Talk:Federal subjects of Russia

Russia: Politics and law / Human geography Top‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Map is missing Karachay-Cherkessia

That: Karachay-Cherkessia. —Michael Z. 2019-11-10 22:52 z

New Map

Hi everyone, I noticed that there were a few issues with the map of federal subjects with the Kerson Oblast missing some of the territories that it claims from the Mykolaiv Oblast. On further inspection the map also had a range of different formatting issues to the point at which it would be easier to just create a new map, which I have done. I've also tried to make it colour blind freinds -though the current one appears to already be so as well. Hope this resource is useful. Kappasi (talk)

Unexplained revert

@Cambial Yellowing: why? GOLDIEM J (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNSOURCED. See also the discussion above and RfC at a closely-related page. Reliable sources indicate your proposed change to the infobox is contrary to the facts. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary how? All I did in my edit was change groupings of occupied subdivisions to the individual subdivisions themselves. GOLDIEM J (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: Care to explain what you mean when you say it's contrary? GOLDIEM J (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reliable sources that support your edit? It implies that Donetsk and Luhansk are federal subjects of Russia (by placement in the infobox on that topic). Cambial — foliar❧ 10:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: so they're not, then? GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: The list of subjects provided in the article clearly lists Donetsk and Luhansk as separate republics. GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, not claims by Russia, determine the facts. The reliable sources indicate these are not part of Russia ~~Ukraine~~. Do not edit war original research/unsourced content into the article. The reference currently listed as citation 2,^[1] like hundreds of others, indicates the areas are not federal subjects of Russia. Unless you have multiple reliable sources stating otherwise, there is no reason to make your inappropriate change. In case you are not familiar with how sourcing works in an encyclopaedia: no, "Russian law" is not a reliable source for statements of fact. [edit: Ukraine -> Russia] Cambial — foliar❧ 20:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: Let me remind you what an edit war is. If you make an edit and someone else reverts it, you take it to the talk page to reach a consensus before attempting to restore it. In this case, you reverted my edit, so instead of defying that and attempting to restore it, I tagged you here for more information. Furthermore, the edits of yours that I reverted were original and were not reverts themselves. Conversely, what you've done is attempted to restore your reverted edits without discussing them on the talk page at all. That is edit warring. I've written instructions to you in my edit summary not to engage in this behaviour again. GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: Now to address your point of contention. We're talking about the subdivisions of Russia according to its own national law. What your explanation comes across as saying is that Russia claims to have annexed these regions but we're lacking in evidence for them having done it, whereas conversely we have plenty of evidence that they did in fact do it. Consequentially, Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are legally Russian sovereign territory under Russian law, even if not recognised as such internationally. So therefore, it's not just a claim. It's real. It isn't original research. The article itself lists these as federal subjects but acknowledges their disputed status. GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me introduce you to the English Wikipedia policy WP:UNSOURCED, part of WP:V. Note that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You've added no source to support this unsourced material. And the current sources used contradict it. "Russian law" has no force in Ukraine. It also has no force on Wikipedia. Reliable sources are what determines content. They do not support claims by the Russian government, and original research that "it's real" is not a valid argument for including unsourced content. As you already pinged me four times on the same article in 24 hours I muted notifications so you can save your typing if you like. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: Sorry, but is this an article about Ukrainian subdivisions? Ukrainian law is wholly irrelevant to this article. Instead, we discuss the federal subjects as outlined by Russian law while acknowledging if any of them are disputed internationally. But by acknowledging that they're disputed by the international community, we don't engage in disputing ourselves. Remember WP:NPOV.

Oh and also, I am by no means the one who added the more up-to-date map on there, and it's been there for a long time by now. You can fire shots at me for the caption I added in yesterday, but not for the map. You made an original edit removing it and I reverted it, so discuss on the talk page before attempting to restore your reverted edit. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been trying to put areas of Ukraine back into the infobox. No, isn't an article about Ukrainian subdivisions, and that's why areas of Ukraine do not belong there. No-one's mentioned Ukrainian law until now, where did you get that from? Cambial — foliar❧ 22:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: but are we talking about Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as exists under Ukrainian law or Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as exists under Russian law, though? These federal subjects very clearly exist under Russian law. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources state those areas are in Ukraine. No reliable sources support the notion that they are federal subjects of Russia, so Wikipedia is not going to claim they are. They are not governed by Russian law, and it does not establish any fact as to their status.

Writing Wikipedia is simple: we report what is in reliable sources - not Russian lawcodes or other dubious primary documents, but reliable sources.

Have you found a reliable source that states those areas are federal subjects of Russia? If not, there is little or nothing tod discuss. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: But they exist under Russian law de jure, though, even if not de facto. The map includes these regions but shaded to acknowledge that it's disputed and not necessarily de facto territory. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found a reliable source that states those areas are federal subjects of Russia? That's what Wikipedia is about; it's not about your original research. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate authority on a country's administrative division is that country's government; not foreign press. We should indicate it on Wikipedia if territorial claims by one country are contested by others, but that's all. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GOLDIEM J: This new version is better than any of the previous iterations. Good idea. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: I'm glad we were able to reach a conclusion, even after all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOLDIEM J (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Heaney, Dominic, ed. (2023). "The Government of the Russian Federation". The Territories of the Russian Federation 2023 (24th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 43–51. ISBN 9781032469744.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In one of the paragraphs, "Luhansk's people's republic" should be capitalized I Drink Water n Cats (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Which paragraph? Left guide (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal subjects of Russia by Literacy Rate?

Weirdly, I didn't find any article on the internet listing all the russian subjects by literaliteracy rate. (Expect for data from Soviet era)

Do you guys know if any organization collected that specific data from Russia? MatheusGeo (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about your question. 100% of population of Russia age above six are literate. The school is compulsory, and they learn to read in the first grade. Whoever was born before 1917 and did not attend school, is long dead. Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Hea23-1] Heaney, Dominic, ed. (2023). "The Government of the Russian Federation". The Territories of the Russian Federation 2023 (24th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 43–51. ISBN 9781032469744.

[1]