Talk:Republics of Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.[who?]

to

Since the termination of the final bilateral treaty in 2017, some commentators consider Russia to no longer be a federation.[1][2]

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.[2]

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.[2]

Change

After the agreement's termination, some commentators expressed the view that Russia ceased to be a federation.[3][2]

to

After the agreement's termination, some commentators expressed the view that Russia ceased to be a federation.[1][2] 104.175.78.152 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ a b Avdaliani, Emil (2017-08-14). "No Longer the Russian Federation: A Look at Tartarstan". Georgia Today. Archived from the original on 7 March 2019. Retrieved 2019-03-06.
  2. ^ a b c d e "Russia revoking Tatarstan's autonomy". European Forum for Democracy and Solidarity. 2017-08-09. Retrieved 2019-03-07.
  3. ^ Avdaliani, Emil (2017-08-14). "No Longer the Russian Federation: A Look at Tartarstan". Georgia Today. Archived from the original on 7 March 2019. Retrieved 2019-03-06.

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Recognition is not irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, not a Kremlin mouth piece that agrees with illegal annexations. Crimea, Kharkiv, Zaporozhye etc etc are parts of Ukraine no matter what Russia claims 80.47.131.248 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Crimea shown on the map as a republic?

Crimea is part of Ukraine, so why is Crimea shown on this map as being a Russian republic? Crimea is not Russian, nor is it a Russian republic. I expect Wikipedia to give information that is correct by international standards and law. Not information that adheres to Russia's illegal annexations that are only recognised by pariah states. I therefore propose that Crimea is removed from this map as a Russian republic. 80.47.131.248 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's de facto a russian province. Not a republic: the only republic left in russia is chechnya. The sovereign status of the others has been revoked. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's de facto a russian province
There will be no reliable sources saying that.
Quite the contrary: The Republics and Regions of the Russian Federation - Google Books show me this reliable source mentioning Crimea as part of Russia. (this particular one is outdated) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could perhaps add hashed diagonal lines over Crimea to indicate it is not recognised by other states as being within the borders of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, if it's legible as seen on the page and not just in closeup.
If we do something like that, we'd need to do the same for Sevastopol. — kwami (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kwamikagami. Double sharp (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republics_of_Russia&oldid=1246050874"