Talk:Federal subjects of Russia
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the List of federal subjects of Russia page were merged into Federal subjects of Russia. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Index
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Map is missing Karachay-Cherkessia edit
That: Karachay-Cherkessia. —Michael Z. 2019-11-10 22:52 z
Infobox edit
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is unambiguous and crystal clear: the infobox is for key facts, not the aspirations of a tyrant. Key facts require reliable sources. Do not add unsourced, unsourceable, and unsupported content to the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact that Russia considers these territories integral parts of itself is a key fact. The policy makes no mention of not including controversy or "aspirations of tyrants". It is evidently not "unambiguous" if the contrary for disputed territory is the norm for infoboxes: the area of Somaliland is shown claimed by Somalia in its infobox, Taiwan is shown claimed by China, the Falklands is shown claimed by Argentina, south-eastern Ukraine is shown claimed by Russia.
Also, how is it "unsourced" and "unsourceable"? It has been widely reported in WP:RS that Russia has, in its own view, annexed these territories it occupies. Did you mean no RS outright says that the territories are part of Russia? That is not necessary to acknowledge that Russia claims it. To omit the claims because they are against our (rightful) sensibilities means we are WP:RGW and precisely not following WP:RS. --128.240.225.29 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is about federal subjects of Russia. Thus a part of Ukraine, about which the Russian government has expressed the view that it is part of its territory, does not become a fact, key or otherwise. Unsourced: because it does not have a source supporting it. Unsourceable: because no reliable secondary sources state that these are part of Russia. We already acknowledge Russia claims it in the body of the article. The claims are omitted from the facts not because they are against anyone's "
sensibilities
"; they are omitted because one government's opinion is not a fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)- Russian law considers these areas as federal subjects. That's an objective fact. We list Tibet as a province of China, even though it was an illegal land grab back then. Same with regards to the countless captured territories throughout history. We may of course disagree with ethics or legality of land grabs worldwide, however we are obliged to reflect the reality – and here, the reality is that there exist Russian federal subjects called Donetsk Republic, Luhansk Republic and Republic of Crimea. As much as we may dislike this, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. — kashmīrī TALK 17:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, what Russian law considers is not objective facts, and these don’t quite fully exist, do they?
- Legally, Russian law has no jurisdiction in Ukraine. Politically, these political entities are not internationally recognized as territory of Russia. And de facto, Russia’s illegal invasion force (“SMO”) is so far inadequate to impose this “reality.”
- The Kremlin could write into the Russian constitution that it has “annexed” Newark, New Jersey today, but that wouldn’t be any reality either, only another example of Kremlin POV, which has been labelled colonial and fascist by experts.
- WP:NPOV means that this must not be presented as objective facts. —Michael Z. 15:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Russian law considers these areas as federal subjects. That's an objective fact. We list Tibet as a province of China, even though it was an illegal land grab back then. Same with regards to the countless captured territories throughout history. We may of course disagree with ethics or legality of land grabs worldwide, however we are obliged to reflect the reality – and here, the reality is that there exist Russian federal subjects called Donetsk Republic, Luhansk Republic and Republic of Crimea. As much as we may dislike this, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. — kashmīrī TALK 17:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
List of federal subjects suggestion for lines 60-74 edit
Instead of having the "oblast" spanning 1 line for Pskov Oblast and then "oblast" spanning 14 lines from Rostov Oblast to Chelyabinsk Oblast we could just have "oblast" spanning 15 lines from Pskov to Chelyabinsk.
Minor edit but I don't have the rights to do it, thanks in advance TheÆtherPlayer (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Russian occupied regions to part of Ukraine 2601:441:8201:9680:8924:F9A9:B03C:23BE (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}}template. — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Regions of Ukraine in infoboxes on Russia edit
A discussion on a closely related topic may interest watchers of this page at Talk:Republics of Russia. There is a discussion as to whether a calculated total including the view of the Kremlin on the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine should be included in the infobox and opening. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
New Map edit
Hi everyone, I noticed that there were a few issues with the map of federal subjects with the Kerson Oblast missing some of the territories that it claims from the Mykolaiv Oblast. On further inspection the map also had a range of different formatting issues to the point at which it would be easier to just create a new map, which I have done. I've also tried to make it colour blind freinds -though the current one appears to already be so as well. Hope this resource is useful. Kappasi (talk)
