job to be factual and accurate in an article about a topic. It is not Wikipedia's job to promote any specific view. Michael60634 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't delve into their behaviour other than this talk page. I will assume that you're telling the truth and start the reporting procedure immediately. Peter Njeim (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Check the edit history for the articles I sent. There are edit wars on each article. Michael60634 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Since you know about them more I suggest you report them instead, as I don't want to do all the evidence gathering if you know where most of the evidence is. It's over here: Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia Peter Njeim (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how to do a report, so it's best if you do it. I mostly do small corrections to articles, such as fixing spelling or grammar mistakes, or updating out-of-date information. Michael60634 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just like you, small edits here and there. I think this is the first time I've used a talk page, mainly because I couldn't believe this map followed different rules than the rest of the maps.

I'll give a chance for them to respond before reporting, then. Peter Njeim (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That isnt true. See for example Israel and Morocco. Territory occupied in light green, recognized sovereign territory in dark green. nableezy - 22:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"That isn't true" isn't a proper response as I said "from all the countries I've seen".

Ignoring that tidbit, as for Isreal, not even sure why the West Bank or Gaza is light green as Israel doesn't even claim them. According to the Palestine map, it only shows East Jerusalem and a little bit of the eastern border of the West Bank as being claimed by Israel (however the Palestine map is also interesting at it uses dark green to refer to undisputed claims, regardless of the status of control).

As for Morocco, well, it doesn't counter what I said, as it highlights all of Western Sahara, not only what it controls (not sure why you claimed they were "occupying" the Western Sahara, that implies there's a rightful sovereign, which is still up for debate (even what is considered "right" itself is up for debate). Or you might've simply used the word "occupied" in its apolitical sense, as in, Morocco is present there, with no other connotations). Morocco's claimed and uncontrolled areas of Western Sahara are still shown in light green, but weirdly its claimed and controlled but disputed territories are also show in light green (same as Russia), meaning they have more light green than they need and less dark green than they need. Someone saw this and tried to correct it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/78/20210702131058%21Morocco_%28orthographic_projection%2C_WS_claimed%29.svg but it was reverted an hour later. If we applied Morocco's coloring to Russia then the entirety of the annexed regions would be light green, regardless of control, which would indeed be a step forward for standardization, but more dark green is needed as I explained earlier.

I'm also not sure why you used the term "recognized", by whom? Wikipedia doesn't choose what's recognized or not, nor who's recognition trumps others'. Ignoring that, you're correct in your general point that Wikipedia uses idiosyncratic standards for a select few countries. I would argue that that needs to change. Do you agree? Peter Njeim (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it isnt about what it claims, it is about what it occupies. As far as recognition, Id assume if other states begin to recognize this as Russian territory then reliable sources will be, but for our purposes only if reliable sources largely shift from calling this Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia should we do the same. That seems unlikely. nableezy - 23:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Because it isnt about what it claims, it is about what it occupies". But that's not what the rest of the countries on Wikipedia follow... as I already explained in several paragraphs.

Reliable sources claiming a territory belongs to one country or another isn't a factor in the map coloring process, actually. De facto maps are just that, de facto, aka, no amount of words will change it.

Here's an exmaple: South Korea claims all of Korea, same with North Korea. So on their respective maps, what they claim and control is in dark green and what they claim but don't control is in light green. Just like most other countries on Wikipedia.

I want to know your opinion on this though, should there be certain countries in the world that use different coloring criteria than the rest? I don't believe so, do you? Peter Njeim (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What rest of the countries? Regarding India and Pakistan, there isnt the widespread recognition of sovereignty or occupation for either India or Pakistan for the areas of Kashmir either controls or claims. So Im not sure what analogous situation you think exists. The immediately obvious situation which most resembles this, though with some differences, is Israel, in which there is a territory widely recognized as Israeli, and a territory widely recognized as Israeli-occupied. Portions of that territory have been unilaterally effectively if not formally, or maybe formally depending on how you ask, annexed by Israel, or at least they have performed acts that amount to annexation. But all of that territory remains widely recognized as outside of Israel's sovereign territory. And we shade all of it light green. That is the closest corollary I know of here, though Ukraine is already the recognized sovereign of the territory in question whereas Palestine's sovereignty has never been established. So what do you think you have in terms of precedent here for your proposal? nableezy - 01:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, everything I have said up until this point deals with all your statements. I don't particularly like repeating myself so this is the only time I will.

"What countries?" All countries that aren't: Russia, Israel, Palestine, and Morocco. Even Ukraine follows the rule I'm talking about, the territories they claim but do not control are light green.

Not sure why you're still talking about "recognition", it isn't relevant to Wikipedia's maps. Wikipedia's maps follow de facto control, no recognition needed, literally "de facto", literally "in fact".

Israel would indeed be the closest example, but it's still not similar enough. I already talked about the Israel example and how it's unique. Here's something I didn't mention earlier about the map, it claims Israel "occupies" Gaza. Israel left Gaza in 2005, it says so in the article. Why does the map show it as light green? No idea, all I know is that it isn't consistent with the other countries on Wikipedia.

China, Taiwan (3rd radio button), Azerbaijan, Pakistan, India, Georgia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Serbia, Artsakh, Cyprus, Moldova, Somalia, Somaliland, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and South Sudan follow the standard.

Russia, Israel, Palestine, and Morocco don't. Note that all 4 of these countries use their own unique coloring, not in common with one another. Russia's uniqueness is its requirement to control the territory to be any shade of green. Israel's uniqueness is it doesn't need to claim the land to show as light green, even more unique is the fact that it doesn't control nor claim Gaza and it's shown as light green. Palestine's uniqueness is that it doesn't even need to control the land for it to be dark green. Morocco's uniqueness is that disputed claims are always light green no matter if the claims are controlled or not.

All other countries that have border disputes simply don't show the disputes on their maps.

This is confusing. Let's make these 4 countries' maps match the rest and make everything consistent. Peter Njeim (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Israel occupies Gaza because it still exercises effective military control over that territory and it is not its sovereign territory. I dont even see what in Egypt is light green. Beyond that, you are making a basic error in comparing Georgia, Ukraine, Cyprus, and so on with Russia. Those territories are light green because it is their sovereign territory that they do not control. It is their occupied territory that is light green, not the territory they "claim". The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has a different level of recognition, and so sources reflect a difference. That isnt the case here. So, in short, you dont have any precedent because the nearest approximation to this circumstance does not follow what you claim to be the precedent. nableezy - 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy Actually the Israeli military left Gaza in 2005. Israel simply put a blockade against Gaza. Your claim of their occupation status there is false.

Did you read the caption of the Egypt and Phillipines maps? That'll answer your question.

I never compared anything to Russia... you literally just cherry picked certain countries, made a vague claim about "sovereign territory", and implied that all the other countries I mentioned don't have their "sovereign territory" being claimed or controlled.

Why you would cherry pick certain countries from the list I do not know. Why you would make up the term "sovereign territory" I also do not know. The term you're looking for is sovereign state, or sovereign nation. "Territory" isn't sovereign, that doesn't make any sense.

All the countries I listed have disputed territories coloured in a specific way. All of them involve sovereign states challenging another sovereign state's claims. All of them involve both sovereign states claiming de jure control of the same region. All of them show dark green in the area where they have de facto control.

I think we've reached a conclusion. You have no reason to justify these idiosyncrasies in colouring and instead make up terms to suit your belief that some claims are more important than other claims. You make up this idea that "circumstance" determines the colouring rules of a map where the only thing that matters is de facto control. You ignore the fact that no other country on Earth follows the same colouring rules that Russia follows, which invalidates your "circumstance" claim (which isn't even relevant). That's the conclusion I've come to, is it true? Do Russia, Israel, Palestine, and Morocco deserve to all have unique colouring rules? No, they don't. They all deserve to be coloured the same way all the other countries are coloured. Peter Njeim (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Boots on the ground isnt the test for military occupation, it is effective military control. As Israel controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters, and nearly all of its land crossings many sources continue to consider it as the occupying power. This is getting very off-topic here though. You think Im making up the term sovereign territory? Um, ok. Guess somebody should tell Cambridge University Press they making up terms. Oxford too. Oh hey, here is the G7 discussing Ukraine's sovereign territory. Huh, guess they all making this up? And I gave the other country that Russia follows here, including the territory it occupies in light green. Israel. Which you said is the closest approximation. nableezy - 03:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy You're making up a connection between what you call "effective military control" and "occupation", which requires, you know, occupying a territory. Regardless of that, Israel doesn't control Gaza's waters, they simply blockade it, once again. A blockade isn't an occupation. You're right this is off-topic, I mentioned that in my first reply to you.

"Sovereign territory" is basically a redundant term from my research. It's almost meaningless. "Sovereign territory" according to the extremely few places I've seen it used (thefreedictionary lol) claim that it's simply a territory controlled by a sovereign state. Got it. So it has nothing to do with what you said. Russia claims and controls it as their sovereign territory. India claims and controls it as their sovereign territory. Every dispute is a dispute between sovereign territory lol, that's by definition what a territorial dispute between sovereign states is.

I think there was a miscommunication for my "closest example" claim. I just reread it and honestly don't remember why I said that. Morocco would have the closest colouring system to Russia's. I definitely wasn't talking about "circumstances" though. I only started thinking about that in my previous reply, where I rejected it. The circumstance is the same: there is a territorial dispute.

Your reply to me misses a lot of what I said. I refuse to continue further if you're going to leave my counterarguments uncountered. I think this is your admission you have nothing else to say. That's ok, now we agree that the colouring should be the same! Peter Njeim (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the second time youve said I am making something up. And no, for the second time, I am not. See for example:

• Bracka, J. (2021). Transitional Justice for Israel/Palestine: Truth-Telling and Empathy in Ongoing Conflict. Springer series in transitional justice. Springer International Publishing AG. ISBN 978-3-030-89435-1. Today, the widely accepted definition of occupation is 'the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory'

You can keep pretending like Im the one making things up, but I have sources that support what I say. You do not. As far as admissions, lol. nableezy - 14:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the second time you've ignored most of what I said and instead focused on an off-topic tangent you admitted was off-topic, lol. Let's keep going though, I admit I was using the literal definition of the word "occupation", and did not know of this more context-specific definition. Now that I do know if it, note d from this page shows that there is some dispute as to whether it is an actual occupation or an "indirect occupation". It also claims certain scholars dispute the occupation altogether but it isn't cited.

Not sure what your last sentence means at all. Your "sovereign territory" claim still isn't evidenced. I looked it up on Google with quotations, less than a quarter-million hits, it's simply not oft-used, there's no dictionary entry, no Wikipedia article, it's just a misnomer that certain authors probably accidentally used (as did yourself). The adjective "sovereign" means "possessing supreme or ultimate power." A state or nation can possess this power, a territory would be under the control of a sovereign, not have power itself. Pieces of land don't have power. I already explained this earlier. You used this so-called term incorrectly as well, and still have yet to counter my point. You claimed that Russia claiming Ukraine's territory was different than Pakistan claiming India's. You're wrong. Adding the misnomer term "sovereign territory" doesn't change anything. Ok, Russia claiming Ukraine's sovereign territory is not different than Pakistan claiming India's sovereign territory. Happy now? Also, Russia's sovereign territory is being claimed by Ukraine, and India's sovereign territory is being claimed by Pakistan. That's what's called a territorial dispute (or sovereign territorial dispute, said no one ever).

I think you've lost steam here, you didn't respond to anything Russia-related, all my previous message's on-topic comments stand un-countered, as does my last point, which is that you agree with me that all the maps should be coloured the same way. I don't think I'll be responding further. Thanks for the discussion though, you did catch me being wrong a few times, and I stand corrected on those items. But I don't buy the "different circumstance" argument, because I believe it to be the same circumstance, a dispute of territory. That's what this all boils down to I guess. Peter Njeim (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You continue to lack anything but personal opinion, whereas I have provided sources. So, as far as losing steam, nah. As far as "misnomer", sorry but on Wikipedia the views of experts in academic texts take precedence over the views of random screen names on the internet. When you bring some sourcing that supports your position then it may be worthy of consideration, until then it is not. nableezy - 23:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I provided the Oxford Dictionary definition of "sovereign", you gave a source that used the term "sovereign territory" in passing, which is hardly acceptable. Claiming that Oxford Dictionary isn't reliable is odd to say the least. I didn't share any personal opinion on the misnomer that is "sovereign territory", you just made that up. Wikipedia doesn't rely on passing mentions of terms, it needs some focused sources as well. There's an article on "sovereign state" on Wikipedia for a reason, it's a well-defined term.

Yes, you lost steam, you just made yet another non-Russia related comment. I have made arguments that remain un-countered until now, you ignoring them doesn't aid your case. Again, you agree with me, there's no reason to use 5 unique colourings, where 4 of them are used for 1 country each, and then 1 of them is used for every other country. You have failed to explain otherwise.

What does "random screen names on the internet" mean? Not even sure what that's referring to. Peter Njeim (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Annexations in the Infobox History section

The "Formation" history section in the leading infobox includes the annexation of Crimea. If this is the case, should the annexations of the four Ukrainian regions from 30th September 2022 not also be included? Tombricks (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

All of that POV should be removed. Volunteer Marek 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should remain neutral on the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not Wikipedia's job to offer political viewpoints on any issues such as territorial disputes. Just because you or the international community doesn't like something, it doesn't change the on-the-ground reality. Michael60634 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes and removing this nonsense is precisely how we maintain neutrality. Volunteer Marek 00:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Russia does have control over Crimea. Russia did annex parts of Ukraine. Ukraine does not control these regions. Russia has a de facto claim, and Ukraine has a de jure claim. That's the reality of the situation. Most countries and organizations do not recognize Russia's claim to these regions, but that doesn't change the fact that they still control these areas. It's not Wikipedia's job to take sides or to get involved in the politics of the situation. Michael60634 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

None of these has anything to do with the establishment of the Russian state. Imagine how many territorial changes there have been in the time spanned by the infobox. I have removed them as being quite off-topic. CMD (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources say that the annexation of Crimea is a part of the establishment of the Russian Federation, then it should be stated in the infobox. If they don’t, it should not, and the inclusion is WP:OR or non-WP:NPOV. I’m removing the statement from the infobox. Restore it if you come with WP:reliable sources. —Michael Z. 04:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I see it’s been removed. Good. —Michael Z. 04:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

“Reality”?

What TF is a “de facto claim” and a “de jure claim”? De facto literally means “in fact,” and de jure “by right.” Stop throwing around these terms without regard to their meaning.

These territories are all de jure part of Ukraine. De facto, Russia has occupied part of them. In fact (“de facto”), Ukraine does control significant parts of them. No other country recognizes all of Russian claims.  —Michael Z. 03:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If you go to Crimea now, and you go to a store, you are going to be paying in Russian rubles and not Ukrainian hryvnia. The laws followed in Crimea are Russian laws. De facto, Crimea is a part of Russia. But no countries other than a few countries recognize Crimea as part of Russia. De jure, it's part of Ukraine. It's really quite simple. And in regard to Crimea, no, Ukraine has not "de facto" controlled it since 2014. The occupied territories, sure, but not Crimea. Michael60634 (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, Crimea is de facto occupied by Russia. “Is part of Russia” is a statement about the de jure boundaries of states. (You literally use “laws” to describe the lawlessness of your example that is not de jure, meaning “by law.”)

But that is all immaterial: “has a de facto claim” still sounds like nonsense to me.

Just stop using these Latin terms. De facto literally means “in fact.” De jure means “by law.” —Michael Z. 04:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands that if you went to Crimea right now, you would be in a place that speaks Russian, follows Russian laws, uses Russian currency, and where the citizens are citizens of Russia. And it's been that way since 2014. I'm not saying that the annexation was right or wrong. It happened, and Crimea is administered as a part of Russia. That's entirely my point. Michael60634 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That still doesnt make it a part of Russia. nableezy - 14:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That honestly depends on who you ask. I'm not taking sides, its just that in every sense other than international recognition, Crimea is part of Russia. Michael60634 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Who we ask is independent reliable sources. See for example Crimea, which Ukraine and many other states and independent international legal experts regard to be Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory, and Russia regards to be its own territory. Russia's view should obviously be included, but it not controlling. Russia has asserted that Crimea is within its sovereign territory, the international community and scholars have continued to say it is not. WP:DUE means not giving a minority viewpoint, especially in scholarly sources, more weight than the majority one, and that means Russia's view cant be treated as anything other than a minority view. Similar to how the Uyghur genocide article contains China's view, but does not toe its line. Or that Israeli occupation of the West Bank includes that Israel disputes that the West Bank is occupied, but does not shy away from expressing the super-majority view as the super-majority view. nableezy - 00:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources claim that Russia has illegally annexed Crimea. That means reliable sources claim that Russia controls Crimea. It's that simple. Just because it claims the annexation was illegal, doesn't mean the annexation didn't happen, which is what you're falsely implying. Wikipedia will continue to display Crimea as being part of Russia and you're not going to change that. Note [a] on the Russia article claims "Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014, [...]". It doesn't matter what the rest of it says, reliable sources claim it's annexed, now stop claiming Russia doesn't control Crimea, it's internationally known as controlled by Russia, though not recognized in official capacity. Peter Njeim (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Annexed territory borders have yet to be defined

The latest ISW report states that Russia has failed to clarify where the borders of its newly "annexed" territory are, so for now we should revert the file back to the pre-September 2022 situation. Physeters^✉ 01:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think we should be showing the occupied areas on the infobox country map at all. Jr8825 • Talk 02:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Only reason it’s being done here is POV pushing. Volunteer Marek 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia is probably going to claim all the land but you never know Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the Kremlin has always been vague, or minimalist, or maximalist in its claims, as it thinks it serves its strategy at the time.

In 2014 it claimed “New Russia,” with Putin’s ahistorical addition of Kharkiv oblast (which was in Sloboda Ukraine), until the Ukrainians beat back its proxies, and then “New Russia” was forgotten.

Then for seven years it tried to impose a one-sided resolution of the Minsk agreements on Ukraine as an unacknowledged capitulation, and it’s puppet DLNR republics didn’t claim all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast territories (except when they did). Then it unilaterally abandoned the agreements, and suddenly DLNR is supposed to be all of these oblasts. Now Putin is vague again, because his forces can’t hold all of their legal namesakes’ territories (but they have a bit of Mykolaiv oblast, so that’s “officially” part of Kherson now).

During this whole time, Putin and various Russian officials have proclaimed and published statements claiming all of Ukraine as well.

We can’t go by what’s the “official” Russian claim because it never exists. We have to use an objective threshold, based on reliable sources. For maps, this means reliable sources’ maps. For the infobox location map, where the defining map of Russia’s borders appears, this doesn’t mean this morning’s battle map, but the map of Russia in encyclopedic articles about Russia. Look at Britannica and the CIA World Factbook (what else?). They show Russia’s legal borders, and none of Putin’s aspirational conquests. Don’t look at sources under the influence of the Russian state.

I don’t care what other country articles show. Follow the reliable sources. —Michael Z. 03:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: The following comment only makes sense after Russia ratifies the annexation (which is probably next week). Until then, only Crimea should be included on the map.

Lol I was just reading the talk page for no reason and saw that you made a slight against me without mentioning me. Why did you do that? Do you not want the person you disagree with to respond to you? That seems pretty bad faith to me. Luckily since I found this, I will respond.

You make some odd false statements in your comment. I say odd because they're self-explanatorily wrong. Not sure how it slipped through your proof-reading. You put "official" in scare quotes for no reason, they're literally official. You claimed that Russia's official claim "never exists". What? They can claim whatever they want to claim, that's what a claim is, some words in law. The claim exists right there in the law.

You claim you want the maps to be objective. Ok, but reliable sources can't determine a map because they conflict with each other. It's not like an article where you can mention minority viewpoints, or anything like that, there's no room for error. In fact, one of the sources you mentioned (CIA World Factbook) simply follows US foreign policy. This leads to false maps where Taiwan is the same polity as China, where the Golan Heights aren't marked as disputed, where Cyprus controls the whole island of Cyprus without British zones or the Turkish North Cyprus, where Sudan and not Egypt controls the Hala'ib triangle, and many more unobjective features. Contrary to what you just stated, the CIA World Factbook doesn't show "legal borders", it wasn't designed for that at all. Here's a disclaimer from the CIA on their Middle East map:

"The United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017 without taking a position on the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty.

The West Bank is Israeli occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement; permanent status to be determined through further negotiation.

The status of the Gaza Strip is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations.

Boundary representation is not necessarily authoritative."

So you clearly can't rely on it to give you accurate borders for Israel and Palestine, and even then, it admits the boundaries for all countries are "not necessarily authoritative". It says this on all their maps. Why use it then? Wikipedia is better than that. The maps on Wikipedia aren't sourced. There are no citations on their Wikipedia Commons pages. The maps are very simple, there are a set of criteria that determine the colours. Claimed, or claimed and controlled. Want to know who claims what? Look at their laws. Want to know who controls what? Then that's where reliable sources come in. If reliable sources say a country controls some territory, then that's all that's needed.

Your last claim "I don't care what other country articles show. Follow the reliable sources." has a false implication, because the other maps do follow reliable sources, for the "control" part of the criteria. But the "claim" part is simply what their law says, not what a third party reliable source says.

Now let's bring this all together: Russia claims all of: Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts. Ukraine claims that portions of these regions are occupied. What better source could you get? We have the "claim", we have the "control" (extremely detailed in the Russian Invasion article), we have all we need. If you want to keep the unique colouring scheme for Russia, go ahead, make it light green. But the territories Russia claims and has under its control must be shown in some way or another, or else the map is objectively false, and you'd be violating NPOV in that instance. You insist you're merely not following Russian propaganda (which would be showing all 4 oblasts as dark green in full), but in reality you go a step further and don't recognize objective fact at all (don't want any portion of the oblasts to be marked in even light green).

And another odd thing I noticed about your comment, you implied that "conquest" can't change a map. You forgot that that's pretty much how the map was even made in the first place. Crimea is still light green on the map. In my opinion it should be dark green, but let's keep that discussion in its own topic. I assume you don't disagree with having Crimea be in light green for Russia, correct? So what's the difference with these new annexations? That Russia's claiming more than it controls? Well, it controls some, and that's all it needs to change the map. (Before you ask, if Russia controls territory but doesn't claim it, it shouldn't be shown in the map). Peter Njeim (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Njeim I have know idea who you are, and I still can’t tell what it is that think is a personal slight against you. If I were calling you out, I’d tag you. I suggest you do the same when you make an accusation; I only found this comment by accident. —Michael Z. 22:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac Sorry for that, I'm new to talk pages. I thought you'd get notified since I replied to you, I guess that's not how it works. Peter Njeim (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You have to type the link to a user or user talk page, either in your comment or in the edit summary for notification to work. Commenting with the Reply function makes it easier by letting you type an @ sign and start typing the name. —Michael Z. 23:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

WTH is going on here. Even Russia is not sure what are the borders of their claims... We should revert the file back to the pre-September 2022 situation immediately. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. The more time goes on, the less clear Russia's new "borders" become. Physeters^✉ 17:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Putin’s office just made its first clear statement on the borders of the territory that was annexed on September 30: we have no fucking clue. “The deliberation of the new Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions had not been decided.”[9] —Michael Z. 17:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Peskov also said that DLNR are annexed “in their entirety” (quotation from news copy; haven’t seen his full statement), presuming that’s clear. But the DLNR constitutions define their territory as “determined by the borders existing on the day of establishment,” without describing them. It’s often taken for granted that they correspond to the Ukrainian oblast boundaries, but for seven years during Minsk discussions it was taken for granted that they were not. I don’t believe they are defined in any “official” document and are probably undetermined as well. —Michael Z. 19:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Government type" is not NPOV

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

---

Russia does holds democratic elections and the majority of the people do vote for Putin and his party. I dont think its fair or neutral to start calling Russia an "autocracy" or "dictatorship" just because youre upset over the invasion of Ukraine. Nobody called the UK a "dictatorship" when they invaded Iraq. Western media sources can also be biased. 45.239.136.252 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• You are a Pro-Putin troll then User:45.239.136.252 because you make no sense. Typical sleazy Putinist Russian way is to lie and deceive people, hopefully this does not occur here. Russia is a dictatorship in all but in name. Plenty of dictatorships exist with the same position of president and rigged elections, like Fascist Italy for instance, which continued to have elections (albeit rigged with the anti-fascist opposition parties banned and only puppet candidates running) and Mussolini had the official position of elected prime minister! So according to your twisted alogic, then historians and we should rename Fascist Italy under Mussolini a democracy! This kind of ridiculous biased viewpoint mixed with a demented dose of anti-Westernism is not welcome on English Wikipedia. And for your information, sources have called Russia under Putin a dictatorship since 2012, when the first elections were heavily rigged and opposition banned. Sciptaen 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• I dunno what happened. All the political opponents ended up in prison and people who criticized the government all fell out of windows or ate poison. They really should be more careful. GMG^talk 17:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• this is not a democracy. A huge number of falsifications. 176.59.145.122 (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.145.122 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia holds elections, but they are not democratic. Most people in Russia probably support Putin, some due to propaganda, some due to being afraid of consenquences from opposing Putin, some because they genuinely support putin, and many other reasons. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree. I do not think there are sufficient neutral sources to start calling Russia a dictatorship. Just compare it with other dictatorships like North Korea or Belarus, you'll see, Russia is quite more liberal. Sng Pal (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because a regime maintains the trappings of democracy to bolster its claims to legitimacy does not make it a democracy. Likewise just because there was a vote for Putin does not make Russia a democracy. Democracy requires free civic discourse, a free press, and acceptance of opposition and dissent; elections without these prerequisites are theater, not democracy. 45.47.48.28 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this controversial change. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Change government type from dictatorship to authoritarianism

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

---

While there is no doubt that President Vladimir Putin holds overwhelming power over Russia, the state still holds regular elections. There are multiple political parties, few of which do oppose the incumbent. So, should the government type not be authoritarianism? Sng Pal (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

it's a democracy, a ukrainian bot changes it with no consensus, he also changed the map Aoe 2947284 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to "dictatorship" but I have never changed the map and never been to Ukraine and don't know any Ukrainians. By the way what makes you think I am a male bot and how are bots male or female anyway? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think academics considered it authoritarian until recently. Since the domestic crackdown on media and dissent starting in February, dictatorship is more precise. —Michael Z. 05:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

dictatorship is the non academic term....."Authoritarian government refers to the form of government that is characterized by the concentration of power in a single center, be it a single dictator that governs them all or a group of leaders that hold the power" [10]. That said as seen over the past few months many people do not understand this. The debate that is ongoing in the world is not Authoritarian vs Dictatorship ...its Totalitarianism vs Authoritarianism [11]. Need to follow academic sources not media junk. Moxy- 12:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Academics in the field do discuss questions like whether it’s now accurate to call Putin a dictator, and your own sources use dictator and dictatorship.

I am not at all convinced the two mean the same thing. Isn’t totalitarianism more absolute, as in North Korea that controls every aspect of every person’s life?

I wonder if there’s a dictionary of politics or international relations that gives technical expert definitions of these terms. —Michael Z. 21:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course the sources use the term... dictatorship..... but the question is...is it an authoritarian state or a totalitarian state..... both have dictators. Moxy- 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Totalitarian is a contentious/extreme term for Putin's dictatorship. It's usually applied to regimes that exert control over all aspects of social/civic/economic life. "Hybrid totalitarian" sounds a bit of an oxymoron to me, and, as far as I'm aware, is a novel term used by that individual analyst. China under the CCP fits the bill better, but even then the term's usually reserved for clearer cases such as the USSR/fascist Italy & Germany. Putin's neo-fascism has historically relied more on populism and intimidation, while tolerating a (toothless but independent) urban middle class. It's important to remember Russia still had (bullied) liberal newspapers and human rights NGOs until the beginning of this year, things a true totalitarian regime would not have possessed. There's no doubt Russia has fully backslided from weak democracy to authoritarian dictatorship, but it remains to be seen how much the war has made/is making Russia totalitarian. I doubt there are many academic sources using the label without caveats/detailed argument in the context of developing changes. Jr8825 • Talk 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not an academic but as a native English speaker I think the word "dictatorship" in everyday language fits best to describe Russia now. By the way I just found the article Rashism but I doubt the word will catch on in everyday English. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No, an authoritarian state can be run by a council, upper class, religious group, or something else. These words are not exact synonyms. —Michael Z. 17:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The debate in the academic community is what type of dictatorship. Lead right now clearly shows a misunderstanding of how the terms are used.Moxy- 19:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this controversial change. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree will restore norm aftert lock is up. Moxy- 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean I oppose changing government type from dictatorship to authoritarianism Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 1 October 2022 (2)

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

---

Can we revert this edit that changed goverment type in the infobox without a tlak (as per note there), this is being debated and does not regurgitate the sources there]....got missed in all the other edits.

Current sources in infobox

• Håvard Bækken (21 November 2018). Law and Power in Russia: Making Sense of Quasi-Legal Practices. Routledge. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-1-351-33535-5.
• Shinichiro Tabata, ed. (17 December 2014). Eurasia's Regional Powers Compared - China, India, Russia. Routledge. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-317-66787-2.
• Saul Bernard Cohen (2014). Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations (3 ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 217. ISBN 978-1-4422-2351-6. OCLC 1020486977.

The debate that is ongoing in the world is not Authoritarian vs Dictatorship ...its Totalitarianism vs Authoritarianism..[12].Moxy- 13:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this controversial change. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Will restore after lock is up great to see that you understand the differences.Moxy- 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean I oppose the change requested here. In other words I oppose reverting the earlier change Chidgk1 (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to close this to keep the discussion in one place at Talk:Russia#Russia_is_not_a_dictatorship but as I am involved and not an admin I don't know whether I am allowed to fiddle with the above tag Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Now this article is no longer restricted to admins I am closing this to keep discussion all in one place at Talk:Russia#Russia_is_not_a_dictatorship

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

Not dictatorship

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

---

Remove the mention that labels Russia as dictatorship as it is not factual. The neutrality of the article is itself disputed which says much. Temp0000002 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

We are way beyond that label..... the debate is what type that is of debate in the academic community. We have a bit of a terminology understanding problem above. See above on this page. Moxy- 19:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this controversial change. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: You made this change from "authoritarian" to "dictatorship"[13], but most of the current sourcing (including those for the infobox) are for "authoritarian". Dictatorship is a form of authoritarianism, but not all authoritarian regimes are dictatorships. Mellk (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

as per section above ....should use specific term used from ACADEMIC SOURCES... great to see you see the differences. Moxy- 16:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia is a dictatorship in all but name, this deceitful and sly way of portraying Russia under Putin as a normally functioning democratic-elected presidential system is disingenuous to the readership of this article and beyond ridiculous. Just because officially Putin is called a "president" and not a literal dictator, does not matter, behind the scenes he is as much of a dictator as they come. The elections are all heavily rigged in favor of Putin since 2012, viable opponents are jailed, and what opposition there is permitted, such as the Communists and Liberal Nationalists, is very heavily regulated and pro-Putin. This would be equivalent to refusing to call Fascist Italy under Mussolini a "dictatorship", just because Mussolini had the title of prime minister. It is silly.

Sciptaen (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not about him being called president or whatever, it is about what the SOURCES say. Mellk (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We both mean the sources created after February 24, after imposing harsh censorship and the mogilisation. Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/russia-on-the-road-to-dictatorship

https://sciencenorway.no/politics-war/russia-has-become-a-classic-dictatorship/1988901

https://news.umich.edu/putting-putin-in-his-place-a-dictator-at-war/

https://www.ft.com/content/e58832c5-a35a-4bf4-8be7-359b4563c1c9

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-dictator-trap-russia-ukraine/627064/

https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/news/russia-quasi-democracy-dictatorship

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/05/16/sabine-fischer-on-power-and-control-in-vladimir-putins-russia Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes there are sources that say dictatorship (these have been sources that have been saying this since mid 2000s), but most simply say authoritarian, or something like autocracy, oligarchy etc. Now not dissimilar to how China is described. In terms of media censorship, RSF downgraded Russia's score so it went from 150 to 155 in Press Freedom Index following start of invasion.[14] Mellk (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree. I also find it not credible to ask for the label removal especially in light of all reliable sources given to claim it is, in fact, a dictatorship. The neutrality issue warning seems put at random as the article does not seem to really have neutrality problems. The article underwent a process of scrutiny. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the neutrality tag is not about dictatorship - so that tag would be best discussed in the map discussion not here Chidgk1 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't the USA get the same or similar dictatorship label treatment for the 2020 Presidential Election results widely being viewed as fraudulent? 71.173.16.186 (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Because that's not how it is widely being viewed, but it is a paranoid conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the concern here is that it wasn't until the invasion of Ukraine that this description of the Russian government was added to the article. I mean, has the Russian government become any more authoritarian than it has been over the last twenty years? Why did this depiction of a well-known authoritarian state suddenly merit the change in its government type when for years it was classified as a "federal semi-presidential constitutional republic"? It seems as thought most of the edits so far have been negative or needlessly pedantic in describing the flaws of the Russian government, economy, or military, rather than purely factual. We recently had to remove the weasel wording of fascism removed from a section of article where authoritarianism was added. In what way did Russia become more or less fascist within the last eight months? The problem as I and others see it, is that the recent changes to the article and other articles related to Russia or Putin, have become more and more emotional or political in nature. By law, Russia is a federal semi-presidential constitutional republic. What it is perceived to be is meaningless in the full scope of Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature. This is why China is listed as a "unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" instead of a "fascist authoritarian dictatorship", even though some perceive it to be one. The original description of Russia's government should remain without any needless additions until something substantially shifts in the actual government of Russia. The fact that the CIA of all institutions still classifies the country as a "semi-presidential federation" as it has for years now should be all the proof we need that nothing has officially changed in Russia's political structure at the moment, and no one here has any grounds for making any edits saying otherwise. Vivaporius (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The Russian propaganda was too strong to oppose its lies before February 24. Which recent source says about 'the flaws'? Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Russia is much less federal that it used to be before Putin.

https://georgiatoday.ge/prof-alexander-etkind-on-russian-defederalization-and-the-expected-outcomes/

' Defederalisation Under Putin and Medvedev.' https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203804490.ch12

https://www.rferl.org/a/Russias_Federation_Myth/2140036.html Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Why are the disputed territories not shown on the map

I saw that even Crimea was removed from the map in the info box, Wikipedia should give information regardless of people like it or not. The claimed territories should be shown in light green. Dirk Sieme (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dirk Sieme Someone remarked in a previous thread that they didn't support recognising it because of their personal beliefs, which is obviously ridiculous.

I've opened a talk page about this as well & I hope it gets fixed soon. Ametica (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Because we're not going to push POV by legitimizing Russian irredentism. The info on Russia's claims can be easily included in the text itself. Volunteer Marek 20:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek The factual evidence of international borders indicates Russia has been in control of Crimea since 2014 and eastern ukraine since today.

Just because the UN or whatever supernational organisation doesn't recognise it, doesn't undermine the fact of the matter which is that Russia (good or bad) controls this area.

By not representing this FACT the Wikipedia article is biased towards one side of the argument, which is never good. Ametica (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "international borders" are. Please see Wikipedia:Competence is required. Volunteer Marek 20:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek real funny guy huh.

it was pretty apparent what I meant by international borders being the de jure situation and the claimed territories being de facto. if you want to shitfling over this I am more than willing to. Ametica (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh god, another account with this "de jure vs de facto" nonsense even though nothing like that is found in sources. Is there a memo going around or something? Volunteer Marek 20:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek yeah, the memo is called critical thinking, obviously you have never heard of it. Ametica (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek on this. These terms are misused more than they are used correctly. Someone reads that some patch of ground is de facto controlled by Russia, and then articles start calling a fake state a de facto republic, which means “a republic in fact”: the opposite of the truth. Avoid using de facto and de jure, except maybe when using both in contrast to each other. Better yet, just avoid them.  —Michael Z. 21:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is just a sneaky but not so subtle attempt to legitimize these occupations. There's a reason why, ahem, no reliable sources use this terminology! And neither should we, if for no other reason than that it violates WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think in many cases people just associate the term with the fake country, and apply it to the country indiscriminately, without thinking about the term’s meaning. Anyhoo, it’s meaning is just “in fact” as opposed to “in law,” and except for the legal context, it should be avoided in favour of plain English. —Michael Z. 03:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And this isn't based on anyone's "personal beliefs" but on the factual existence of internationally recognized borders. Volunteer Marek 20:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The internationally recognized borders are one way, and that's a fact.

The Russian government - not some far-right nationalist group, but the Country's government - says that territories outside these borders - at first Crimea, and now also Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk - are also a part of Russia; and that's also a fact, which should be reflected on the infobox's map.

For the same reason, while adding Vojislav Šešelj's Virovitica–Karlovac–Karlobag line into the infobox map in the Serbia article is ridiculous, marking Kosovo in a different color from Serbia proper makes sense, because the Serbian Government says Kosovo is a part of Serbia. Glide08 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

On PRC maps here on wikipedia Taiwan, Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh are also shown as disputed. Are we pushing PRC irredentism? Just as here with Russia the annexed and occupied oblasts should be shown in light green. Dirk Sieme (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have no opinion on those matters.

And guys. Do me a favor, stop insulting my intelligence and cut it out with the fake ass "well, it's very unfortunate and sad and all but this is MOTHER RUSSIA NOW!" BS. Nobody's falling for these crocodile tears. Volunteer Marek 20:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We're not saying "this is Russia now", we're saying "this is what the Russian government says is Russia about themselves now". Glide08 (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t scream “this is mother Russia now” I say we should reflect disputes accurately, and you’re completely in the wrong for even removing Crimea from the map as disputed since it’s been 8 years under Russia’s control and has since then been shown as disputed. Disputes should always be accurately shown, this Wikipedia page is NOT the exception from that. Dirk Sieme (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

One more time. The “dispute” - in reality a brutal occupation - can be described in detail in text. The infobox though is not suited for this stuff and it’s just a means of pushing a Russian nationalist POV. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The wikibox for Venezuela even shows disputed western Guyana in its map, which is taken far less seriously than any of these other territorial disputes mentioned.

Again, it’s completely irrelevant what the infobox for Venezuela shows. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Standards are a thing. Every other country with claimed or disputed territory shows said territory in light green. Doing so for Russia is no different, just objective fact: Russia claims the territory. We make no value judgment as to whether the claim is legitimate or internationally recognized, and to do so would be against NPOV. eduardog3000 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, Volunteer Marek doesn’t have a point whatsoever. Dirk Sieme (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Guys, I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED! that all the brand new red linked accounts that have shown up here out of nowhere all of sudden agree with each other! Volunteer Marek 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that this is a GA and high profile article, and this topic is devolving into multiple simultaneous and high-volume discussions with no sensible structure and hence is extremely unlikely to result in any consensus, might I suggest that a discussion be opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries to try to find a consensus that would guide editors with regard to multiple articles concerning places where claimed and/or disputed territory is currently not the same as the country's internationally-recognized borders? General Ization ^Talk 20:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but in the meantime let's not help to legitimize nationalism, irredentism and a brutal occupation. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There's already a consensus - internationally recognized borders in dark green, and things the country's government says outside these in light green. Glide08 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That isnt true, we have all the Israeli-occupied territories in light green at Israel, not just those Israel has purportedly annexed. nableezy - 21:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Somebody just made a map and then somebody has edit warred it into the article. That'd be YOU. Volunteer Marek 21:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

And that map has all of Zaporizhzhia highlighted, not just the russian-controlled parts. Glide08 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO, A. Drop the bs on "disputed territories" in the infobox and plainly say "Russian occupied" (also thats an easter egg link when out article has occupied as the title) when they are widely (on the order of supermajority of reliable sources) called "Russian-occupied territories". B. the map IMO should include Russia's sovereign territory, that being determined not by a unilateral proclamation but by its border treaties with surrounding states and what the international community recognizes as its territory, in dark green, and the territory it occupies in light green. This being a fluid situation where the territory it occupies is not static day-to-day would imo make it so we should only include Crimea and I suppose the newly declared annexed territories. If they do not control the territory in question it should be gray. Sincerely, somebody who has also dealt with "its annexed so its theirs" POVs in other areas. nableezy - 21:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Kindly be civil and start by "dropping your BS". In the EXACT same vein someone else would be fully entitled that we shall "drop the BS" that "Crimea is part of Ukraine". Right? No. That would be wrong too. There is a choice. We EITHER -openly- claim that Wikipedia is effectively an "agent" of "the West" and move it thus into irrelevance, OR we carry on as until now and simply describe the dispute for what it is - a dispute. There are Two state actors - both recognized by UN - claiming legal sovereignty over a territory. No if(s). No but(s). Wikipedia is not the place to be "creating" reality. The moment we move away from "describing" to "judging", WP is no more. It is that simple. If the disputed territory consensus is not adequate, that is fine. Lets tune it. But any description MUST be able to cover all cases of reality. Whatever they are. If that means 4 colors, or 3 dotted line types. So be it. But narrative pushing of what is "bad" and what is "good" has no place on WP. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.60.155 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That is nonsense, the balance of reliable sources show that Crimea is part of Ukraine. So should we. Has nothing to do with good or bad, it has to do with what most sources support. We dont treat super minority views, and the view that any of the occupied territories are in Russia is that, the same as super-majority views. Finally, there was nothing uncivil in what I wrote, so miss me with that lecture. nableezy - 00:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

100% agree. Volunteer Marek 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there should be three colors - one for Russia, one for Crimea, and one for the occupied portions in Ukraine. Glide08 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea isn't any less occupied than the other parts of Ukraine. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea has been more occupied than the Ukrainian Mainland (for lack of a better term), since 2014 instead of since 2022, and the frontlines haven't reached it yet. Glide08 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not how occupation works. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Occupied longer, but no differently occupied. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, my account has existed for a few years already, so saying “ Guys, I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED! that all the brand new red linked accounts that have shown up here out of nowhere all of sudden agree with each other!” is just plain stupid. That I mainly don’t edit the English Wikipedia is just a fact. I just want the occupied territories to be shown, nothing more. Agreeing with nableezy is something I can do. Dirk Sieme (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're fine if we label these territories as "occupied"? Volunteer Marek 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Physeters^✉ 23:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

How is it Russian disinformation or taking a Russian nationalist to point out that Russia has claimed these territories (a fact)? It would be taking one POV to show them as dark green, undifferentiated from the rest of the country. Showing it as light green only says that Russia claims it, not that it's the international border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.25.85 (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Because that's not what is being disputed. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What's disputed? 132.162.25.85 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The map does not reflect a WP:NPOV because it’s selective, and because it misrepresents international boundaries.

Either all or none of territories disputed by Russia are to be shown: the South Kuril Islands, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and one republic and four oblasts of Ukraine. There should not be white international boundaries shown slicing through internationally recognized sovereign territories.

In its current state, the map should be removed or tagged for the readers. —Michael Z. 21:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

UserXpetVarpet if the map is missing some other occupied territories update the map. Using minority POV language such as "disputed" and "annexed" is a violation of WP:DUE. Sources, post annexation, continue to refer to all of these territories as occupied. Not "disputed". nableezy - 21:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but there is the issue that Russian occupied territories are not the same as Russian claims, and the latter are a moving target from week to week. There’s a war in progress. The Russian foreign minister has publicly claimed Mykolaiv and Odesa oblasts all the way to Transnistria. Putin has claimed variously that “New Russia,” to which he ahistorically appends Kharkiv oblast, belongs to Russia, and that all of Ukraine is “old Russian lands.”

The infobox is for defining or persistent information. Its location map should certainly not track the wartime line of contact from day to day. I don’t think it should legitimize illegal Russian claims just because Putin and his parliament sign some document, either. (Which isn’t to happen until next week, by the way.) —Michael Z. 21:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I said as much above basically, This being a fluid situation where the territory it occupies is not static day-to-day would imo make it so we should only include Crimea and I suppose the newly declared annexed territories. If they do not control the territory in question it should be gray. nableezy - 22:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy I hope you can see in the map that Kuril Islands are also in light green, so it has to be described as disputed and the Ukraine part should be described as occupied and annexed. These two are different conflicts and because they are in the same color it has to be differentiated in the description. UserXpetVarpet (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In Ukraine as of today, Russian-occupied, Russian-claimed, and Russian-annexed are three different extents. The list of disputed territories should also include Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.  —Michael Z. 21:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Those three are neither Russian-occupied, Russian-claimed nor Russian-occupied though. They're puppet states. 132.162.25.85 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are Russian-occupied territories of Moldova and Georgia. Russian force and threat of force is the sole reason they exist. —Michael Z. 22:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

They're Russian-backed puppet states, but I think that's different than direct Russian occupation. We wouldn't describe South Vietnam back in the day as American-occupied 132.162.25.85 (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You’ll have to cite some sources that explain the nuance. Every single one has an illegal Russian-installed quasi-government, every single one exists thanks to Russian force and threat of force (and Russian troops on the ground), and every single one is disputed by the legal state on its territory. Some are older than others. The RF claims different nominal status for some of them. None has clear sovereignty nor independence.

I guess a difference is that the RF claims some but not others are part of the RF, but as of today I hope no one would reasonably dispute what a farce that is. —Michael Z. 03:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Russian-occupied territories including Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria based on RS that say Russian troops are on the ground against the wishes of Georgia and Moldova, i.e. the definition of occupation.

However as Russia uses puppet governments to administer those areas they do not belong in the infobox map. The areas of Ukraine it has declared annexed to Russia proper should ideally be shown in light green consistent with practice in pretty much every similar case.

The shifting frontlines problem definitely raises POV and NOR concerns, but I note at Morocco we show all of Western Sahara in light green, even though Morocco doesn't control all of it, with the caption "claimed and occupied mostly by Morocco." This would seem to be a good compromise solution here. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac Yes, I agree with that. UserXpetVarpet (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there is a bit of cross-talking on the status here because the wording and grammar can be unclear. Russia annexed, the verb, these territories. That does not change that they are occupied or Ukrainian territory. It just means Russia has formally claimed the territory as its own, but absent any recognition of that that is just a verb and not a status of the territory. The status is as it was, occupied territory, sovereign Ukrainian territory, held by Russia through effective military control. The verb of annexing doesnt change the adjective we use for the territory. Its an action that makes a claim to sovereignty, but its a claim that is rejected by, so far at least, basically every state on the planet, and a super-majority of sources. So when we describe Russia's actions we can say it annexed this territory, claiming it to be part of Russia. But when we describe the territory we should continue to follow the sources and say "occupied" because that is what its status is. Ukrainian territory held by another country through effective military control. nableezy - 22:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps ineffective military control, but I digress. Your comment makes sense to me. General Ization ^Talk 22:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I created the map in its current form, but I am not a "Russian Nationalist or Irridentist", in fact, I'm 100% pro Ukrainian. The unfortunate reality of the situation is Russia has formally claimed these territories as their own, therefore making southern Ukraine disputed territory. I don't like it, but that does not make it untrue. Like many have said above, most other wiki pages show countries territorial claims, whether they control them or not. Crimea has been shown in light green on this page for some time now, even though it is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Maybe we could add a third shade of green showing areas Russia claims but does not control/occupy as some kind of compromise?Physeters^✉ 22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the threshold defining “formally claimed”? The Russian government owns the entire spectrum of possible claims. —Michael Z. 03:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Russia could claim the entire planet tomorrow but would we present a "neutral" take showing Russian global 'disputed' hegemony? LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A formal claim, at least in my opinion, would be when a government signs a document outlining that a specific area with specific borders is now part of said country and then sets up a subordinate "government" to "rule" said area. However, after I wrote the above comment, it came out that Russia has not specifically defined where its new "borders" end. I now believe the map should be reverted back to the way it was until this is done (if ever). Physeters^✉ 21:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In 2014 Russian president Putin published statements listing about a third of Ukrainian territory, naming seven oblasts as “New Russia” (Novorossiya (confederation)), and controlled their “governments,” but we did not put it on the map of Russia.

In July 2021 he published an article “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians ” on his official Kremlin website , calling all of Ukraine “old Russian lands,” etcetera. He’s had “governments” in Ukraine since April 2014, with a fluid and open-ended notion of their claims, but we only put their de facto occupied territories on the map.

I know this might not be what you mean, but it all fits your description.

But the precedent of our infobox map is to display de facto stable occupied territory, not either concrete nor vague aspirational conquests.  —Michael Z. 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus on using the term "Russian-occupied territories" when linking to Russian-occupied territories in the infobox? I see myself, Volunteer Marek, Physeters, Dirk Sieme agreeing. Who disagrees and why? nableezy - 14:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, they are not disputed. They are occupied and should be referred to accordingly. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove The multiple issue Template

I noticed that . Volunteer Marek added the template. and after reading all the things on this talk page it seems to me like he is a Wikipedia:Disruptive user. I do not see any serious reason in this talk page, or the article itself for it to be labeled. One, Russian nationalistic disinformation. two, A lack of neutrality, Three, Original research. Zyxrq (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. There’s also a number of people here, most long standing users who happen to agree with me. Volunteer Marek 03:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek sorry if you think this is a personal attack I was just pointing it out. if you want we can talk about that issue Wikipedia:Disruptive user thing on my talk page... Im also about to go to bed. --Zyxrq (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Which sentences in the article do you think represents Russian nationalist propaganda? There's layers of criticism about the Russian government in the article, including mentioning the fact that Russia is a kleptocracy and an authoritarian state. I do not think Russian nationalists would like that or let that stay, especially those pro-Putin. The template is useless. Stuntneare (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The part that tries to pretend that Ukrainian occupied territories are part of Russia. Look, there might be some criticism of Russia within the article. But almost everyone is well aware that most readers look at just two things: the lede and the infobox. That’s why the attempts are to cram the POV into these two highly visible key places, with less attention being paid to the main body of the article where “unfavorable” stuff can be buried. Volunteer Marek 07:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(also, to certain people Russia being authoritarian is a feature not a bug) Volunteer Marek 07:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Crimea and the four other Ukrainian oblasts: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are de facto under Russian governance and control since 30 September 2022, after Putin announced the annexation; just as Crimea. It is indeed Illegal under international law, and the vast majority of countries in the globe consider these territories as part of Ukraine, including the United Nations, which is why these areas remain a de jure part of Ukraine. This is not propaganda, but reality. If we were to truly follow Russian propaganda and Putin's ambitions, then the map of Russia should be extended all the way to the Czech Republic, and maybe even include Berlin?

Secondly, I agree with you on the lede and infobox part. However, read the last sentence of the third para of the lede, which clearly states that Russia has transitioned into a dictatorship since his rule, also mentioning high levels of corruption and the crackdown on human rights; while the government type in the infobox explicitly refers to Russia as an authoritarian dictatorship. Criticism of the government is present throughout the article, including the lede and infobox. Not just the main body. Stuntneare (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And here we go with the “de facto” and “de jure” nonsense again. Seriously is there a fucking memo going around? Sources don’t use this wording so wtf is it coming from? Volunteer Marek 17:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

De facto and de jure are common terms when discussing territorial disputes. A good portion of de facto's page is about exactly that. eduardog3000 (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

On the map it is shown as disputed land which is actually not even controlled by Russia, and is actually considered Ukrainian by the overwhelming majority of countries. The only area which should be colored is Crimea. The current representation is POV and OR, at least until reputable sources considering these areas "disputed" are not cited. These areas have just been partially occupied, it's a very different thing.Silvio1973 (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: What? These 4 oblasts have been annexed by Russia as federal subjects of the federation. Wake up. They are disputed, yes, and the annexation was illegal under international law, but they are officially under Russian military governance. How are they not controlled by Russia, what are you talking about? These areas were captured by Russia literally from the very start of the war. I think the wording should be from "claimed" to "controlled" or "occupied" territories. Claiming land cannot be compared to occupying and annexing it.

@Volunteer Marek: Also, you seem to be getting way too emotional. Maybe calm down, and read these two articles: de facto, de jure. Stuntneare (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As a first step towards consensus, the wording should be changed from "claimed/disputed" to "illegally occupied". And yes, they are not controlled. Crimea is controlled, it's a different thing. The article is equating the condition of Crimea to that of the other 4 oblasts. This is incorrect. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Grammar

In the final introductory paragraph, it says "Russia is also home of 30 UNESCO World Heritage Sites." which sounds awkward; it should say home to. 675930s (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Added an edit request tag. CMD (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes and the word "also" could be removed I think Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. DanCherek (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the "also" is fine 675930s (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)