Talk:Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine

Why to delete? Where is the discussion?

Any ideas?7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantinehuk (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC) @Constantinehuk:

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present)-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability tag & see also

AfD closed as no consensus, so it's entirely appropriate to add a notability tag to article. "See also" in a foreign lang is not helpful to Eng. speaking readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not think the creator is interested in maintaining the article. They are clearly a sockpuppet of a blocked user and are only interested in making a point.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Blatant propaganda pushing, should have been deleted

Stating that the territories are occupied temporarily in Wikipedia's voice in the title? Come on, Heptor _talk 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It has been on AfD which was closed as no consensus. The creator has been since then indeffed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

unconstructive removal of content? misleading edit summary?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Temporarily_occupied_and_uncontrolled_territories_of_Ukraine_(2014-present) and see above many notifications since january, i was merely trying to make the article more neutral 83.185.80.106 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You have given the wrong link. The links to your recent edits to the article on the Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present) are as follows (with the edit summaries you gave in red):

• 17:12, 10 June 2017 (lot neutral and grammar problems)
• 17:42, 10 June 2017 (see talkpage discussion, my actions are based on former talkpage discussion, you DO NOT have the right to give my little warning for that)
• 18:44, 10 June 2017 (can we atleast make a difference between the view of the ukrainian government and wikipedia definition)

Nothing makes sense to me. Why did you make the edits? The edit summaries do not help, because I do not understand how they relate to the edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Territories under effective control by the Russian Federation"

The text "In April 2018 PACE's emergency assembly recognized occupied regions of Ukraine as "territories under effective control by the Russian Federation" was added here, and then readded again. Whereas this may very well be true, I am not happy with the three references which are supposed to support it. The first one is RT (which is not a RS, but since they are reporting smth clearly anti-Russian we can give them the benefit of doubt - but the article does not contain this statement. The link to PACE is empty - they do not have static references, and I was not able to locate anything useful searching their site. The UNIAN can not be a RS for this statement being a government agency. I would like to see this reported by an (ideally independent) reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The edit of of 18:05, 29 April 2018 added the following:

In April 2018 PACE's emergency assembly recognized occupied regions of Ukraine as "territories under effective control by the Russian Federation" . Chairman of the Ukrainian delegation to PACE, MP Volodymyr Aryev mentioned that recognition of the fact that part of the occupied Donbas is under Russia’s control is so important for Ukraine. The responsibility for all the crimes committed in the uncontrolled territories is removed from Ukraine. Russia becomes responsible," Aryev wrote on Facebook .

"PACE ignores Russia, calls to 'stop occupation'". rt.com. Retrieved 29 April 2018.

"Doc. 14506 (Report) State of emergency: proportionality issues concerning derogations under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights – PACE resolution". assembly.coe.int. Retrieved 29 April 2018.

"PACE urges Russia to stop supplying arms to Donbas". www.ukrinform.net. Retrieved 29 April 2018.

"Aryev explains why PACE resolution is important for Ukraine". www.ukrinform.net. Retrieved 29 April 2018.

I fixed the format errors with the cite templates.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation [1] is to an article published on 29 January 2009. It is about South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Because it was written in 2009, it does not mention things that happened in 2014. @183.15.89.173: You need to read articles you cite. Citing them based on the headlines produces junk citations!-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot find the quotation "territories under effective control by the Russian Federation" in Citation [2] or [3]. Citations [2] and [3] are useful sources - but only for stuff they actually mention. They are not reliable sources for stuff they do not mention, which is how they are being used here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation [4] does support the content it is cited for - i.e. it is a reliable source for what a Ukrainian politician wrote on his Facebook page about the decision by PACE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Status at The United Nations section

An editor added a section to the article entitled Status at The United Nations on 21 October 2018. It has a pretty table showing how countries voted at the UN regarding a resolution on Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine) in December 2017, with a citation to the Russian propaganda organisation RT. This section is show below.

section entitled Status at The United Nations

The United Nations voted to recognize Crimea as an occupied territory of Ukraine. Results of the United Nations General Assembly voting to recognize Crimea as an occupied territory.   In favour   Against   Abstained   Absent when the vote took place   Non-UN member In favour (70) Abstaining (76) Against (26) Absent (21) Albania Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Australia Austria Barbados Belgium Belize Bhutan Botswana Bulgaria Canada Costa Rica Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kiribati Latvia Liberia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Marshall Islands Micronesia Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Norway Palau Panama Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Samoa San Marino Seychelles Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Tuvalu Ukraine United Kingdom United States Vanuatu Yemen Algeria Angola Argentina Bahrain Bangladesh Benin Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil Brunei Burkina Faso Cabo Verde Cameroon Chile Colombia Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Egypt Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Fiji Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Indonesia Ivory Coast Jamaica Jordan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Laos Lesotho Libya Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Mongolia Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal Niger Nigeria Oman Pakistan Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Rwanda Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore South Korea Sri Lanka Suriname Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates Uruguay Vietnam Zambia Armenia Belarus Bolivia Burundi Cambodia China Cuba Eritrea India Iran Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Myanmar Nicaragua North Korea Philippines Russia Serbia South Africa Sudan Syria Tajikistan Uganda Uzbekistan Venezuela Zimbabwe Afghanistan Azerbaijan Burkina Faso Central African Republic Chad Djibouti Dominica Grenada Iraq Lebanon Madagascar Morocco Saint Kitts and Nevis Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Somalia South Sudan Swaziland Timor-Leste Turkmenistan Observer States: Holy See and State of Palestine

@Fenetrejones: Why do you think that we need this section? A similar resolution was passed in December 2016, and is cited earlier in the article.

The citation is problematic. RT is reliable if you want to know what the Russian government is currently saying about an issue, but not much else.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that Fenetrejones has restored his/her table to the article.

At User talk:Fenetrejones#September 2018 @Ymblanter: wrote: "Concerning your edits at Political status of Crimea, if Serbia voted against resolution condemning violations human right in Crimea it does not mean it supports the annexation." Ymblanter is correct.

Whilst I believe that it is true that the United Nations has repeatedly voted on the basis that it recognises the Crimea as a temporarily occupied territory of the Ukraine, I am not convinced that the citation from RT supports this. Nor am I convinced that the huge table is relevant to this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have unmuddled various UN resolutions (see Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014–present)#International reactions).

I have also deleted the section on "Status at The United Nations" that I complained about above. It does not show what it claims to show. One objection raised in September on another page was that it was WP:OR to assume that countries voting against a resolution on human rights in the Crimea were necessarily voting against continuing to recognise that the Crimea was part of Ukraine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Documents regarding UN Resolutions

• March 2014, 68th Session, Territorial integrity of Ukraine
  • United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-eighth session, Agenda item 33 (b), Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 March 2014 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/68/L.39 and Add.1)] 68/262. Territorial integrity of Ukraine, United Nations, 1 April 2014, A/RES/68/262, retrieved 22 October 2018 Alternative URL
  • General Assembly Sixty-eighth session, 80th plenary meeting Thursday, 27 March 2014, 10 a.m., United Nations, 27 March 2014, pp. 1–27, A/68/PV.80 and 14-27868, retrieved 22 October 2018 The record of the voting is on page 17.
  • General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region, United Nations, 27 March 2014, GA/11493, retrieved 22 October 2018
• December 2016, 71st Session: Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)
  • Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2016, on the report of the Third Committee (A/71/484/Add.3), 71/205. Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), United Nations, 1 February 2017, A/RES/71/205, retrieved 22 October 2018
  • United Nations General Assembly, Seventy-first session, 65th plenary meeting, Monday, 19 December 2016, 10 a.m. New York, United Nations, 18 December 2016, pp. 34–43, A/RES/71/205, retrieved 22 October 2018
  • General Assembly Adopts 50 Third Committee Resolutions, as Diverging Views on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity Animate Voting, United Nations, 19 December 2016, GA/11879, retrieved 22 October 2018
• December 2017, 72nd Session, Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine
  • Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2017 [on the report of the Third Committee (A/72/439/Add.3)] 2/190. Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, United Nations, 19 January 2018, A/RES/72/190, retrieved 22 October 2018 Alternative URL (pdf)
  • United Nations General Assembly, Seventy-second session, Agenda item 72 (c), Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, 6 December 2017, pp. 22–25, A/72/439/Add.3, retrieved 22 October 2018

Use of the word temporary in this article

Related to the successful page move just above, is the use of the word temporary in this article, which should probably be mostly removed except when double-quoted and clearly representing a translation. For example, the section currently named #List of temporarily occupied regions and settlements cannot remain this way, for the same arguments given in the RM. If a Ukrainian law exists with precisely that name in English translation, then in theory, the section could be called, '"List of temporarily occupied regions and settlements"', that is, the same name as now, with double quotes. However, that would be very confusing; a better alternative in that case would be something like, 'Ukrainian law 123: "List of temporarily...(etc)"'. But barring that exception, the section name should change, and per concision, the section title "List" is sufficient, given that by reference to the title, this automatically reads as, "List of <article title>", ie, "list of occupied territories of Ukraine".

As for other use of the term temporary in this article, a similar approach should apply, imho; that is, where the word is a translation of a Ukrainian term, it may be included, as long as its status as a translated word is clear and therefore should appear in double quotes (and in some cases may be followed by a parenthetical with the Ukrainian term embedded in a {{lang}} template), and should not be used unquoted and in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NOCRYSTAL. An example of acceptable use is in the current version of the WP:LEADSENTENCE. Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The above carries an undue emphasis on “Ukrainian.” By example, a number of UNGA resolutions over the last eight years, published in six languages including English, refer to the “temporary occupation” of Crimea. —Michael Z. 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Occupied territories of Ukraine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Occupied territories of Ukraine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "11sept":

• From Kharkiv Oblast: Анисимова, Ольга (2022-09-11). "Минобороны РФ опубликовало карту фронта в Харьковской области". RB Новости (in Russian). Retrieved 2022-09-11.
• From Russian occupation of Kharkiv Oblast: Анисимова, Ольга (11 September 2022). "Минобороны РФ опубликовало карту фронта в Харьковской области". RB Новости (in Russian). Retrieved 11 September 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Occupied territories of Ukraine → Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine – The word Russian should in the title. Pageborn (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support for the WP:criteria of recognizability and precision, to indicate that this is not, for example, Soviet, German, nor Polish-occupied territory from some historical conflict. —Michael Z. 19:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: same reasonings as Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. See talk page. Beshogur (talk) 15:15, 27 September 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.

Kharkiv Oblast

Should we consider Kharkiv Oblast to be “partly occupied” or “formerly occupied”? The entire oblast seems to be under Ukrainian control, but in the case of some settlements east of the Oskil river it is not clear whether they are currently under Ukrainian or under Russian control. De wafelenbak (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request Kherson and Beryslav

We need to update the Kherson Oblast section to say half of Kherson Raion and have to delete the Beryslav Raion section as the entirety is under Ukrainian control and need to say most of Kakhovka Raion as a small part of it is under Ukrainian control. 96.242.227.52 (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Percentage of territory occupied before 2022.

Thanks for this informative article.

The article states the percentage of territory Russia occupied after its March 2022 invasion and as of November 11, 2022, but it does not state the percentage of territory occupied before the invasion. It would be helpful to have this information for comparison. While it is important to include Crimea in this analysis, it is also important to distinguish and track the changes that have occurred as a result of the war Russia started in 2022. In addition, the reference to November 11 does not include the year. Since multiple years are now involved, I suggest adding the year to the date. For example, the subject paragraph could be rewritten as follows:

"Before 2022, Russia occupied 42,000 km2 (16,000 sq mi) of Ukrainian territory (Crimea, and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk), which was almost 7% of Ukrain's territory. Russia occupied an additional 119,000 km2 (46,000 sq mi) after its full-scale invasion by March 2022, so that it occupied a total of 161,000 km2 (62,000 sq mi) or almost 27% of Ukraine's territory. By November, 2022, the Institute for the Study of War calculated that Ukrainian forces had liberated an area of 74,443 km2 (28,743 sq mi) from Russian occupation, leaving Russia with control of about 18% of Ukraine's territory." [Footnotes omitted.] Thcrutch (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If Russia occupied a total of 161,000 km2 at peak, and Ukraine subsequently liberated 74,443 km2 of those, then Russia would be left with 86,557 km2 of occupied territory. That would be 14,33% of Ukraine's entire area (604,000 km2), and not 18%, or am I overlooking something? Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, it's my first time writing something in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.186.9.233 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose the following "Russian occupation of X Oblast" articles be merged into this article:

• Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava oblasts
• Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast
• Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast
• Russian occupation of Chernihiv Oblast

There really isn't much of any content in these articles, which makes sense, since these occupations mostly lasted a couple weeks each without much being documented about them during that time. For some of the articles, they just cover the military operations in that region - content that should be covered in the pages relating to the campaigns of that part of Ukraine, not the "occupation" articles. There is some info that's valuable, but there's so little of it that it can be safely merged into this page, with the extraneous material discarded.

Voters should keep in mind that arguments via 'consistency' along the lines of "occupation articles exist for all these other oblasts, so these should stay too" fall under what wiki editors call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and aren't an actual policy argument. The articles should stay only if they meet the guidelines for having an article themselves. HappyWith (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. And the “control of cities” tables can be merged into Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Raw data like that shouldn’t be forked in multiple places. —Michael Z. 21:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Support for Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava, Zhytomyr and Chernihiv but Oppose for Sumy Oblast — The Sumy Oblast occupation article has enough content (basically double of all the other articles with splitting Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava based on Oblast rather than the combined article) for a stand-alone article. There is also two specific towns involved in the occupation article and pictures. So I would support three of these articles being merged, but I am fairly opposed to merging Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I think the pages are fine on their own Danielg532 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? In discussions like this, you need to provide reasonings for your votes, otherwise they will not be counted. HappyWith (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Danielg532 has opposed every merge or AfD in Ukraine invasion-related articles they've been involved in. I do not believe they have a good grasp of WP:notability. Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava and Zhytomyr. Occupations here were based on a few villages for short periods of time. Tentatively oppose Sumy and Chernihiv. Occupations here were larger and more considerable. Maybe these articles could be significantly expanded to cover possible important information, but if there's not many sources talking about this I will support the merge.

Though why nominate Sumy and Chernihiv but not Kyiv? I wonder too, if these three plus Zhytomyr could be merged into something like Russian occupation of northern Ukraine. That'd surely be more notable. I think it would be strange to have articles on the occupation of Ukraine's southern and eastern regions, where Russia actually established administrations, but not in the north, even if the same did not happen. Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If this move succeeds, it would be a goodd idea to make a new pag, possibly named "Russian occupation of northern ukraine" 209.195.250.210 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not nominate Kyiv? Honestly, it’s because I hadn’t looked at that page and kinda just assumed there was enough content there. A “northern ukraine” occupation page might be the way to go, tbh, since it would be parallel to the larger northern front, and many similar things happened during the occupations. HappyWith (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose No one would know the outcome of this war. Better keep these articles in case Russia is winning this war. 2001:8003:900C:5301:8879:5D9D:AD33:581 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC) striking non-EC user from internal project discussion per WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 01:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Excactly Danielg532 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The articles have little in them, but with more editing and sourcing, they could easily grow much bigger, especially the pages for Sumy and Chernihiv oblasts. Merging them all into one page is more convoluted, with the exception of the Dnepropetrovsk-Poltava and Zhytomyr oblast pages, as so little happened a merge is easy and unproblematic. Sumy and Chernihiv, however, are more notable. Jebiguess (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s WP:CRYSTAL to imagine they will ever grow. If and when it ever happens, the affected sections could be split summary-style. Convoluted is immaterial, IMO.  —Michael Z. 14:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This merge proposal has gone on for months with no sign of attaining consensus on all the pages. I’d be fine just closing it and merging Dnipropetrovsk-Poltava and Zhytomyr now, since those seem to have broad support, and leaving the others with less clear consensus to future proposals. Thoughts? HappyWith (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That works. I'll work on adding some stuff to the Sumy and Chernihiv pages. Jebiguess (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Михайловка (Сакский район), июнь 2022, 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Update due?

I understand that it is not feasable to try to keep this up to date but the latest numbers in this article seem to be from 2022. I stumbled upon it trying to get up to date numbers and was disappointed not to find anything from 2023 in it. 84.115.227.84 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

@Alaexis: I don't think we should expand this article from news that cover a single event or aspect of the situation, but from sources aiming at an overview of the situation. This is the only way of avoiding arbitrary selection of facts (a kind of OR which occurs IMHO far too often in articles covering recent events). Rsk6400 (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the most important aspects of the situation in the liberated territories. What other aspects should be covered in your opinion? Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have access to the article, but what I see looks like one or more anecdotes, while Alaexis’s text reads like the statements apply universally, and the heading “Aftermath” makes it look like this article is about an event that ended at a specific point in time. Doesn’t look great.

Leaves infinite questions open. Were two traitors tried or ten thousand? Are all of their trials still in progress? Has the apparently outrageous 10-year sentence been handed to anyone at all? Has anyone been found innocent or guilty at all?

Can be interpreted as pointy clickbait.  —Michael Z. 17:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The article says across Ukraine the number of collaboration cases numbers in the thousands, so it's not one anecdote. As to the sentences, the article says that the maximum sentence is 10 years and tells about two individuals sentenced to 3 and 5 years. Do you have data about the number of acquittals? Alaexis_¿question? 08:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have any more data. The mention of two actual sentences seems at least as relevant to events as the fact about the law of its maximum penalty.  —Michael Z. 15:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I should say that your questions are valid, and if you're asking them in good faith, we can certainly work together to improve the wording. As an example, it's possible that Aftermath is indeed not a good name, and it's better to call this section "Post-occupation issues." Alaexis_¿question? 09:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Post-occupation is vague, because it could be construed as under the occupation after the initial act of occupying. “Liberated areas” might be clearer if that were the scope of the content, although the content right now could simply be under “Collaboration.”  —Michael Z. 15:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)