Talk:Republics of Russia

Annexed regions

Update disclaimer: be unbiased and assume good faith - among the Wikipedia rules - this is a tendentious and biased position, implying that something is a fact although its a temporaty state of affairs that is violating international law and will cease the moment the international humanitatian law will be put in place. I.e. the map cannot contain Crimea or any territories of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViktoriiaB (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a republic? --> OneRepublic.

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

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

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

All editors agree that reliable sources support the following facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Eduardog3000 - Sovereign states aren't determined by international law nor by recognition. Membership in the United Nations does not a country make. Indeed, that premise is faulty to begin with, and the only reason that policy is in-place on Wikipedia is because the United Nations is seen as a "neutral" and "reliable" source, and this is supposed to reduce edit-warring on Wikipedia over classifying the political status of disputed territories and disputed governments/states. In reality, sovereign states are determined by a variety of factors, one of which involves merely "a group of people declaring themselves to be sovereign". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine, sovereign states are defined by these criteria from the page you linked. But that doesn't change the rest of my comment. Russian Republics are defined solely by Russian law (the same way US States are defined solely by US law) and therefore this article has different standards than that list of sovereign states. eduardog3000 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Republics of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea

The Russo Ukrainian war has been ongoing since 2014. Although I will not defend the actions of the Russian State this 9 years, the Republics of Donetsk, Luhansk and most importantly Crimea should have their names mentioned in this article. Wikipedia wants to have a neutral point of view, that's why even if the annexation of these regions has been condemned by the international community, these Republics exist and therefore should be in here. It's not like Wikipedia will support Russia by doing this, it's just to present reality as it is. Bilikon (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right Bilikon, they should be mentioned in this article – and they are. Each is mentioned several times. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality in the face of genocide and colonialism is its support. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

21 not 22

@Gerçois and Cambial Yellowing: Crimea is not recognized. See 2023 source. Panam2014 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we should provide both counts, but the latter is 24, not 22. International recognition is important, but so is de facto control on the ground. So we can say that 21 have UN recognition but that there are 24 under Russian claim / de facto control. Plus spelling it out should stop this chronic confusion from recurring. If/when the 3 occupied republics are retaken, we can change the number, but it's also possible that they will eventually be recognized as part of a settlement of the war.

The existence of republics isn't as important as it was under Lenin, but AFAIK they still do have their own constitutions, which makes them slightly more autonomous than other subjects. (Plus Chechnya retains actual autonomy, and in addition is recognized as an occupied nation by Ukraine.) — kwami (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Claim and de facto control are again two distinct categories and two different numbers. I think we should include the figure recognised internationally and the figure given in reliable sources for de facto control. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

They're the same number: Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. There's no variation in sources on that. Half of the war is fighting Russian occupation of the Donbas. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed mention of Crimea. Either we list the occupied, Russia-claimed republics or we don't. We don't get to pick and choose. — kwami (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Other countries do not determine the subdivisions themselves, they recognize the territory as belonging to another country. According to Russian law, there are 24 republics. It should instead be mentioned that the territory is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine and some of the territory is not even controlled. So it is not as simple as this. Mellk (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the difference. The countries that recognize the territories as Ukrainian do not recognize the republics as Russian. In the case of Crimea, they recognize it as a republic of Ukraine; in the case of the other two, they do not recognize them as republics at all.

So, depending on whose law/claim you recognize, Russia has either 21 republics or 24. I don't see an current argument for 22. I suppose there may be a country or two that recognizes Russia's claim to Crimea but not to the other two, but if so I doubt it would belong in the lead (per WEIGHT). — kwami (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Crimea refers to the entire peninsula. Most countries recognize this as part of Ukraine. In terms of administrative divisions, the (Autonomous) Republic of Crimea excludes Sevastopol. Other countries do not recognize the administrative divisions themselves. If, according to Ukrainian law, there were instead now five oblasts in Crimea, this does not change that the Republic of Crimea exists only in Russian law, like the other republics, while those oblasts exist only in Ukrainian law (like now the Autonomous Republic of Crimea). The Russian constitution now says there are 89 federal subjects including 24 republics, not 21 republics. Sakhalin Oblast includes the disputed Kuril Islands, but other countries do not recognize the administrative division itself, they simply recognize that those islands belong to either Russia or Japan (if they made an explicit decision). We do not pretend the oblast does not exist in Russian law as a result, or the equivalent in Japanese law, even though it does not control the islands, this is not something determined by other countries. Mellk (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

So, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is not a republic, despite the WP article claiming that it's a republic? If our articles Administrative divisions of Ukraine and Autonomous Republic of Crimea are wrong on this point, then they need to be corrected. WP articles should not contradict each other.

Also, Sevastopol is not part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea under Ukrainian law. Under both Ukrainian and Russian administration, it's a special-status city, like Kiev or Moscow. The Ukrainian republic and the Russian republic are the same entity; the only dispute is which country they belong to. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a Ukrainian subdivision, the Republic of Crimea is a Russian subdivision. Mellk (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Which is what I said. Geographically they are the same entity. Neither covers the entire Crimean Peninsula, but that is irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I do not understand what you meant by: So, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is not a republic, despite the WP article claiming that it's a republic? Mellk (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I misread your comment. I don't see how what you said has anything to do with what you responded to. The Crimean republic is the same territory regardless of whether you recognize the Uk or the Ru claim. There's no disagreement between the countries on that. The Donbass is different: those are republics only under Ru law. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Panam2014 in the 2023 source it says 22 not 21 use the source Gerçois (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to claim that there is no variation in sources between the status of Crimea and that of Donetsk and Luhansk. Scholarly sources on the number of republics that have been published recently enough to take account of the invasion are few: I've added one to the article; there's another also recently published. Both volumes were prepared recently enough that they give commentary on the invasion and the current position. Heaney, ed. 2023 (Introduction):

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":

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.

Section "The Government of the Russian Federation"

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"

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.

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. 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":

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 is a vital factor and as I said in my last post ought to be given prominence. The de facto position could or could not be included, but the most reliable sources indicate a figure of 22 republics including Crimea, while the claim of 24 remains an aspiration of the Kremlin or Putin personally. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, there is a nuance to all of this, since there is practically zero recognition for the 2022 annexations and only part of this territory is occupied. In terms of strictly the number of republics (or federal subjects as a whole), then this determined by Russian law, no matter how whacky it is. My main issue is with calling the republics themselves as recognized/unrecognized, as explained above.

I suppose another approach is to mention 22 republics (or 85 federal subjects) and wait for sources to update on this (for example Routledge Handbook of Russian Politics and Society says: "More recently, with Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, two additional subjects were added to the federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal City of Sevastopol - bringing the current total of federal subjects to 85.") I suppose what we can do here is write something like: "According to the Russian constitution, there are a total of 22 republics (plus an additional two republics following the 2022 annexation...)" or "Including Crimea, there a total of...". For the infobox, then this is be mentioned in a footnote. Mellk (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, the number of republics, strictly or otherwise, is not determined by Russian law. Nor is that the policy of this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This I meant in practice. This is indeed determined by the constitution, and changes are made through amendments. Mellk (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO there should be info somewhere regarding the unrecognized Russian-claimed areas, identified as such. But there should be no listings, statements, inclusions, counts etc. that imply that they actually exist as Republics of Russia. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The 4th paragraph of the lead does this. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem with this is that the administrative divisions exist. It would be fair to instead say that it should not be implied that the annexations were legal or widely recognized. Mellk (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, they do exist as republics of Russia. The are controlled by Russia (though not over the entire claimed territory -- I'm not sure if the territory is even legally defined), they are republics of Russia under Russian law, just as all the other republics are defined by Russian law, and AFAIK there is only a single country that recognizes the Russian claim. As with other unrecognized states and territories, we should give the reader both the facts on the ground, the official position of the polities themselves, and international recognition (or lack thereof).

We don't need to wait for summary sources to update. We have multiple RS's about the Donbass. The numbers are therefore 21 and 24, not 22. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Where are these multiple RS's? The ones that say Donetsk and Luhansk are republics of Russia - Not merely that Russia claims that they are, but that state these regions are republics of Russia and that it controls them. None are cited in the article, and none have been posted on this talk page. Without a reliable source published since January 2023 (the publication date of the most recent scholarship, which states they are not de facto controlled by Russia), claims about these now being sufficiently controlled by Russia to be called republics of RUssia remain unsourced. There have been no significant territorial changes or movement of the frontlines since November 2022. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, come on. They have been controlled by Russia since 2014. Russia merely made it official last year. If you want sources, check any news outlet in the world, including Ukrainian ones. If they aren't controlled by Russia, who has Ukraine been fighting these past 18 months, Munchkins? — kwami (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It took me only a couple minutes to find something. Turns out it's a source we already use (The Territories of the Russian Federation 2023, Europa Territories of the World, Routledge, 24th edition); we just selectively quote a paragraph that had failed to be updated. The situation is however adequately covered elsewhere in the chapter:

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 substatial regions of these territories remained disputed or under Ukrainian state control, as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict continued.

...

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). ...

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 ammended 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. [Further details of Russian control not covering the entire oblasts.] 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 ad Zaporoshye Oblasts. Details of the pro-Russian administrations (which are recognized solely by the Russian state) in these territories are listed below. [Official titles are "republics".]

That is, these polities are legally part of Russia (according to Russian law), they are called republics, and they participate in the Duma as federal subjects. — kwami (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You’ve just reproduced the same quote from the same source I put a few posts earlier (a couple of inches up this section of the talk page in this diff). I quoted far more extensively from two sources. It states explicitly (in fact I quoted it again briefly in my previous comment) that Donetsk and Luhansk are de jure but "not de facto" annexed by Russia (my emphasis). It also states "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." The source also gives a figure of 22 republics and does not include Donetsk or Luhansk in its summaries. Read my post above. The source you quoted supports the inclusion of Crimea and the exclusion of Donetsk and Luhansk from de facto Russian control, and explicitly gives a figure of 22 republics. Your misjudged sarcasm about the war does not advance your argument, and we do not include unsourced claims on this site, especially where scholarly sources state to the contrary. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is really very simple. Essentially all we need to state is:

• There are 24 Russian republics according to official Russian sources
• There are 21 Russian republics that have been recognised internationally
• There are 22 Russian republics according to some sources, their logic being blablabla...

Wikipedia does not have to decide how many republics to recognise, that's not our job. We should simply state the facts based on WP:RS. Bermicourt (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly so, and as I summarise from the sources at the end of this comment. Recognition - 21; de facto - 22; Russian government sources claim - 24. The Russian government claims are described in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The source you used for 21 republics instead mentions 22 (the quote selected says: Including the two territories in Crimea, the 85 territories comprise 22 republics). Either a different source is needed or this should be updated because this fails verification. Mellk (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Literally two paragraphs above I said the source explicitly gives a figure of 22 republics. In what possible sense is that a source [I] used for 21 republics? The 21 figure is only for international recognition – the de facto position is clearly 22, including Crimea. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve updated as you suggested. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah apologies, I was referring to the lead where it was used for the statement about 21 republics. It looks like it was changed here. Mellk (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The de facto situation is clearly 24. One paragraph that was not updated in the latest edition doesn't trump the material that was updated. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the material does not support your claim of 24. I referred to five sections, not one paragraph. The paragraphs that clearly are updated (referring to events in November and December 2022) state that the four recent regions are not under Russian de facto control. We go by reliable sources, not what one editor thinks is “clearly” true despite reliable evidence to the contrary. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I had to revert you again. The sources you use in the lead give 24: 21 recognized and another 3 claimed. The first source gives Crimea and the second Luhansk and Donetsk. — kwami (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This has gone well past ridiculous, so I made a RfC below. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop making things up about what the source says. I’ve quoted very extensively from the two available sources above. Nothing in them supports your POV, stop trying to push it. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Reality is what it is, the sources are what they are. No matter how many times you insist 2 + 2 = 5, it will still be 4. — kwami (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

“Not de facto” (as in the source) doesn’t become “is de facto”because you wish it to be. It’s pretty simple. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Number of Russian-claimed republics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC is not viable in its present form as it is too convoluted. An RfC needs to ask a simple and straight forward, and neutral question (i.e. without imposing various added qualifications and explanations as prerequisites). Like, should it be this or should it be that? And that's it. Anything further concerning the reasoning needs to be presented below that question, not integrated with it. Note also that this subject matter falls under the WP:ARBEE WP:CTOP sanctions regime, so special care is expected. El_C 11:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

---

In the lead, we have RS's that Russia has 21 internationally recognized republics, plus occupied Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, which are claimed by Russia (e.g. named in the amended Russian constitution), but which are not recognized as Russian by anyone else. (In addition, Russia does not occupy all the territory it claims for Luhansk and Donetsk.) The question then is how many Russian-claimed republics that makes: 22 or 24. One source said, in a prior edition before Russia claimed Luhansk and Donetsk, that there were 21 plus Crimea, for a total of 22. That source has recently been updated to add Donetsk and Luhansk (supported also by a second source in the lead), but the total given still reads 22. The question then is whether we have to say there are 22 Russian-claimed republics, or if we should say there are 24 because 21 + 1 (Crimea) + 2 (Luhanks and Donetsk) = 24.

— kwami (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

So much for a neutrally worded question. Can you remove the complete misrepresentation of facts about a source from this statement (not question). Need to observe WP:RFCNEUTRAL rather than advocating (and claiming a source says the opposite of what it does) before getting to the question. A simple “how many republics should we state…” is an appropriate type of question. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

... and this is why discussion with you is pointless, and I RfC'd. — kwami (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to implement a neutral, brief RfC question? Cambial — foliar❧ 10:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Serious problems with RfC wording There is no dispute about the number of Republics claimed by the Russian Government. What is at issue is whether the article should state, without evidence and contrary to a reliable scholarly source, that this number is the same as the de facto number. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not editor arithmetic based on their unsourced (and widely contradicted) claims about Russian control of regions still the site of active conflict. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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.. Both volumes were prepared recently enough that they give commentary on the invasion and the current position. Heaney, ed. 2023 (Introduction):

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":

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.

Section "The Government of the Russian Federation"

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"

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.

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. 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":

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 could or could not be included; the most reliable sources for this indicate a figure of 22 republics including Crimea. The claim of 24 remains an aspiration of the Kremlin or Putin personally. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

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.. Both volumes were prepared recently enough that they give commentary on the invasion and the current position. Heaney, ed. 2023 (Introduction): 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": 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. Section "The Government of the Russian Federation" 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" 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. 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. 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": 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

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

• 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)

Add Flags next to location

It's better if you add the republic's flags next to their location. The same thing has been done with other articles of administrative regions, like PakistanAdministrative units of Pakistan and Japan Prefectures of Japan Swaggio123 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ why is there no "edit discussion" button?! Swaggio123 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

(in the lead)

Change

Since the termination of the final bilateral treaty in 2017, some commentators consider Russia to no longer be a federation.

to

Since the termination of the final bilateral treaty in 2017, some commentators consider Russia to no longer be a federation.

due to reason: this sentence is based on a similar sentence in the "History" section, so the same citations can be used here. Accordingly, since the citations are moved to the lead, the places they were previously introduced can be changed this way (using "ref name= "(name)"/ format):

Change

The Republic of Tatarstan demanded its own agreement to preserve its autonomy within the Russian Federation and on 15 February 1994, Moscow and Kazan signed a power-sharing deal, in which the latter was granted a high degree of autonomy.

to

The Republic of Tatarstan demanded its own agreement to preserve its autonomy within the Russian Federation and on 15 February 1994, Moscow and Kazan signed a power-sharing deal, in which the latter was granted a high degree of autonomy.

Change

After the agreement's termination, some commentators expressed the view that Russia ceased to be a federation.

to

After the agreement's termination, some commentators expressed the view that Russia ceased to be a federation. 104.175.78.152 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

References

The number of republics should be 26, not 21

Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia are republics under the Russian constitution. Recognition is irrelevant. Israel has Golan regardless of international recognition. Golan is counted as part of Israel regardless of international recognition. So by the same token Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia should be counted as part of Russia regardless of international recognition. So the number of republics should be 26, not 21.

69.166.123.76 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Secondary sources, preferably scholarship, are needed, as the current available scholarship indicates that the number is 21. In addition, there is a well-established consensus that the article should indicate 21, so you will need to establish a consensus for your proposal by convincing other editors. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)