Talk:Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Ukraine C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Russia: History / Military C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
December 2016
Hello everyone. I am author of this article. Please note, that some of my edits look like -70 000 characters. It is because 1. I changed position of two tables and 2. optimised those two tables. Tables position change looks like removal for system. However position change within article means that content is the same, nothing is changed but size is super different because I used different programmes to create wikitables and code used is different in size. Those changes with removal of characters did not cause change or removal of content. Note this when undoing my edits because two versions of article are the same. Thanks.
Also in case dispute regarding article releance will be raised, I vote to keep it in a same manner as article Occupied territories of Georgia. List of Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories cannot be merged with other related articles since it provides not sequence but names of occupied regions and settlements (not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia) which deserves to be a separate article. Thank you. USER: Жовтневе багаття ( talk) 05:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Why to delete? Where is the discussion?
Any ideas?7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantinehuk (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC) @Constantinehuk:
- The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present)-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Notability tag & see also
AfD closed as no consensus, so it's entirely appropriate to add a notability tag to article. "See also" in a foreign lang is not helpful to Eng. speaking readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do not think the creator is interested in maintaining the article. They are clearly a sockpuppet of a blocked user and are only interested in making a point.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Blatant propaganda pushing, should have been deleted
Stating that the territories are occupied temporarily in Wikipedia's voice in the title? Come on, Heptor talk 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- It has been on AfD which was closed as no consensus. The creator has been since then indeffed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
unconstructive removal of content? misleading edit summary?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Temporarily_occupied_and_uncontrolled_territories_of_Ukraine_(2014-present) and see above many notifications since january, i was merely trying to make the article more neutral 83.185.80.106 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- You have given the wrong link. The links to your recent edits to the article on the Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present) are as follows (with the edit summaries you gave in red):
- 17:12, 10 June 2017 (lot neutral and grammar problems)
- 17:42, 10 June 2017 (see talkpage discussion, my actions are based on former talkpage discussion, you DO NOT have the right to give my little warning for that)
- 18:44, 10 June 2017 (can we atleast make a difference between the view of the ukrainian government and wikipedia definition)
- Nothing makes sense to me. Why did you make the edits? The edit summaries do not help, because I do not understand how they relate to the edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"Territories under effective control by the Russian Federation"
The text "In April 2018 PACE's emergency assembly recognized occupied regions of Ukraine as "territories under effective control by the Russian Federation" was added here, and then readded again. Whereas this may very well be true, I am not happy with the three references which are supposed to support it. The first one is RT (which is not a RS, but since they are reporting smth clearly anti-Russian we can give them the benefit of doubt - but the article does not contain this statement. The link to PACE is empty - they do not have static references, and I was not able to locate anything useful searching their site. The UNIAN can not be a RS for this statement being a government agency. I would like to see this reported by an (ideally independent) reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- The edit of of 18:05, 29 April 2018 added the following:
- In April 2018 PACE's emergency assembly recognized occupied regions of Ukraine as "territories under effective control by the Russian Federation" [1][2][3]. Chairman of the Ukrainian delegation to PACE, MP Volodymyr Aryev mentioned that recognition of the fact that part of the occupied Donbas is under Russia’s control is so important for Ukraine. The responsibility for all the crimes committed in the uncontrolled territories is removed from Ukraine. Russia becomes responsible," Aryev wrote on Facebook [4].
- I fixed the format errors with the cite templates.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Citation [1] is to an article published on 29 January 2009. It is about South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Because it was written in 2009, it does not mention things that happened in 2014. @183.15.89.173: You need to read articles you cite. Citing them based on the headlines produces junk citations!-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- I cannot find the quotation "territories under effective control by the Russian Federation" in Citation [2] or [3]. Citations [2] and [3] are useful sources - but only for stuff they actually mention. They are not reliable sources for stuff they do not mention, which is how they are being used here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Citation [4] does support the content it is cited for - i.e. it is a reliable source for what a Ukrainian politician wrote on his Facebook page about the decision by PACE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Status at The United Nations section
An editor added a section to the article entitled Status at The United Nations on 21 October 2018. It has a pretty table showing how countries voted at the UN regarding a resolution on Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine) in December 2017, with a citation to the Russian propaganda organisation RT. This section is show below.
@Fenetrejones: Why do you think that we need this section? A similar resolution was passed in December 2016, and is cited earlier in the article.
The citation is problematic. RT is reliable if you want to know what the Russian government is currently saying about an issue, but not much else.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see that Fenetrejones has restored his/her table to the article.
- At User talk:Fenetrejones#September 2018 @Ymblanter: wrote: "Concerning your edits at Political status of Crimea, if Serbia voted against resolution condemning violations human right in Crimea it does not mean it supports the annexation." Ymblanter is correct.
- Whilst I believe that it is true that the United Nations has repeatedly voted on the basis that it recognises the Crimea as a temporarily occupied territory of the Ukraine, I am not convinced that the citation from RT supports this. Nor am I convinced that the huge table is relevant to this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have unmuddled various UN resolutions (see Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014–present)#International reactions).
- I have also deleted the section on "Status at The United Nations" that I complained about above. It does not show what it claims to show. One objection raised in September on another page was that it was WP:OR to assume that countries voting against a resolution on human rights in the Crimea were necessarily voting against continuing to recognise that the Crimea was part of Ukraine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Documents regarding UN Resolutions
- March 2014, 68th Session, Territorial integrity of Ukraine
- United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-eighth session, Agenda item 33 (b), Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 March 2014 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/68/L.39 and Add.1)] 68/262. Territorial integrity of Ukraine, United Nations, 1 April 2014, A/RES/68/262, retrieved 22 October 2018 Alternative URL
- General Assembly Sixty-eighth session, 80th plenary meeting Thursday, 27 March 2014, 10 a.m., United Nations, 27 March 2014, pp. 1–27, A/68/PV.80 and 14-27868, retrieved 22 October 2018 The record of the voting is on page 17.
- General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region, United Nations, 27 March 2014, GA/11493, retrieved 22 October 2018
- December 2016, 71st Session: Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)
- Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2016, on the report of the Third Committee (A/71/484/Add.3), 71/205. Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), United Nations, 1 February 2017, A/RES/71/205, retrieved 22 October 2018
- United Nations General Assembly, Seventy-first session, 65th plenary meeting, Monday, 19 December 2016, 10 a.m. New York, United Nations, 18 December 2016, pp. 34–43, A/RES/71/205, retrieved 22 October 2018
- General Assembly Adopts 50 Third Committee Resolutions, as Diverging Views on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity Animate Voting, United Nations, 19 December 2016, GA/11879, retrieved 22 October 2018
- December 2017, 72nd Session, Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine
- Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2017 [on the report of the Third Committee (A/72/439/Add.3)] 2/190. Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, United Nations, 19 January 2018, A/RES/72/190, retrieved 22 October 2018 Alternative URL (pdf)
- United Nations General Assembly, Seventy-second session, Agenda item 72 (c), Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, 6 December 2017, pp. 22–25, A/72/439/Add.3, retrieved 22 October 2018
Requested move 19 February 2022
 | It has been proposed in this section that Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine be renamed and moved to Occupied territories of Ukraine. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine → Occupied territories of Ukraine – No way to know that the occupation will indeed be temporary. I get that "Temporarily" is included in the Ukrainian govt name, but it is a WP:POVTITLE, and the usage in sources is not common enough to make it an acceptable WP:POVNAME. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The "temporary" label appears to be propaganda from the Ukrainian government and using it as the title seems to violate WP:NEUTRAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Per WP:CONCISE. "Temporary" is an additional, unnecessary label. Crimea and the Donbass have been occupied by Russia for 8 years now. That's not what I would call "temporary", and Russia could very well retain control of those territories for much longer. I would point to German occupation of France and Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) as other examples. If we change the title, it should be changed to "Russian occupation of Ukraine". LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CRYSTAL. We have no way of knowing how long these territories will be occupied for. Egsan Bacon (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present), which should have been closed as delete if all participating socks were called on time. The only raison d'etre for this article is that this is a notion which only exists as Ukrainian government propaganda. If you move the article, it becomes abundantly clear that it does not contain any material which is not already explained in much more detail in other existing articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since the war started, I propose to stop the discussion and see what the outcome of the war would be, and how it would affect the scope of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
SupportNeutral. All occupied territories are by definition temporary. If it is permanent, then it would be regarded as annexed, not occupied. I don't think the Ukrainian government (and everyone else) regards them as annexed, just occupied. The "temporarily" is superfluous. But there is also the problem with "of Ukraine" in the title, as it is a bit ambiguous as it can be interpreted as "by Ukraine" rather than "in Ukraine". Walrasiad (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - per WP:CRYSTAL. — Golden call me maybe? 17:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I cannot disagree with the concerns above on the use of the word "temporarily" in this title. Unfortunately, the new title is not an improvement. The current title is NPOV in the sense that it is formally about the designation in Ukrainian law, and the Ukrainian law currently uses a term translated to English as "temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine" to define it. If we are renaming the article, we may be adjusting the scope. The correct scope (assuming it is not "how the Ukrainian government refers to the region) probably should be "Donetsk and Luhansk". ... my first vote would be to merge (well, "merge" as not much of the content would be moved) to 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or some other article. Unless you are actually concerned with how the Ukrainians refer to the region, this isn't the search term or the topic you want ... User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hm. I see your point. If this article is indeed limited to official designations, then maybe this worth a rethink. Switching to "Neutral" for now. Walrasiad (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is precisely my point, but better made.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:力, this article not only about Donetsk and Luhansk but also about Crimea. But as I wrote below it is better to merge it into Russian-occupied territories and merge Occupied territories of Georgia thereinto too. Three article on one topic is too much. --Thesmp (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - nothing suggests that the occupation is "temporary". The territories are plainly occupied. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Merge into Russian-occupied territories. Occupied territories of Georgia merge thereinto too. --Thesmp (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, to support the WP:CRITERION of conciseness. Contrary to the “Ukrainian propaganda” notion, several resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly refer to the status of Crimea as an “attempted annexation” and “temporary occupation,” and consequently it is used in operations and reporting by UN agencies, for example supporting refugees and human rights. The name is used because it is a WP:COMMONNAME, and not because we have made some prediction via our WP:CRYSTALBALL. (Anyway something considered non-permanent is called temporary, as of right now.) —Michael Z. 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Michael, perhaps it's just me being tired, but your comment seem contradictory. You first say you support the suggestion to stop using "Temporarily occupied territories" but your explanation says it is the preferred. Would you please clarify? (Again, apologies if it's just me misunderstanding). Jeppiz (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Jeppiz, I support the proposal because it’s more concise and still accurate. I am also commenting about some other reasoning above that I don’t fully agree with, and anyway to round out the information here about the name’s usage. —Michael Z. 03:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Michael, perhaps it's just me being tired, but your comment seem contradictory. You first say you support the suggestion to stop using "Temporarily occupied territories" but your explanation says it is the preferred. Would you please clarify? (Again, apologies if it's just me misunderstanding). Jeppiz (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - This title isn't from a neutral prospective. Valkuay (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - How do we know that the occupation is temporary? As much as we want it to be, it isn't a neutral title. Seungri400 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- C-Class Ukraine articles
- High-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- Requested moves