Talk:Republics of Russia/Archive 1

Table of Republics
I have made a table of the republics with information i thought interesting. I have spotted and corrected one or two mistakes, but anyone who sees an apparent mistake (eg. missing a zero from Tatarstan's population or Bashkirs as the titular nationality of Kalmykia) please feel free to check it up and if necessary correct it. My main source was other wikipedia articles, but i also used: Sakwa, Russian politics and society, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2002. N-edits 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Migration?
"Due to decades (in some cases centuries) of internal migration inside Russia, this nationality is not necessarily a majority of a republic's population."

I recently read 'Murder in Samarkand' by Graig Murray (U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan until 2004). He states a different reason why many of the 'ethnic republics' are named for groups that are often actually a minority in the republic in question. His explanation is that is that Stalin intentionally draw up the lines so as to fragment and isolate each ethnic group, and to ensure they were actually a minority in their 'homeland'. This was done in order to limit the potential for nationalist movements and independence calls. If I remember correctly Uzbekistan is a good example - the majority ethnic group in Uzbekistan is the Tajiks. (Presumably, following this logic, the Tajiks are a minority in Tajikistan, though I have not checked this.) This argument is supported to some degree by the very odd ways that some of the borders have been drawn up, often criss-crossing (rather than following) natural boundaries. In places the borders almost seem fractal - in fact, in places there are isolated enclaves of one republic inside another. This was apparently to break off and isolate towns that had a particular majority from their larger geographic area.

I'm not sure "in some cases centuries" makes sense either; as I understand it many of these named regions (even when part of the USSR) are not centuries old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.250.50 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

the whole idea of self governed republics is just terrible. because it promoted independent movements. non west country grant such a high level of autonomous power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian text
Line 137 of this article (last line of "Demographics trend") is in Russian. As this is an English article, it should be translated. --Spike35031 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC) -- I highlighted the text in question, right-clicked, selected the "Bing" translator, and got this as a translation of the Cyrillic text:

In the column "other" are the people who are the second largest indigenous peoples in dvusostavnyh republics. The Bing translator couldn't translate dvu-sostanvnyh, but from my Russian dictionaries it's my guess that the word "sostanvnyh" means "composition", "structure", and/or "body", and the prefix dvu apparently means "double". So in this case, I think "two or more" could be a close fit for dvu in the phrase, i.e., 'republics with two or more indigenous peoples'. Anyway, I'll leave this for the curious as a partial translation until someone having a better command of Russian than I do goes ahead and makes the appropriate change in the article. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Russian language is my native and you are absolutely right. Two-nation republics, such as Kabardino-Balkaria, was created for two nations.Viktor Š 11:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)

Crimean titular nation
Actually Crimean republic was created as Russian autonomy in Ukraine, and keeping status of a republic in Russia to be able to have Ukrainian and Crimean-tatar languages as official ones.Viktor Š 11:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is no titular ethnicity in the Republic of Crimea. Crimea has just kept the republic status when it came to Russia. It's the only republic in Russia that wasn't given its status because of ethnicity. So I think it should be changed in the article. 2A00:1028:919E:BE42:6472:EC0B:31CF:FFCD (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Crimea "internationally recognized" as part of Ukraine
What exactly is the definition of "internationally recognized" being used here? Jahelistbro (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably, most United Nations member states (via United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, 100 fotes "for" of 193 total UNMS) And yes, that formulation ("internationally recognized as part of Ukraine") is not WP:OR or whatever — it is how Crimea is described by reliable sources. See, for example, here: "The territories of the Crimean peninsula, comprising Sevastopol City and the Republic (formerly the Autonomous Republic) of Crimea, constituting the Crimean Federal Okrug, were annexed by Russia in March 2014, but remain internationally recognized as part of Ukraine". --Seryo93 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 51.81% of nations is considered international recognition, yes, but so is 48.19%. Technically 48.19% of nations didn't recognize (realize that I do distinguish between non-recognition of Crimea as a part of the Ukraine, and recognition of Crimea as part of Russia) the resolution. And 8 members of the United Nations have in a manner or another recognized Crimea to be a subject of Russia. That is international recognition, by definition. I only seek a NPV, and by that I mean that I only seek the reality be made readily apparent. The recognition of Crimea, as a part of Ukraine is disputed. Thanks, Jahelistbro (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Internationally" means everybody except Russians. 195.114.147.176 (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity of heads
User:ProjectHorizons I think table of Ethnicity of heads should be in this article.--Kaiyr (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally a table looks ugly and you'd have to find sources to make it credible to be added. However, there is an existing image that you uploaded in 2017 that shows the exact same thing, though it is in Russian. I wouldn't mind this being added if it is translated to English and the republics are listed alphabetically under the Latin script. ProjectHorizons (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Former republics
I've been working on extending the Republics list section in the article to include former republics that existed throughout the Soviet Union's history and am wondering if it would be a good addition or not?

This is what I've currently made. ProjectHorizons (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about Table
What happened to the flags? Can we add them back? Great Mercian (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thrakkx removed them based on MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:XMASTREE.
 * I personally think it was stupid to remove them as they fit nicely and were not merely decorative but I'm not here to argue user preferences or Wikipedia guidelines. ProjectHorizons (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The MOS guidelines speak for themselves; the flags were not appropriate. If the reader is dying to know what the flags of the republics are, they can check the individual republic articles or Flags of the federal subjects of Russia. Thrakkx (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * in that case, you should remove the US state flags from their table, or the German state's flags, removing them was stupid, if you saw them as unencyclopædic then why? They do serve an educational purpose and to say "WeLl YoU cAn JuSt Go On ThE rEpUbLiCs InDiViDuAl PaGeS" is dumb and just makes for unnecessary clicks, and thus makes the wiki unnavigable. Great Mercian (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. If you look at my edit history, I have been removing flags according to these policies for weeks. I can't remove every single flag where they don't belong all at once.
 * 2. Since the consensus-based guidelines support my rationale, removing the flags was not stupid.
 * 3. If you saw them as unencyclopædic then why? What are you even asking...?
 * 4. They do serve an educational purpose. You can't just say this without supporting evidence that ICONDECORATION and XMASTREE and OTHERCONTENT haven't already refuted
 * 5. WeLl YoU cAn JuSt Go On ThE rEpUbLiCs InDiViDuAl PaGeS You are like other editors I've encountered, who get beyond upset about the removal of little decorative icons. I don't understand the flag obsession. Have you thought that most people have absolutely no interest in them? This wiki is not a vexillology party.
 * 6. It is definitively false to say that having to click a few extra links makes the wiki unnavigable. Flag enthusiasts can head straight for Flags of the federal subjects of Russia. Everyone else can read content elsewhere without having flags shoved all over the place. Thrakkx (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, you win. I'll add a link to that article.
 * To explain point 5, I've had an obsession with them since early childhood. Great Mercian (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's nice that you enjoy flags, but don't let that cause you to insert them at every opportunity all over the encyclopedia. There is a time and a place for flags, and it's less often than most editors would like to believe. Thrakkx (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing of what you cite here is a policy. They’re merely guidelines. Tvx1 17:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing of what you cite here is a policy. They’re merely guidelines. Tvx1 17:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how they support this (most of the guidelines have in mind cases where the flag is placed beside the name of a national or used as a substitute for the name of the state). The flags aren't "decoration", they're a relevant piece of information about the republics, like their capitals. Cf. U.S. state and States of Germany, which list all the states with *their* flags. Furius (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page. The flags on those pages should removed as well for the same reasons as I removed them from here. I am just one person, after all. Thrakkx (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a two part argument. Part one is that these flags aren't serving as "decoration", but "additional useful information on the article subject" per MOS:ICONDECORATION. Part two is that the flags are included not just in one other page, but in most pages listing the states of federations (e.g., U.S. state, Federative units of Brazil, List of states of Mexico (coats of arms, since Mexican states don't have flags), States of Germany (in the map), States of Austria (in the map), Cantons of Switzerland (and coats of arms), States and territories of Australia, States and federal territories of Malaysia, States of the Federated States of Micronesia, States of Palau, States of Venezuela, Autonomous communities of Spain), so your claim that not having flags in this context is the consensus on wikipedia is incorrect. We have no idea whether "most people" have an interest in flags or not, so that's just a variation on "I don't like it". Furius (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I already said, listing articles that use flags where guidelines say they should not is not a valid argument for including the flags in this article. We do not assume consensus based a sample of articles, we derive it from the manual of style pages, which in this case is Manual of Style/Icons, to where the shortcuts I've mentioned redirect. Also, editors in opposition to these changes will always quote what you quoted without ever really providing actual evidence. How is adding the flags here useful when Flags of the federal subjects of Russia already exists? What can the flags do here that they don't already do there? The information is not useful here. Thrakkx (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Some other article" is quite different from "most other articles." What do they do here? They provide a key bit of information about the Republics, since these flags are used in official contexts within them and provide a visual shorthand for them.
 * Redundancy isn't a good argument. There's plenty of redundancy on wiki (e.g. Why list the capitals, populations, and areas of the Republics on this page when that information is already present on Federal_subjects_of_Russia? Why have country flags anywhere at all, when they already appear in Gallery of sovereign state flags?).
 * It's clear that we disagree on whether the policy applies (and essentially about "useful"), so I'm going to raise the matter on the MOS talk page (and will give you a courtesy ping when I do) Furius (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except the guidelines don’t say they should not. That’s just your opinion, based on your belief that they are mere decoration. Tvx1 17:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Crimea is Ukraine.
Not "disputed".

We can just add that Russians don't agree with it but nobody cares.

OK: Let's assume that tomorrow Russians say that Alaska belongs to Mother Russia. Should we change the status of Alaska to "disputed"?

Yes, we can say that Russians occupy Crimea, but Ukraine controls air and sea in Crimea according to the international law. I think the fact that Russians don't respect international law, is Russians' problem, not ours!

Sobsnobel (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Crimea is disputed regardless of what the UN thinks.
 * "OK: Let's assume that tomorrow Russians say that Alaska belongs to Mother Russia. Should we change the status of Alaska to "disputed"?" yes
 * "but Ukraine controls air and sea in Crimea according to the international law." that doesn't mean that Crimea is not disputed Durranistan (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk, luhansk and crimea should be included
They are officially russian republics, russia controls that territory. I believe we are ignoring the facts by showing a map that does not include them, atleast mark them as disputed on the map 31.217.3.174 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 31.217.3.174, Russia doesn't control any of these territories and it's a war, things can change quickly. — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 18:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Status of southeast Ukraine"
"Status of southeast Ukraine" doesn't make much sense to me: "southeast" is a very vague geographical determination, plus it's strange to find a section of the status of Ukraine in an article on the republics of Russia. "Status of annexed regions" looks better to me or, if for some reason one wants to avoid any mention to annexation, "occupied regions". Also "disputed territories in Ukraine" makes sense. "Southeast Ukraine" is just bad. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead
Cambial Yellowing, you added this paragraph to the lead on 19 October, even mentioning scholarship which is irrelevant and not even mentioned in the body or sourced. Then you reverted all my changes to the page without any explanation. I left a message on your talk page (I in fact did read your notice) because it was not just about article content, but you reverted this anyway. You then partially restored your wording which makes it unnecessarily longer. But you restored this instead and I am not sure if you were trying to insinuate something in your edit summary here. Mellk (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The invasion and the annexation are separate events, by definition. So your suggestion of it being unnecessarily longer is incorrect. What is your point? It’s not clear from your comments what this section was opened to discuss. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about republics of Russia. Russia annexed Crimea and so claims Crimea (minus Sevastopol) as a republic. You tried to make it unnecessarily longer because instead we can simply say "Russia annexed Crimea", there is no good reason to remove "annex" and beat around the bush (while at the same time linking to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation). There is also no good reason to write unhelpful edit summaries. Mellk (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No-one tried to make it unnecessarily longer except in your fertile imagination. The annexation did not spring from nowhere and the context is, quite obviously, wholly relevant. I think Furius’ edit does a good job of incorporating both the invasion and the annexation. You complain about lack of edit summaries; now you complain about edit summaries. Are you merely seeking something to complain about? Again, what is the change in the article you want to discuss? Cambial — foliar❧ 00:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't simply add "invaded", you changed the language so that it was beating around the bush instead. And what "context"? Should Euromaidan, Yanukovych, the referendum, little green men, declaration of independence etc also be mentioned, is that wholly relevant? You also did not mention the 24 February 2022 invasion, is that "weird"? I created this section after you reverted me (again), since nearly all your edits in the past few days are a bunch of reverts, and after you reverted my comment on your talk page, so don't act surprised on why I created this section. Mellk (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He's not wrong. Russia ostensibly did invade Crimea in order to annex it. Let's call a spade a spade. Russia invaded Crimea; that's undeniable. Whether Russia's invasion of Crimea was justified is another matter (I don't believe it was, but that's just my opinion). | EDIT: To argue that Russia did not invade Crimea would be to argue that Crimea was not previously a part of Ukraine prior to Russia's acquisition of it. According to the official Russian narrative, Crimea "declared itself independent" from Ukraine a few days before it was annexed by Russia, which according to Russia justifies the annexation as an expression of self-determination. The international community doesn't recognise the Crimean declaration of independence and views it as a political manoeuvre whose ultimate goal was to annex Crimea into Russia (and away from Ukraine). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether Russia invaded Crimea or not. And generally annexation refers to illegally seizing land by force. I just do not see an improvement in changing "Russia annexed Crimea" to "the Russian military invaded Crimea and the Russian government then claimed it as a Republic of Russia" (also removing "annexed"), and so on. It's unnecessarily long, especially when writing "the Russian military" and "the Russian government". The current version also implies that the whole of Crimea is the (Autonomous) Republic of Crimea. Mellk (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "...annexation refers to illegally seizing land by force." - This is not true. Indeed, Wikipedia's article about "annexation" portrays the concept in such a way, but I think that article in particular contains original research, because that definition is relatively narrow. My own understanding of the word annexation is that it refers to both legal and illegal acquisitions of territory. For example, when one country cedes a piece of land to another via a treaty, I myself typically say that the other country has "annexed" the newly-ceded piece of land. I don't tend to make the distinction of "illegality".
 * It is true that there's not much of a distinction between Russia's invasion/occupation and annexation of Crimea due to the very short timeframe between these two events occurring. In the situation of the DPR and LPR, the window between these two events is much greater (over eight years), so the distinction is more important. With Crimea, Russia invaded it and then annexed it a few days later, so, in the context of an eight-year-long period of time, the annexation is significantly more important in the grand scheme of things. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See for example this article. Annexation and cession are different. For example "annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition". As such annexation is generally considered an illegal act and is why the Kremlin does not like it when this label is used to refer to Crimea. Mellk (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't control the way that people speak. There's a difference between jargon and common language. The fact that I myself don't make the distinction between annexation and cession in common speech, which is the same for countless other people, means that the distinction primarily exists only in the jargonistic sense. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is anecdotal. Mellk (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not anecdotal. Ask any random person on the street (who speaks English) what the word "annexation" means. If they've even heard of that word before, they will probably think the same way that I do. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not say that the U.S. "annexed" Alaska from Russia. The distinction is clear. Mellk (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We do say that the U.S. "annexed Alaska after Russia sold it to them". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the word "cession" is problematic as an alternative to "annexation" because it goes in the opposite direction from annexation. i.e. "Russia ceded Alaska to the U.S." vs. "U.S. annexed Alaska". I can't say "U.S. ceded Alaska"... I have to say "U.S. acquired Alaska when it was ceded".
 * One euphemism that I know for "annexation" is "incorporation". e.g. "The incorporation of Tibet into China" vs "The annexation of Tibet into China". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not read any texts that refers to the Alaska Purchase as an annexation. Where "annexation" is used, for example the Britannica article says "some supported the decision as a step toward the annexation of Canada" and it is something similar in the WP article. Indeed Tibet was annexed by China and this was legitimized by recognition. Mellk (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But you also cannot say "Russia annexed Alaska" instead of "Russia ceded Alaska"? I did not understand the point you were trying to make. Mellk (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that the words "cede" and "annex" are simultaneously different in both political meaning and verbal meaning. They are opposites of one another, syntaxially. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between "I give" and "I take". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And so how does that mean that "annexed" is used instead? Mellk (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Annexation is unilateral (so the US didn't annex Alaska). It is not necessarily done by force, but in practice almost always is - per the ref in the annexation article "Rothwell et al. 2014, p. 360: "Annexation is distinct from cession. Instead of a State seeking to relinquish territory, annexation occurs when the acquiring State asserts that it now holds the territory. Annexation will usually follow a military occupation of a territory..." Furius (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Annexation is the act of a state absorbing new territory into itself. It does not have to be "unilateral", see for example the Texas annexationXavierGreen (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But it's not all acts of absorbing new territory, because exchanges of territory between states by treaty (Alaska, Louisiana) aren't annexations. Furius (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition.", etc. . However, according to this common definition, these territories in fact were not annexed because there was no "actual possession" by Russia. They only said: "hey, we have annexed these territories [which we do not control or occupy]". Just saying something does not make it real. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The act is "made effective" that is. It depends on what RS say though. But "declared annexation" also works and probably what I would prefer. Usually I see both annexed and declared/announced annexation. Mellk (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Actual possession" is not conclusive. Even if Russia were effectively controlling the Ukrainian regions (as it's been the case of Crimea since 2014) it would have not acquired those territories: under current international law annexation is no longer a legally admissible mode of acquisition of territory as it violates the prohibition of the threat or use of force. Moreover, states are arguably under an obligation not to recognize as lawful any territorial changes brought about by means of annexation . Therefore, from the viewpoint of international law Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk belong to Ukraine even if Russia obtains "actual possession" (that is, effective control). However, this has nothing to do with the question on the number and name of the Russian republics, which is strictly domestic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence annexation is generally considered an illegal act. But Russia still annexed Crimea, despite the lack of recognition. Though this is probably heading towards off topic territory. Whatever RS say. Mellk (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

mayhem in the talk page
I have now restored the talk page as it was before Jorge Nautilus' attempts to delete and edit their comments as well as mine. Contrary to what Cambial Yellowing is now accusing me of doing, I've never deleted any comments, but I've tried to collapse JN's soapboxing posts per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC here. Following various explanations on JN's talk page and mine, I assume that these attempts at deleting and editing their comments were made rather clumsily but in good faith by JN. It's up to them to decide whether they want to strike through their personal attack on Seryo93, and it's up to any uninvolved editor to decide whether JN's soapboxing comments need to be hidden under a collapsible template, as I've tried to do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's generally acceptable for an editor to amend their own comments to which there has not yet been a reply. So your editing of another editor's comments is not acceptable, and that warning – not an "accusation" as the fact that you edited another editor's comments is readily apparent from the page history – is entirely appropriate. I've reminded both you and Jargo to maintain adherence to WP:TPO in a contentious RFC. Please do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there had already been a reply to JN's comments; besides, it had already been three days since they had made them.
 * JM should not have deleted their comment at 23:44, 28 October 2022, as I had already replied at 21:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) (Please ... avoid personal attacks on the talk page);
 * JM should not have edited and removed their comments from 00:47, 29 October 2022 onwards because it had already been three days (not a "short period") since JN had made them and I had already reacted to them by putting them in a collapsible box . As per WP:TALK, you may continue to edit your comments for a short while to correct mistakes and So long as no one has yet responded.
 * As far as I understand, I did not edit another editor's comments, but I revered these edits by JN that were incompatible with WP:TALK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your inappropriate refactoring of another editor's comments in a RFC is not a reply to them. If you think another editor has changed their comments too long, in your opinion, after initially posting them, the thing to do is to message them on their talk page asking them to strike instead or add an edit note, and take it up at an appropriate conduct noticeboard if they refuse and you think it is that important. It is not to start breaching WP:TPO in the middle of a contentious RFC. It is not relevant that other parts may have been better left alone: revert only what is necessary, and request users amend their own edits rather than opting to change the text and meaning of other editor's comments. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 00:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Collapsing off-topic and soapboxing comments is already a reply to them, and it's also a pretty clear and conclusive reply. If comments in a collapsible box could be freely modified and removed by their author, the box would become absurd and the talk page would become messy. Your interpretation of wp:TALK#REPLIED doesn't look convincing to me: given that usually nobody replies to comments in a box, would their author be allowed to modify them and delete them so long as they wish? It's absurd. And to prevent this, what would be the point of requiring editors to write a formal reply ("hey, you're off-topic") before collapsing an off-topic discussion? The justification for collapsing can be expressed in the title of the box, and that's all the "reply" one needs to put an end to an off-topic discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You evidently understand the difference between the collapse template and a reply. No-one is interested in pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy, and this is not the place for such a discussion (I only replied here because you insisted on continuing here). "Because you think you're right" is not one of the exceptions to WP:TPO. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 01:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I only agree that this is not the place for such a discussion, so I will now reply on your talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm breaking my three-day streak of not commenting on this talk page to inform you, Gitz, that, no, collapsing another user's comments on the charge of being "off-topic" is not a reply. You love to talk about things that are "obvious". Well, in my opinion, this information is pretty obvious. | EDIT: Repeatedly stating information with utter confidence that is completely incorrect is not a good look -- Gitz -- in my opinion. But hey, that might be just me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of futher discussing this here since we're already discussing at WP:AN/I: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am simply addressing the fact that your statements here are incorrect, which is something that I don't want to discuss at ANI because you made the statements here rather than at ANI. Unless you want me to quote you verbatim there. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe this edit by Gitz was inappropriate. Do not manipulate with edits made by other contributors. Period. That includes restoring edits by other people they have removed. If someone wants to self-revert on a talk page (after realizing he/she was wrong), that's fine. Fix you own edits/comments to relieve the tensions, not to make the conflict bigger by reverting someone on talk and reporting them to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Self-revert is not right when other editors have already replied to you, and the conflict was made bigger by those who did not uphold WP:TALK. You are welcome to make your point at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * - here is your edit. Most comments you have restored were not responded by anyone. First para was responded by you. You could just remove your edit. End of story. You could also strike through comment that another editor wanted to remove (if that was their intention). My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead I replied to the personal attack and collapsed the off-topic comments, which as you know is standard practice supported by guidelines. What followed (deleting the personal attack and my reply to it, collapsing my reply as "off-topic", deleting the collapse hat and heavily editing the off-topics comments) was not done according to guidelines. Other editors, had they had a bit of collaborative attitude, would have stepped in to stop the chaos and restore the talk page as it was. Cambial preferred to instruct Jargo about lying being contrary to civility (!), ask them if they still wanted to re-re-edit comments modified "at the behest of another editor" (!) and warn me for a non-existent WP:TALK violation. Shameful. Plus they refused to discuss the matter on their talk, so ANI is what they got, and rightly so. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gitz, I don't think you are going to convince anyone that it is okay to collapse other peoples' comments as off-topic but not your own, especially in situations where the "off-topic" status of the comments is merely a matter of opinion rather than fact. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead first sentence
In order to follow MOS:OPEN and MOS:FIRST, the opening sentence of the article needs to.

Opening with is not a neutral point of view, as it privileges the "Russian Constitution" over all reliable sources. The opening needs to start with a definition, based on reliable sources, outlining what the republics of Russia are. , you reverted an attempt to achieve this: why do you think that the view expressed in the "Russian Constitution", which is not a reliable source, should be presented before the content of reliable sources? This is an extraordinary view. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed, using the Russian constitution as the main source for determining the number of Russia's federal subjects would imply that we don't know the number of Russia's federal subjects without consulting the constitution... I myself am not Russian. But, for example, in the situation of the United States, I know off the top of my head that the United States has fifty states as well as a bunch more territories (including five commonwealths, the District of Columbia, Indigenous reservations, and various uninhabited/unincorporated islands). Did I need to consult the U.S. constitution in order to find this information? No. I just know it, because it's common knowledge. The information can easily be sourced from various places, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. | Clarification: The point I'm making here is that the Russian constitution does not take precedence over various reliable sources for determining the number of Russia's federal subjects. Specifically citing the constitution in the lead is an example of WP:UNDUE. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we have plenty of RSs saying what everybody already knows: the Republic of Crimea, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic have been incorporated into the Russian Federation. This is not a "(significant) viewpoint" per WP:UNDUE: there are no competing or conflicting viewpoints (unless someone provides a RS to the effect). Sure, the annexation was a violation of international law and the international community doesn't acknowledge its results and upholds the territorial integrity of Ukraine, as the article says, and rightly so. But we cannot claim that the Russian Federation is made up of 21 Republics, instead of 24, because this is not supported by sources and is blatantly false. "Republics of Russia" are legal constructs and they are established by Russian constitutional law. Analogously, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is and continues to be a republic of Ukraine, as well as the Luhansk Oblast and the Donetsk Oblast continue to be Ukrainian provinces. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no RS, never mind plenty, saying what you think, wrongly, that everybody already knows. Content without reliable sources is not included on this website. Are there any other reasons to avoid presenting a NPOV that are based in reality, rather than fiction like the above? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At least there are for Republic of Crimea with the caveat that there is a lack of international recognition. Mellk (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Though the lack of recognition should probably be made clearer in the first sentence. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mellk for that RS. It appears to be the most up-to-date reliable source on the republics. I propose we have a neutral opening sentence based on its content, making clear the lack of recognition as you suggest. It says . I suggest we have a neutral opening which states the facts as recorded in RS, starting "The Republics of Russia are...". <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 21:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the chapter from which that quotation is taken, "The Government of the Russian Federation", starts with the words According to its Constitution. Then, after having mentioned the disputed status of Crimea and Sevastopol City, the chapter refers to a programme of territorial merges implemented in the 2000s, as a result of which Including the two territories in Crimea, the 85 territories comprise 22 republics. As it is made clear from the text, this chapter was written in January 2022. So I think that if we use this secondary source as an exclusive source, our opening sentence should be As of 2021, the Russian Federation is divided into 85 territories, 22 of which are republics. Then we should say that two more republics were added with the controversial annexation of LPR and DPR, whose territory is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. I'm fine with dropping the "According to its constitution", because it's redundant: there's no other meaningful standard for determining the number of territories of a federation, no other significant viewpoint, as also the book we're quoting from makes clear.
 * Alternatively, and perhaps it would be best, we could also drop the clause "According to its constitution" and straightforwardly say that the Russian Federation is divided into 89 territories, 24 of which are republics, and then go on explaining that the status of Crimea, DPR and LPR is disputed. We could use these two primary sources on the federal subjects of the Federation: New text of Article 65 Russian Constitution (in Russian) and Website of the Russian Federation Council; we could also use a couple of secondary sources on the annexation of LPR and DPR, such as Meduza and Associated Press. We could do this because routine calculation (22+2=24) is no synthesis per WP:CALC.
 * If we stick to the less recent but more specific secondary source (The Territories of the Russian Federation 2022), however, I believe we should say "As per 2021" and then mention what has happened in Luhansk and Donetsk, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting the source will not advance your position. The source says "According to its Constitution, the Russian Federation is a democratic, federative, multi-ethnic state." It does not suggest that its presentation of the territorial divisions of Russia is based on the "Russian Constitution". Its description of the territorial divisions is in a separate paragraph, and is in no way framed as "being "according to the constitution". If English comprehension is an issue please take great care before presenting information from the source, and do not deliberately misrepresent the content of sources.
 * Neither Meduza nor Associated Press refer to the territory of southeast Ukraine as republics of Russia. They do not support the calculation in your comment. We would certainly not use an unreliable, biased primary source for the opening of the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 08:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The programme of territorial merges mentioned in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted is Russian public law, okay? I don't understand why you persist in your argument - that referring to Russian public law to determine the constituent elements of the Russian Federation means being POV, biased, etc.: "Republics of Russia", the very subject of this article, is Russian public law, and the book The Territories of the Russian Federation 2022 deals entirely with Russian public law.
 * This is why we could drop According to its constitution at the beginning of the article - because it is obvious, redundant, uninformative - but it's also why we should start with "As of 2021" if we want to give the figure of 22 republics, or alternatively use more recent sources and say "24 republics". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is not "Russian public law". The word "territory" in the title of that work means "1. any tract of land; district 2. the geographical domain under the jurisdiction of a political unit 3. the district for which an agent, etc is responsible....7. (often capital) a region of a country" (Collins).
 * Mention of a in a preceding sentence does not mean that it is framing the succeeding sentence as merely being based on "Russian law".
 * It's entirely proper to maintain an argument that is based on the policies which guide the writing of content on this website. Your suggestions, based on nothing save your own expressed desire to turn this article into an explanation of the content of the "Russian Constitution", are contrary to those policies. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 09:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What RS overwhelmingly say is that Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk were illegally annexed by Russia. The vast majority of the nations of the world do not recognize these annexations as legitimate, and they are currently being contested in open warfare. The way Wikipedia discusses these regions and their relationship with the Russian Federation will remain consistent with these verifiable facts. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On this we all agree: we should say, as we already do, that the territories of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk remain internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. However, Cambial argues that we should remove any reference to the Russian Constitution from the opening sentence because it privileges the Russian Constitution over other reliable sources. But there are no other reliable sources: all sources on the number of Russian republics make reference to Russian public law; there are no other "significant viewpoints" on the internal division of the Russian federation to be represented in the opening sentence, as neither international law nor Ukrainian law regulates this matter. Note that there are many similar articles that refer to the national constitution in the opening sentence or lead section without creating WP:UNDUE problems for anyone: e.g. Administrative divisions of Romania, Administrative divisions of Serbia, Autonomous communities of Spain, Administrative divisions of Ukraine, Regions of Italy, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This might be relevant were it not total bullshit. There are numerous reliable sources that indicate what constitutes the republics of Russia, including several published by academic presses. One is already linked above which you have quoted from. The "Constitution of Russia" is not one of them. It may be reliable for the opinion of the Russian government, but even for that it needs to be used with care, besides which mainstream news organisations have reported the Russian government's opinion on what it considers its territory in English; these are preferable sources. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here that this is not total bullshit, and simply point to the general principle involved. If the only source we have for something is WP:PRIMARY, we do not generally consider that thing to be notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. All I see in your neither international law nor Ukrainian law regulates this matter argument is some unpersuasive and transparent WP:WIKILAWYERing. The obvious solution is that we simply do not mention claims that aren't considered notable for mention in reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are likewise unpersuasive here given the uncontroversial nature of most countries' administrative divisions. Generalrelative (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia's administrative divisions are not controversial. Who is arguing about them (apart from us)?
 * If you want to write that Russia consists of 22 republics, at least add "as of 2021" because, well, you know, today it actually consists of 24 republics, as reliable primary sources and several news reports tell us. WP:AGE MATTERS, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia and routine calculations are no synthesis, so I guess we could report "24 republics" (22+2=24) and that would be no original research on our part. But if you think otherwise, no problem, it doesn't really matter: in a few months we'll have some independent secondary source (e.g. The Territories of the Russian Federation 2023) telling us exactly what we already know, and we will then update the article. Perhaps a peace treaty will provide for withdrawal from occupied territories and we will really have 22 or 21 republics - who knows. However, adding "as of 2021" to the opening sentence would be a reasonable thing to do because the last RS on the subject was written in January 2022, and something has happened in the meantime.
 * I don't see how Wikilawyering has anything to do with this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We only present facts in WP:Wikivoice. The "Russian Constitution" is not a reliable source for facts; it is only a source for the views of the Russian government. If you think there is a reliable source that states there are 24 republics, indicate it here on talk so that we can weigh its possible significance. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 18:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is an op-ed, but the author is an expert on the subject, as he is Chair in Enterprise and Economic Geography at Birmingham Business School (Economic Geography and Political Geography are close areas of expertise) . The outlet is not WP:BIASED because Kyiv Post cannot be regarded as pro-Kremlin. Bryson says that the RF is divided into 24 republics as a matter of course, because this fact is not controversial (as I've said multiple times, no one has yet shared a source claiming that Russia today is not divided into 24 republics). For the same reason, Kyiv Post has no problem publishing this statement. Russia's internal divisions are a matter of Russian public law that has nothing to do with the question of the legitimacy of the annexation and who has the right to rule those territories. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I do not think John R. Bryson intentionally meant to say that the annexed regions are now Russian federal subjects (this of course is just my observation). John R. Bryson also seems to mainly write for Daily Express. On the other hand, saying "according to its constitution there are 89 federal subjects" would not be wikivoice I think as it says "according to its constitution" rather than simply stating there are 89 federal subjects. The current version seems fine though I think, maybe the second sentence can mention an additional two republics it declared annexed or something. I don't have a strong opinion at the moment. Mellk (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you said: 1) John R. Bryson is not claiming that the territories of Luhansk and Donetsk now belong to Russia; 2) We could add a second sentence mentioning the other two republics Russia declared annexed (and specifying that their territory is internationally regarded as part of Ukraine); 3) Or we could avoid wikivoice by simply leaving "according to its constitution", as we have always done from 2016 until a few days ago . In fact, we would have the problem of WP:UNDUE only if there were other meaningful viewpoints on Russia's subdivisions: that may be true, but so far has not been proven with RSs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In order to conform with MOS:OPEN, WP:NPOV, and MOS:FIRST, the opening sentence needs to be a neutral description. It thus needs to present facts, which is always done in wikivoice. A passing mention in a single opinion piece by an author who is not a specialist in the article subject carries very little weight. One could make a weak case for inclusion somewhere in the body. The much stronger case, given that it is an opinion expressed once by a single author, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, is that there is no reason to mention the opinion piece by Bryson in the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion would be more productive if you were able to show that the opposite opinion - "Russia today is not divided into 24 republics, but into 22 (or 21 excluding Crimea)" - is supported by someone other than you and Jargo: all it would take is a tiny source saying "(The annexations are illegitimate and therefore) Russia is still divided into 22 (or 21) republics". Otherwise the sentence "(According to its constitution) Russia is divided into 24 republics" sounds like an incontrovertible statement of fact rather than a statement of opinion. Analogously, the statement "according to the First Amendment, the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" is a statement of fact (describing the US Constitution) rather than a statement of opinion (expressing the opinion of the US Constitution). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already sourced to an academic reference work in the article. It is not an opinion; it's a fact. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 15:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AGE MATTERS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFTOPIC (hey look, I'm you! and this is how you look when you respond with just a link to a Wikipedia policy and no actual discussion text) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry you didn't understand what the link was about, I thought it was self-explanatory. WP:AGE MATTERS says In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. For example, if one is describing the number of Russian Republics, a source written in January 2022 may be too old if in the meantime the Russian Federation has amended its constitutions to recognise two new republics as federal subjects. Therefore a high quality independent academic source such as The Territories of the Russian Federation 2022 might be less reliable than more recent news reports, op-eds and primary sources reporting that the number of Russian republics changed in October 2022.
 * Anyway, this discussion has taken too much time. I think you and Cambial, without having a shred of a source to back you up, have built an ideological trench on an almost irrelevant issue. You misunderstood the article as an article about Russia's borders and the legitimacy of the annexations rather than as an article about... the Republics of Russia. It's the usual consequence of wars: they politicise everything. Let's wait for the new edition of The Territories of the Russian Federation, due in March 2023, at which point we will update the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How you can expect someone to "understand" the point that you are trying to make when you don't even put in any effort to write any actual text (aside from linking a Wikipedia policy/guideline article) is beyond me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How you can expect someone to "understand" the point that you are trying to make when you don't even put in any effort to write any actual text (aside from linking a Wikipedia policy/guideline article) is beyond me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do any 'republics' still exist?
https://vgmu.hse.ru/en/2018--5/216516731.html Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Status of regions annexed from Ukraine
Who rules de facto the areas? The Russian government, not any local 'separatists'. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)