Jump to content

Talk:Republics of Russia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Number of Russian-claimed republics II

Should the number of Russian-claimed republics (internationally recognized + occupied Ukrainian) be given as 22 or 24? — kwami (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The number of republics claimed by the Russian government is 24. The number internationally recognised is 21. The de facto number on the ground (i.e. controlled by the Russian state rather than being an active war zone) is 22, as per the most up-to-date sources. The latter two figures are the appropriate ones for the infobox, as per the earlier RfC. The Russian claims are already addressed in a paragraph about the war (which is not the subject of this article) in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
All three Ukrainian republics are in an active war zone. One is under complete occupation, one under nearly complete occupation, and one under ~2/3 occupation, but that occupation includes the capital and has been legally annexed into Russia. ('Legally' under Russian law, of course.) The list of republics in the table, which appears to be stable and uncontested, is as follows, with contested republics in italics:
  1. Republic of Adygea
  2. Altai Republic
  3. Republic of Bashkortostan
  4. Republic of Buryatia
  5. Chechen Republic
  6. Chuvash Republic
  7. Republic of Crimea
  8. Republic of Dagestan
  9. Donetsk People's Republic
  10. Republic of Ingushetia
  11. Kabardino-Balkar Republic
  12. Republic of Kalmykia
  13. Karachay-Cherkess Republic
  14. Republic of Karelia
  15. Republic of Khakassia
  16. Komi Republic
  17. Lugansk People's Republic
  18. Mari El Republic
  19. Republic of Mordovia
  20. Republic of North Ossetia–Alania
  21. Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)
  22. Republic of Tatarstan
  23. Republic of Tuva
  24. Udmurt Republic
— kwami (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
No-one is going to take seriously your claim that material added yesterday against consensus and without discussion, and already the subject of a RfC, "appears to be stable and uncontested". Cambial — foliar❧ 12:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't see the RfC. I saw that they were included in the article that you accepted, after you reverted edits that you didn't like. (Funny how you complain about assumptions of bad faith, when you routinely assume bad faith.) Anyway, as you yourself have noted, the article mentions those two republics numerous times, and you admit that they are Russian-claimed republics. — kwami (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Your use of the term "admit" suggests it has ever been a matter of dispute, or that it is relevant to what to include in the infobox. Everyone agrees the Russian government claims these additional territories, and that claim is mentioned in the lead. They are not de facto controlled by Russia, and up-to-date reliable sources do not count them as Russian territories. So Wikipedia does not claim they are de facto controlled or counted as territores by reliable sources, as that would contradict the facts. The groundless accusation of "assumptions of bad faith", immediately after the sentence where you write "you reverted edits that you didn't like" and your earlier edit summary "tagging bad faith edits", is amusing but does not merit further response. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Not this again. Russia has 21 internationally recognised republics, it claims 3 more. An RFC so probably a good idea, as the last one didn't close, but it needs a neutral opening statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Reflect reliable sources - 21 are recognised internationally; 22 are under de facto control; Kremlin view - 24 (it does not control two). As to what should be in the infobox and the first paragraph: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is crystal clear: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. No reliable sources state that Donetsk and Luhansk are republics of Russia.
The infobox is for key facts. The inclusion of the various opinions and claims and counterclaims of interested parties in the ongoing territorial dispute is not appropriate. Those regions that are stated by reliable sources to be republics of Russia are included: we include those recognised diplomatically, and we could potentially include another (Crimea) currently under the Kremlin's de facto control (I lean against inclusion in the infobox). We don't privilege the opinions of the Kremlin and elevate them to the quick-reference key facts part of the page. The same applies to the first paragraph. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
21. The fact that the territories of 22 claimed “Russian republics” are fully occupied is immaterial, especially while all three are in the active conflict zone. The figure 21 is NPOV. 24 is a fringe POV claim that’s not repeated by RS, and should not be elevated to an equivalent alternate view (false balance), and certainly not to objective reality. For the same reason, we don’t give Kremlin numbers in the infobox for the subdivisions of Ukraine as an alternate or only view, either.  —Michael Z. 15:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Review of the two most recent (2023) scholarly sources
There is a clear difference in reliable sources between the status of Crimea and that of Donetsk and Luhansk. There are scholarly sources on the number of republics that have been published recently enough to take account of the invasion and the Kremlin's claims of annexation.[1].[2] Both volumes were prepared recently enough that they give commentary on the invasion and the current position. Heaney, ed. 2023 (Introduction):[1]: 5–6 

Between Putin’s presidential inauguration in May 2012 and the end of 2022 a total of 73 of the 83 heads of federal subjects (as the territories are known) were replaced (in addition to the heads of Crimea and Sevastopol, which were annexed in 2014, and those of four Ukrainian regions annexed de jure, if not de facto, in 2022.)...After Crimea and Sevastopol were annexed from Ukraine in 2014, the federal centre repeatedly emphasized internal and external threats to their stability. Particularly around the time of Putin’s March 2018 re-election as President, both territories were lavished with attention. If Russia were ever to achieve similar control over the four territories purportedly annexed from Ukraine in 2022, such focus on their security, too, would seem likely

Section "The Impact on the Regions of the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine":[1]: 16 

Indeed, on 30 September the Kremlin claimed that more regions had come under its control when Putin announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions: the so-called ‘People’s Republics’ established in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk) by pro-Russian forces as long ago as 2014, and the southern Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhya (Zaporozhye), despite Russian control of all of these territories being by no means assured.

In various statistical tables Crimea is included but neither Donetsk nor Luhansk are mentioned.[1]: 36–42 

Section "The Government of the Russian Federation"[1]: 43 

In March 2014 Russia annexed two territories internationally recognized as constituting parts of Ukraine—the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City— bringing the de facto membership of the Federation to 85 territories. In September 2022, following its invasion of Ukraine, Russia announced the annexation of a further four territories within that country—the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (established by pro-Russian forces in 2014) and Kherson and Zaporozhye (Zaporizhzhya) Oblasts, amending Article 65 of the Constitution accordingly. However, these annexations were, like those of Crimea and Sevastopol, not internationally recognized, and moreover substantial regions of these territories remained disputed or under Ukrainian state control, as the Russian–Ukrainian conflict continued...between 2005 and 2008 the number of territories was reduced from 89 to 83. Including the two territories in Crimea, the 85 territories comprise 22 republics, nine krais (provinces), 46 oblasts (regions), three cities of federal status (Moscow, St Petersburg and Sevastopol), one autonomous oblast and four autonomous okrugs. Of these, the republics, autonomous okrugs and the autonomous oblast are (sometimes nominally) ethnically defined.

Section "Annexed and Disputed Territories Within Ukraine"[1]: 50 

In 2014 Russia annexed two territories internationally recognized as constituting part of Ukraine—Sevastopol City and what became known as the Republic of Crimea (having been designated the Autonomous Republic of Crimea under Ukrainian rule). Details of the recent political developments and the economy of these two territories are included in the main section of this publication...Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia that commenced in February 2022, four further territories were formally annexed by Russia on 30 September, and its federal constitution amended accordingly. Two of these territories—the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic—had been formed by pro-Russian and Russian-backed elements in Ukraine in 2014; under the terms decreed by Russia upon their annexation in 2022, these territories were designated as including the entire expanse of the Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk) Oblasts of Ukraine, despite substantial proportions of both territories, and in particular of Donetsk Oblast, remaining under Ukrainian control. Both of the other territories that Russia annexed in October 2022—Kherson Oblast and Zaporozhye (Zaporzhzhiya) Oblast—were also zones of active conflict, and in neither case was Russian control of these territories complete or assured; indeed, Kherson itself, the administrative centre of Kherson Oblast, which had been captured and occupied by Russian forces in March, wasregained by Ukraine on 11 November, with the pro-Russian administration being forced to relocate to a smaller city, Genichesk...In December 2022, for the first time, the pro-Russian executive and legislative bodies established in Donetsk and Lugansk appointed representatives to the Federation Council, as did the newly established executive bodies of Kherson and Zaporozhye Oblasts.

There then follows the section "Territorial Surveys" which is the bulk of the book. Each federal subject has its own dedicated chapter, including Crimea. Neither Donetsk nor Luhansk is included.[1]: 57–320 

Gill, ed. 2023 includes a table listing the republics as of the 1993 constitution and those added since. For the latter it lists "Crimea (2014)". It does not mention Donetsk or Luhansk.[2]: 453  There are ten or so references to Donetsk and Luhansk in the work, none of which refer to them as now being constituent republics of Russia. In section "Democratisation":[3]: 39 

Thus Russia inherited 89 regions in 1991 grouped into three main types (ethno-federal republics, autonomous regions of various sorts, and ordinary regions [oblasts], including today the major cities of Moscow and St Petersburg along with Sevastopol in Crimea). The result in institutional terms is asymmetrical federalism in what is now 85 regions (following the merger of certain smaller entities and the incorporation of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in 2014).

The diplomatic recognition (21) is a vital factor and ought to be given prominence. The de facto position of 22 republics (including Crimea) could or could not be included; the most reliable sources support this, but Crimea does not have diplomatic recognition. The claim of 24 remains an aspiration of the Kremlin or Putin personally. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a “clear difference.” The first source starts with the baseline of 83 federal subjects, not 85, and it has a separate chapter for the occupied territories together. The difference in the treatment of the 2022 annexations appears to be because of their recentness, especially the lack of comparable data from presumably Russian and Russian government statistics for inclusion in tables, and likely constrained by publication dates determined months or years in advance (the second source was published December 23, 2022, less than three months after the rushed “annexations”). Most or all of the essays in these collections were likely completed before the 2022 “annexations.”  —Michael Z. 15:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Support 21 recognized/recognised, 24 claimed. everything User:Cambial Yellowing has said makes sense and to state 24 without further context is objectively wrong. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:9C5C:54A2:CF81:9551 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Should the number of Russian-claimed republics (internationally recognized + occupied Ukrainian) be given as 22 or 24? NO. The infobox and lead should state that there are 21 recognized Russian republics, and unrecognized Russian claims to an additional 3. The number 22 should not appear. It is not acceptable to fabricate the number 22, inappropriately attempting to arbitrate some claims as more or less legitimate than others. The body of the article can get down into the weeds on detailed discussion of each of the three disputed territories. Alsee (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
    The opinion of the Kremlin should not appear in the infobox at all, because the infobox is for key facts, not for opinions. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • 21, possibly with a footnote, per my argument above - we shouldn't be rushing to update things based on disputes and tactical maneuvers in the middle of a war. There will be plenty of time to update things after the war is over. But there's ample sourcing for 21, and all the other numbers mentioned either rely on biased sources (which cannot be used without attribution and therefore shouldn't be used for the infobox, where we can't really attribute them) or are editors making calculations. A massive territorial dispute like this that is part of one of the biggest wars in recent memory is not an appropriate place to try and apply WP:CALC; no reasonable editor could describe that as an uncontroversial calculation. --Aquillion (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Saying that there are 21 internationally recognised republics isn't correct since administrative subdivisions of a state cannot be diplomatically recognised. Therefore the correct wording would be "21 within the internationally recognised borders of Russia" which is probably too long for the infobox. The rest can be described as "claimed by Russia", "according to the Constitution of Russia." Possibly we could use a footnote:

21/24 [4]

Alaexis¿question? 11:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Point. That works for me. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This also works for me. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe leave the number out of the infobox, and just leave the note. This is always the problem with infoboxes, they're great for simple uncontested information but terrible if any detail or nuance is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. I would support this. Mellk (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1) “21 within the internationally recognised borders of Russia” fits fine. There is already at least one longer infobox entry.
2) That can be shortened to the exact synonym “21 within borders of Russia,” “21 within Russia,” or just “21,” since the article is about Russia. This is what readers expect, and this is what reference sources listing republics of Russia do.
The figure “24” is a fringe POV claim by a criminally aggressive government. It is not given by reliable sources. It mustn’t appear in the infobox without a qualifier, like “21 (24 claimed by the Russian government).” Hiding the NPOV in a note that readers won’t read is POV and contrary to INFOBOXPURPOSE. It’s embracing a false balance, to put it kindly. It’s best to omit it from the infobox, and have the whole article treat the POV claims as an exceptional claim, not an “alternate fact.”  —Michael Z. 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
It’s embracing a false balance. It's best to...have the whole article treat the POV claims as an exceptional claim, not an “alternate fact.” Well put, Michael. I agree. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Put something like "21 (recognized[ internationally])/24 (claimed[ by Russian govt.])", as it was already proposed. It takes into account both positions that are reflected in the reality (the laws of both countries and international recognition, and also actual control of the lands), and in the article there should be a section explaining this further. The "argument" of being a "criminally aggressive government" is out of this discussion, because we should not care about your feelings, but about writing an enciclopedic article.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Heaney, Dominic, ed. (2023). The Territories of the Russian Federation 2023 (24th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781032469744.
  2. ^ a b Blakkisrud, Helge (2023). "Ethnic Relations". In Gill, Graeme (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Russian Politics and Society (Second ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge. pp. 449–462. ISBN 978-1-032-11052-3.
  3. ^ Sakwa, Richard (2023). "Democratisation". In Gill, Graeme (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Russian Politics and Society (Second ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge. pp. 33–45. ISBN 978-1-032-11052-3.
  4. ^ 21 within the internationally recognised borders of Russia, 24 claimed and partially controlled by Russia
  • Comment: put something like "21 (recognized[ internationally])/24 (claimed[ by Russian govt.])", as it was already proposed. It takes into account both positions that are reflected in the reality (the laws of both countries and international recognition, and also actual control of the lands), and in the article there should be a section explaining this further. The "argument" of being a "criminally aggressive government" is out of this discussion, because we should not care about your feelings, but about writing a proper encyclopedic article. --Onwa (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
    Well, experts tell us that the RF has committed the crime of aggression and that the “annexation” claim is part of that crime. This is not only internationally agreed by the UN General Assembly but an objective fact according to reliable sources on the subject. So it is a misrepresentation, UNDUE, and non-NPOV to poo-poo this fact as my “feelings” and not something that belongs in a proper encyclopedic article.
    Anyway, the key part is that considering parts of Ukraine Russia is FRINGE, because experts and the international consensus say that it is not a fact, and shouldn’t be represented with equal weight and without an explanation in the infobox, but only, as you say, in a section explaining it further.  —Michael Z. 19:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
    But it is a fact. Russia controls them. That's what the war is about -- Uk wouldn't be attacking Ru otherwise.
    Much of the territory of many of the countries of the world has been stolen. Just about everything, if you go back far enough. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, for example. All founded as criminal enterprises, at least by today's standards. China in Tibet. India in Kashmir. Indonesia in West Papua. The entire territories of Argentina and Brazil. Israel. Turkey. Morocco. Poland. Most of them refuse to recognize the genocide and ethnic cleansing they committed to acquire their current boundaries, and in some cases continue to commit. Russia has decided that they like being a criminal enterprise, and plan to keep going, but they're not all that anachronistic. It's not like Spain is willing to let Catalonia and the Basque Country go, or that hardly any of the world's countries are willing to give their indigenous population real self-determination.
    As an encyclopedia, we should report on what is. If the status quo is generally judged to be criminal, we should state that clearly, but we shouldn't try to obfuscate the realities of the world just because we agree that they are criminal. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Inherent in the "Republics" claim by Russia is that they are a part of Russia. "Unrecognized" does not need to mean anything more than rejection / non-recognition of that. I also echo ActivelyDisinterested's "This is always the problem with infoboxes, they're great for simple uncontested information but terrible if any detail or nuance is needed." So, regarding infoboxes, when in doubt, leave it out. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the rhyme. We should write that into MOS:INFOBOX, if it’s not there already.  —Michael Z. 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republics_of_Russia/Archive_3&oldid=1246050868"