Talk:Kherson Oblast

Irredentist POV pushing with maps

In regard to this edit and related ones. No. Crimea is "disputed" in the sense that Russia claims it. But Crimea is still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, like it or not. If anything, the UN condemned the Russian occupation of Crimea. Until that changes, it's POV pushing to claim that Crimea is "disputed", especially in an infobox where it's impossible to provide context. If you want to explain the details behind the occupation in text, that would work, but this article isn't the place for it.

It makes some sense to have a map which marks Crimea differently in main articles, such as Crimea, Ukraine and Russia. But to spread that to every single Ukraine-related article is just irredentist and nationalistic POV territory marking. It's disruptive and tendentious. This supposed "consensus" that the edit summary refers to was relevant only to the main articles; Crimea, Ukraine and Russia. Territory marking on all these other articles is just obnoxious. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say that calling Crimea a disputed region is POV pushing. The whole point of calling it a disputed region is for NPOV as it is disputed between Ukraine and Russia, which both claim it as part of their own territory. Russia doesn't just "occupy" the region, it effectively administers it as part of its own territory. Not the entire international community recognizes it as a part of Ukraine, although most of it does. The UN resolution was not unanimous, there is still a small number of nations recognizing it as a part of Russia. The maps don't depict Crimea as an integral part of Russia and neither do they depict it as an integral part of Ukraine, because it is a disputed region between the two governments and the only NPOV thing to do is to depict it as such. --Leftcry (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the international community, as represented by the UN does recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. There's a couple of Russia's puppet states that don't. So what? It's a fringe. That's exactly why this is POV - it's putting the views of a fringe on the same footing as mainstream view. It IS an integral part of Ukraine. Please stop it with the nationalist edits with these junkety POV maps.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The UN doesn't own the entire international community and although most countries are a part of the UN that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to their own sovereign decision. It's not just "a couple of Russia's puppet states", it's completely independent and recognized sovereign governments such as Afghanistan, Venezuela, Nicaragua and some others. Saying that the entire international community recognizes Crimea as Ukraine is simply like saying those sovereign states aren't a part of the international community. The UN, as an organization, may recognize Crimea as Ukraine but it doesn't speak for each country's own recognition. Wikipedia does not treat Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine and neither does it treat it as an integral part of Russia as either of those stances are POV pushing which is why it is treated as a disputed region for NPOV. You may think of it as an integral part of Ukraine, but that is your personal opinion and you should not POV push and remove NPOV maps per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also stop claiming I am the one making nationalist edits by showing Crimea as a disputed region as you are the one who is trying to edit against NPOV by showing a disputed region as an integral part of a country. Also don't assume that just because I reverted one of your edits on a different page that I did so for revenge. I did so because I thought that your edits on that page were completely dubious, however that's a different discussion. --Leftcry (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You tell in edit summary here that "There was a consensus long ago, right after its annexation by Russia, that Crimea will be depicted as a disputed region on maps and articles." Could you please provide any link to discussion which resulted in WP:Consensus as you tell? My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There were a number of discussions regarding Crimea and maps that took place mainly on Talk:Ukraine, so there isn't just a single one that I can link here as there are more than one, however the final consensus reached was to treat Crimea as a disputed territory on Wikipedia as that is NPOV. You are free to look into the archives and read those discussions which took place right after Crimea's annexation. I myself did not participate in them as I was not very active on Wikipedia at the time, however I believe User:Iryna Harpy was one of the people who did participate, so maybe she can help you find the most relevant discussions. --Leftcry (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You said there was a discussion with consensus about this, but you can not provide any links to discussion(s) supporting your statement. If this is the case, I should assume there was no in fact such consensus and possibly revert your edits about this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read my reply? I just said there were a number of discussions not just a single one, so linking just one would not show the complete situation. Then I told you that User:Iryna Harpy was one of the people who participated in those discussions, so she can help with finding the most relevant one of those, however I'm sure that if you want to understand the entire situation you would have to read quite a few of them. They are all located in the archives of Talk:Ukraine, just go look for yourself. --Leftcry (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can attest to the lengthy RfCs regarding the use of a map depicting facts on the ground on the Ukraine article. While there was much in the way of dispute as to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, etc., the general consensus is that Crimea is a disputed territory, therefore denial of well publicised public knowledge is POV. Crosshatch depictions of disputed territory is the norm, therefore I would agree with Leftcry that it is a realistic manner in which to treat all of the regional maps depicting Ukraine.

Rather than turn this into an ongoing bone of contention, I would invite EvergreenFir, NeilN, Ymblanter, DeCausa, Jim.henderson, TaivoLinguist, Toddy1, Super Nintendo Chalmers, RGloucester, and Sameboat to comment if they're interested (and prepared to do so, naturally). As you can see, I've asked a mixture of neutral and interest parties to toss in their 2¢ worth. If we can't sort it out here following policy and guidelines, perhaps the issue should be put to the community via an RfC. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious the ownership of Crimea is disputed. Russia occupies and administers it, Ukraine wants it back. The U.N. is, as usual, toothless in the matter - it cannot change reality and say no, there's no dispute. Maps showing the states of Ukraine should indicate the territory is disputed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that in articles specifically about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, or the few top level articles such as Ukraine and Crimea, it makes sense to depict Crimea as disputed. But going through and changing every single map of Ukraine in fairly minor articles such as this one is just tendentious POV pushing and territory marking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors should not pick and choose which articles have maps which show it as disputed (or not). It should be consistent in all articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and I fixed it. I did not ask anyone to discuss. That was a very simple question, specifically to Leftcry. If he tells something, I thought he could support his words by a link to a relevant discussion with alleged consensus. So far no one provided a single link to any discussion with consensus about this. That's fine, I just wanted to be sure. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone here except for you and Volunteer Marek said that the maps should show Crimea as disputed and what Ism schism meant is that these maps should be consistent with the ones on the main articles. You didn't "fix" anything, you did the complete opposite and started editing against consensus. For the third time, if you want to see the many discussions regarding Crimea and maps which took place after Crimea's annexation then go to Talk:Ukraine and look through its archives. There were many discussions and linking just one would not show the entire situation so I strongly encourage you to go there and look through all of them if you really do want to be sure. --Leftcry (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion at either Russia or Ukraine that only concerned what shade of green to paint Crimea in those two specific maps. It was probably extended to Crimea as well, but I wasn't involved in that discussion. The consensus covered only the maps at those articles and it was never agreed to expand the consensus to every single map in Wikipedia that shows Crimea. Until the war is over and a final settlement on Crimea has been agreed to, Crimea should be marked as Ukrainian and the Russian invasion and occupation ignored. --Taivo (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The maps showing Crimea as disputed were there for quite a while now, the replacement of those maps with the ones showing Crimea as integrally Ukrainian is recent. I do completely agree with Ism schism in the sense that it is completely inconstant to show Crimea as a disputed region on one article and show it as a complete integral part of Ukraine on the others. I also agree with Iryna Harpy and NeilN that it is obvious that Crimea has disputed status and that it should be depicted as such in maps, as well as that doing otherwise is POV pushing. --Leftcry (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no difference between showing occupied Crimea as part of Ukraine and showing occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of Georgia or occupied Transnistria as part of Moldova. Until a final peace settlement officially changes the borders, invaded and occupied territory is still shown as an integral part of the nation that they legally belong to. --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems to mean that Ukraine admits Crimea to be part of the Russian Fed. I don't assess how likely this could be happening but let me give my best example: China (PRC) and Taiwan (RoC) are currently in a rather peaceful relationship, but China never stops claiming Taiwan to be part of its territories and all maps in Wikimedia depicts Taiwan as an independent sovereign from China. Your requirement of a "final peaceful settlement" is untenable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo: Wikipedia is ever-changing in order to keep itself updated to the current state of our knowledge. Unless the article only covers specific historical event (which "Kherson Oblast" is clearly not), any article about entity still exists in modern day should be updated accordingly to reflect the current state of event regardless of its role in the said conflict (Crimea crisis). Ironically about your "until the war is over and a final settlement" statement, the so-called war in Crimea is pretty much settled and there is no signs its de facto annexation by Russia would be changed or even reverted in any foreseeable future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat: Please show me the treaty by which Ukraine has ceded ownership of Crimea to Russia and/or the UN resolution which recognizes Russian seizure and incorporation of Crimea. Until you can, then the war is certainly not over. Just because there is no active fighting for Ukraine to retake its property, doesn't mean that the issue has been "settled". You cannot tell the future. Wikipedia does not "recognize" the independence of Transnistria or Abkhazia or South Ossetia in its administrative division maps of Moldova or Georgia. There is no reason to treat Ukraine any differently. Until Ukraine officially cedes Crimea to Russia, it is still legally a part of Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Those territories are break-away regions which is slightly different from the situation in Crimea. Something more relatable is Golan Heights. Syria never officially ceded the territory to Israel however it has no control to the region and is depicted the same way as Crimea is on those maps. Golan Heights is an occupied region and is depicted that way, Crimea is more than just an occupied region as Russia also administers it, so it is also disputed and should also be depicted as such on maps. --Leftcry (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes Crimea virtually identical to Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia is that it is precisely the same process and the same invader in each case--Russian "hybrid war". If it is the same antagonist and the same process in each case, then the situations in Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia should be treated the same throughout. Let the situation surrounding Israel be treated the way that those editors choose since there are differences. But surrounding Russia we have the same invader (Russia), the same tactics (hybrid war), the same victims (former Soviet states), and the same result (frozen war) in each case. Therefore they should all be treated the same--without marking "disputes" on the administrative division maps, light green on the country maps. --Taivo (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that those territories aren't disputed between two UN members, Crimea is. That's what makes it different from the cases with break-away regions and similar to the case with Golan Heights. Crimea is already depicted as a disputed region on most articles relating to Crimea and maps on the main articles. It is completely redundant to show it as a disputed region there, but not do that here as that is not consistent. --Leftcry (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not knowledgable about the current states or news about Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But depicting Crimea as an disputed territory from Ukraine in all modern maps comply with our NPOV policy perfectly. We don't need to predict how the "conflict without active fighting" will turn out. Any depiction of "Crimea as an undisputed Ukrainian territory" is either historical (inaccurate to the present state) or prediction, which constitutes WP:CRYSTAL. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Leftcry. It is completely consistent with the way that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are treated at Georgia (in light green), but not marked on the administrative division maps. Crimea is no different than these other regions in any sense other than Russia has overtly claimed the territory after it "broke away". You're simply not seeing the big picture here in your attempts to push this POV edit on the administrative maps. The way we treat Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, and the Donbass should be identical across the board because they are all part of a larger process of post-Soviet Russian aggression and expansion.

No, Sameboat. And if you are not knowledgeable about Moldova or Georgia and Russian occupation of parts of those states, then you won't understand the situation of Crimea. This situation is no different than trying to accurately mark those areas on a map that have been invaded in the middle of the war. We do not mark these other areas of Russian aggression and occupation in Moldova or Georgia. We should treat Ukraine no differently while it is in the middle of a war. --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The conflict in Crimea ended almost a year ago and is now in a state of territorial dispute. There is no war including Crimea as of right now. The current war in Ukraine is in the Donbass not Crimea. --Leftcry (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"The conflict in Crimea ended almost a year ago"? Are you actually of the notion that the war in Crimea is separate from the war in Donbass? There is only one war--Ukraine versus Russia. Just because one front is not active at this time doesn't mean that the war is over. If "the war is over", please show me the treaty by which Ukraine ceded Crimea to Russia or the UN resolution by which the world recognized the "end of the war in Crimea". Indeed, except for a dozen or so Russian allies or anti-Western dictatorships, every other country of the world still overtly recognizes the Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. That's hardly a finished war. --Taivo (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, stop changing maps before this discussion is over. You're pushing your POV ignoring the fact that half of the users who commented on this did not agree with this decision. Your disruptive change of maps on articles of Oblasts of Ukraine before a consensus is even reached is simply POV pushing. --Leftcry (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to show the parts of Ukraine claimed by neighboroughing countries, then a neutral POV approach would be to show all of them, not just the ones you approve of. I suggest blue hatching for parts that Russia claims, red hatching for parts claimed by Poland, and yellow hatching for parts claimed by Romania. With respect of Polish claims - they vary - suggest thick hatching for the part to the pre-1939 frontier and thin hatching for the pre-Khmelnytsky Uprising frontier. Alternatively we could just omit all the claims from the map as they are not really needed for the purpose the map is being used for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No Hatching	Hatching

By the way, the current hatching is a complete failure. You cannot see it on my computer from the normal article page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(@Toddy. The hatching was previously removed from the map on this article by User:My very best wishes. --Taivo (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

It shows in the article history. To make it easier for people to see how the attempt at hatching was a failure, I have inserted the images above at about the same scale as in the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Although not expressed in a particularly helpful way, Toddy1 is correct to note that there are dozens of disputed territories globally, which are not typically displayed on maps. What's distinct in the Crimea case is that it is a situation where the de facto governance of Crimea - as part of Russia - is different from the the situation recognized by the majority of UN states. I can't think of many other situations where this is the case. Comparions to Abkazhia, Transnistria etc are less helpful. While undoubtedly supported by Russia, none of these claim to be an integral part of Russian territory - they claim to be independent states. What's clear? What's clear is that Crimea is a disputed territory. That's not just about UN recongition - dozens of sources could tell us this. I think I like its entry under the National Geogaphic article title 6 of the World's Most Worrisome Disputed Territories as about as unequivocal a statement on this as we can get! However, what's also important is that we remember that this and other geographical articles are not about Crimea. My view is that the colour of Crimea should not, therefore, be an important or distinguishing feature on a map which is, ultimately, not about Crimea. Furthermore, we shouldn't pretend that maps are an easy or neutral tool to straightforwadly represent the world - they're not, they are the products of a series of difficult representational decisions (such as this). I wonder if depictions of Kosovo on maps of Serbian cities may offer a compromise? As this file shows, File:Belgrade in Serbia and Europe.png, Kosovo is marked differently via a dashed line, but the distinction is much more subtle than changes in shading. It would, I think, be disingenuous to mark Crimea as part of Ukraine as if it were governed and controlled in the same way as Kiev. But we should not be letting this dominate maps which do not concern this topic either. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's common Wikipedia practice to mark disputed territories, even in infobox maps. Check the maps at Gansu or Andhra Pradesh. I see no reason to treat Crimea differently.Anonimu (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anoimu - Yes, I agree, that's what I said. But equally we don't show all territory disputes, so we need to judge what to do in each individual case. The point that I was making is that perhaps by doing so in a more subtle way on non-Crimea related articles, we avoid the situation where a tangential topic hijacks an article. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"It would, I think, be disingenuous to mark Crimea as part of Ukraine as if it were governed and controlled in the same way as Kiev". However, that is precisely what we do with the other territories that Russia has launched a hybrid war against and which are not governed and controlled by the central government. Again, drawing parallels to Israel and India are not helpful because these situations are not parallel. It is always virtually impossible to properly evaluate some claims because parallels to other parts of the world are difficult--there are different actors, political factors, realities on the ground, etc. But in the case of Crimea there are precise parallels to Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia: 1) The antagonist is the same in all these cases--Russia; 2) The motivation is the same in all these cases--putin's desire to reunite the old Soviet empire under Kremlin control; 3) The victim is the same in all these cases--former Soviet republics; 4) The method is the same in all these cases--putin's so-called "hybrid war"; 5) The "stabilized" outcome is the same in all these cases--a "frozen war" where part of the victim's territory is out of the central government's control and under the control of the Kremlin through Russian occupation forces or a Russian-installed government. These regions are all expressions of the same thing. So they should all be treated the same. Super Nintendo has a very useful point that this shading is pointless when used in articles that have nothing to do with Crimea. Finally, Crimea is still part of a "hot war", so to mark it on the ground as if its disposition has already been decided is POV pushing. With Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, the conflict has truly become frozen. But with the war between Russia and Ukraine there is no "status quo" to mark--there is still active fighting between the invaders and the defenders so recognizing any part of the invaded territory as "disputed" without recognizing that it is part of a whole is to fool our readers into thinking that some subset of the conflict is separate from the entire conflict. --Taivo (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo, You're twisting and cherry picking claims here. There are two simple questions here. The first is: Is Crimea disputed? The answer here is clearly 'yes'. The second question, is whether or how we should represent this. This is a more complex question, but my overall feeling is that however we do it, it is more 'true to the world' to represent it somehow. What I'm suggesting, is that how we do this should be subtle, in order to not give WP:UNDUE prominence to this issue. But if we had to go with one or the other, I'd go with hatching to be honest. I repeat - comparisons to those other cases are not particularly helpful, both because WP:OTHERSTUFF is not great arguing and because the situations are, legally, very different (even if the military practices have a number of similarities). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Parallels with India/Pakistan, India/China, Israel/Palestine, Israel/Syria, Egypt/Sudan are perfectly fine: unlike Abkhazia, Transnistria et al., which are controlled by unrecognized governments, Crimea is controlled by a universally recognized state, i.e Russia. And is not just a local border dispute that we could ignore at the present map scale.Anonimu (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is primarily useful when talking about unrelated or only marginally related issues. In this case Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea are separate instances of a single activity--Russian aggression on its former Soviet neighbors in order to destabilize their governments and prevent their integration into Western economic and defense structures. This is absolutely not "other stuff", it is the "same stuff". And Anonimu you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. The annexation of Crimea is unrecognized by the international community as is the occupation and "independence" of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. You want to emphasize the unrecognition in these latter cases to keep from marking the "dispute" in Moldova and Georgia, but ignore the nonrecognition in marking the "dispute" in Ukraine. You can't have both. They are the same thing--areas where Russian aggression has wrested control of regions from the legitimate governments. You are simply ignoring the big picture in order to push a POV narrative that Crimea is somehow different because Russian aggression was more overt in Crimea's case. The result is identical--Russian control of the government (whether a Russian "separatist" government or a Russian "provincial" government). This is not like Israel or India; it's not dissimilar to Georgia and Moldova. It is different from Israel and India and it is identical to Georgia and Moldova. --Taivo (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's not go into politicking. The difference is as simple as that: a resident of Crimea/Jammu&Kashmir/Arunachal Pradesh/West Bank/Golan heights can use the passport issued by the de facto government in order to go abroad almost everywhere, a resident of Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia cannot. None of the borders in Jammu&Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bank and the Golan heights are officially "recognized" by the international community; even more, they are explicitly considered occupied territories in the case of the latter two. If you want something like Transnistria, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia you have to look at the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics. But nobody is requesting that these two be marked on the map...Anonimu (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Travel permits" are irrelevant to this issue. You also ignore the simple fact that Crimea and Donbass are not separate issues, but one and the same war--all tied in together with Russia's aggression against Ukraine. It's one thing to try to lump apples and oranges together (Crimea and the Golan Heights), it's quite another when you refuse to lump apples and apples together (Crimea and Abkhazia). --Taivo (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This debate is getting old. I suggest we move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because Taivo clearly does not want to give in. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Giving in"? Seriously? What happened to assuming good faith? Instead of ANI, don't you think a request for comment at an appropriate Talk Page is more appropriate? And I am not the only editor who has expressed displeasure with discoloring Crimea on these administrative division maps--I'm just the only one making most of the arguments against it right now. With a proper RfC you'd have a much better measure of how many editors do or do not agree with your POV. --Taivo (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• One could just as easily argue that Crimea should be shown as a Russian, rather than a disputed territory. But here is my point: if anyone feels strongly about it (I do not), they should properly start an WP:RfC and wait for official closing by an uninvolved admin. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the RfC, but this is not the appropriate page for it. It should be at a "crossroads" page--where more editors are likely to wander by. Perhaps at Oblasts of Ukraine? --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree we're in the wrong place. I only looked here due to a mention on my Talk Page. As for the substance at hand, I figure Crimea has been stolen. Maps based on legitimacy are pleasant, but Wikipedia is more about reality. For that matter, what states do in international politics is also about the reality of power. What they say, well, that's often about legitimacy, but not very relevant here. Legitimacy can be discussed in the relevant articles about Crimea and its sneaky conquest, or its noble liberation as the other side would prefer to say, but such questions don't belong in the map of every nearby Oblast or other administrative territory. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking again, I see that I didn't address the map question directly. Yes, Crimea should get another color, because its status is ambiguous, as the conquering state controls it de facto but with only small international recognition of that facto. Preferably, the color should differ more obviously from either of the country colors. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My position also (as noted above). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem, as I have noted above, is that Crimea not an isolated event. It is part of a broader process involving 1) Russia, 2) former Soviet Republics, 3) hybrid war, 4) occupation of districts without international recognition, and 5) the creation of frozen conflicts which prevent the former Soviet republics from participating in European economic or defense organizations. In addition, Crimea is still part of a hot war and its status is not fixed either by treaty or by long-term status quo. Since we do not mark Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia differently in administrative division maps of Moldova and Georgia, then Crimea, which is part of the same set of realities, should be similarly not marked. --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

So is there going to be an RfC posted because so far there is still no final consensus. Most people on this discussions agreed with the maps which depict Crimea as a disputed region however they have been unilaterally changed to the ones which depict Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine by Taivo. This issue is still not resolved. --Leftcry (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The maps of Ukraine are identical in format to the maps of Georgia and Moldova since they are all the same process of internationally unrecognized Russian aggression and invasion. --Taivo (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The consensus appears pretty clear, with Taivo being the only one strongly opposing the change. Of course, without a RfC this consensus is pretty much unenforceable. If you want to go ahead with all that bureaucratic stuff, I'll restate my case; however, I'm afraid that, considering the subject, the RfC would attract a lot of commenters with strong opinions and would only confirm th status quo..Anonimu (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"The consensus appears pretty clear" is not entirely accurate. If you read back through all the comments from the beginning, there are more editors opposing shading than just me. I wasn't even among the first to post my objections. I'm just the only one who kept posting. --Taivo (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The maps of Georgia and Moldova never had a consensus. The maps used on those articles are older, there are new maps marking the break-away regions as disputed by shading there was just never a discussion held regarding changing maps on those articles. Also, as I said many time before, the situation in Crimea differs greatly from those regions. It's a complete different story when there is a territory disputed between two recognized UN members. Such regions have always been shown as disputed on Wikipedia. May I also add that the location map of Ukraine used on Wikipedia depicts Crimea as disputed. There is also a newer version of that map which includes the same style shading as on the maps of the Ukrainian Oblasts. --Leftcry (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should make assumptions about what the outcome of an RfC would be, Anonimu. I've been meaning to get back to this and start an RfC on the Oblasts of Ukraine talk page (as suggested by Taivo). The decision ought to be an across the board decision rather than a page by page decision. Unfortunately, I've been caught up in a swathe of discussions and didn't strike when the iron was hot. Personally, I haven't changed my position as to Crimea being differentiated in some way on oblasts maps. If someone else wishes to start the RfC, I'm happy to restate my arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Not the whole region

Most of the region is under Russia's control. Not the whole region. Simply not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherson_military%E2%80%93civilian_administration 82.15.56.134 (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This article will not be moved

I am expecting some people to come up with the idea of renaming this article to Kherson Oblast (Ukraine) now that we have Kherson Oblast (russia). Think twice. The vast, huge majority of English sources still refer to the Ukrainian administrative unit when referring to the name "Kherson Oblast". Such a move would only serve to create a false balance between Ukraine and russia, unwarranted due to russia's illegal and violent annexation of the region, which I believe would look more justified here in Wikipedia with such a move. Super Ψ Dro 08:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Capital of Kherson oblast

Kherson (de jure) Novovorontsovka (de facto) Qexypnos (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

In the History>Russian Invasion secttion please change "On 27 July 2022 the Ukrainian army destroyed the Antonovsky Bridge, as part of its wider campaign to isolate the Russian 49th Combined Arms Army on the right bank of the Dnipro river. On 31 August it was reported that the defenders of the ill-gotten Kherson territory were the 49CAA and what was left of the 35CAA." to "On 27 July 2022 the Ukrainian army destroyed the Antonovsky Bridge, as part of its wider campaign to isolate the Russian 49th Combined Arms Army on the right bank of the Dnipro river. Elements of the Russian 35th Combined Arms Army later reinforced Kherson.", leaving the sources there. The current version is not neutral or enciclopediac. Dakane2 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Add the romanization for Russian name ~Fuffi-Marie~ (go talk) 13:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Claimed to annex" vs. "annex"

There has been an ongoing conflict with User:Cambial Yellowing over the question whether the article can speak of Russia "annexing" this (and three other) oblasts or whether it has to be accompanied by words like "claim" (particular bad because WP:WEASEL, "declared" or "announced" (bad because of its association with lazy writing).

I suggested a compromise [1] to say "Russia 'declared it had annexed" in the first instance and then to use the simple "annexed" or "annexation" but Cambial Yellowing wouldn't have that and had to insert "declare" in every instance. Hence, he has shown to be uninterested in compromises thus far.

1. Cambial Yellowing has argued that the Russian act did not constitute an annexation because Russia did not controll all of these four oblasts completely. He cited three dictionary definitions [2] in this edit summary:

"If a country annexes another country or an area of land, it seizes it and takes control of it." collins "to incorporate within the domain of a country, state, etc." M-W "add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation." OED

It is clearly visible that two (Merriam-Webster, OED) of these three definitions do NOT contain anything about control. And while Collins speaks of "seizes it and takes control of it", it doesn't require complete 100% control either.

Hence the argument "I give greater credence to Collins, Merriam-Webster, OED than an anonymous online editor. Not bothered about which modal verb is used." goes nowhere as Merriam-Webster, OED (and strictly speaking Collins) do not support his view. Also, no modal verb was ever part of the equation.

2. The only reference (not in the intro but further down) about the annexation itself is the Guardian article "Putin annexes four regions of Ukraine in major escalation of Russia’s war". While the headline already makes clear that "annexes" is a proper way to describe this (without condoning it, I might add), this is rejected because supposedly Headlines are not WP:RS. But this response is pretty pointless as I based my edits not on the headline but on the article itself. Let's take a look how the article handles it - relevant occurences in bold:

Subheadline: "Russian president signs ‘accession treaties’ at Kremlin in defiance of international law and US responds with sanctions
Pjotr Sauer and Luke Harding in Kyiv
Fri 30 Sep 2022 18.25 CEST
Vladimir Putin has signed “accession treaties” formalising Russia’s illegal annexation of four occupied regions in Ukraine, marking the largest forcible takeover of territory in Europe since the second world war.
The signing ceremony, held in defiance of international law, took place in the Grand Kremlin Palace in the presence of the country’s political elites, and came on the heels of Kremlin-orchestrated fake referendums in the regions: Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk.
Putin kicked off the ceremony with a lengthy, combative and angry speech in which the Russian leader issued new nuclear threats, promising to “protect” the newly annexed lands “with all the forces and means at our disposal”.
“The people have made their choice. An unequivocal choice … This is the will of millions of people,” Putin said, adding that the citizens of the four occupied regions would be part of Russia “forever”.
Shortly after, Putin signed the “accession treaties” on a podium alongside the Russian-installed heads of the four regions.
After signing the treaties, the leaders gathered around Putin, linking hands and joining chants of “Russia! Russia!” with the applauding audience.
Putin’s loaded address, in which he railed against a “satanic” west, was described by observers as his most anti-western speech to date.
In a firm response to Putin’s ceremony in Moscow, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, announced in a video address in Kyiv that his country was formally applying for fast-track membership of the Nato alliance, adding that Ukraine would not hold any peace talks with Russia as long as Putin was president.
Hours earlier, Russian forces launched a missile attack on people waiting in cars in Zaporizhzhia city to cross into Russian-occupied territory so they could bring family members back across the frontlines, killing dozens.
Ukraine has indicated it will fight to reclaim all its lands, while western allies have previously said they would never recognise Russia’s claims on Ukraine’s territory. On Thursday evening the UN secretary general, António Guterres, said the annexation “has no legal value and deserves to be condemned”.
The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, described Putin’s land grab as the “most serious escalation” since the war began​, while ​G7 foreign ministers said in a joint statement that the annexation efforts “constitute a new low point in Russia’s blatant flouting of international law”.
At a session of the the United Nations Security Council, Russia vetoed a resolution condemning the supposed annexation, while China, Gabon, India and Brazil abstained from voting.
Meanwhile, the US imposed a fresh round of sanctions on hundreds of Russian individuals and companies in response to the annexation announcement.
More than 1,000 people and firms connected to the war effort were included in the US package, including Russia’s central bank governor, Elvira Nabiullina, a longtime trusted adviser to the president, and families of national security council members.
Hundreds of members of Russia’s legislature, leaders of the country’s financial and military infrastructure and suppliers for sanctions designations were named by the US treasury department.
In a statement, the US president, Joe Biden, said: “Make no mistake, these actions have no legitimacy. The United States will always honour Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders.”
Britain also put sanctions on Nabiullina and said it was restricting Russian access to key UK commercial and transactional services as well as banning the export to Russia of almost 700 goods that are critical to manufacturing production.
The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said the annexation declaration “won’t change anything”. “All territories illegally occupied by Russian invaders are Ukrainian land and will always be part of this sovereign nation,” she added.
Putin’s decision to sign treaties annexing the territories, some of which Russia does not fully control, is likely to shut the door on diplomacy for years to come. Taken together, Russia is annexing at least 40,000 square miles of eastern and southern Ukraine, about 15% of Ukraine’s total area, equal to the size of Portugal or Serbia.
Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to defend the territories using all available means, indicating he would be willing to resort to a nuclear strike in order to avert Ukraine’s efforts to liberate its sovereign land.
In a thinly veiled threat, he said on Friday that the US had created a “precedent” by using nuclear weapons against Japan at the end of the second world war.
A pop concert was held in Red Square in Moscow on Friday evening and a stage was constructed with giant electronic billboards proclaiming “Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson – Russia!” In a short speech at the concert, Putin thanked the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
Putin’s annexations are widely seen as a response to growing difficulties on the battlefield. Earlier this month, Ukraine pushed Russian troops out of the Kharkiv region, reclaiming areas seized by Moscow on the first day of the invasion.
Russia is now facing another significant military defeat, with thousands of its troops encircled in Lyman, a strategically important stronghold in the north of Donetsk province, one of the four regions Putin has declared part of Russia.
Oleg Tsaryov, a Ukrainian-born pro-Russia politician, wrote on social media: “The situation is very difficult in Lyman. Our guys may already be completely encircled tonight. The situation in Lyman is a bad backdrop for a celebration.”

Putin’s annexation speech: more angry taxi driver than head of state Read more

In an attempt to slow down Ukraine’s offensive, Russia last week announced the first public mobilisation since the second world war, triggering a run for the borders by tens of thousands of men of fighting age and a new, possibly unprecedented brain drain. Pro-Russia officials in the occupied Donetsk region said the first newly mobilised soldiers arrived in eastern Ukraine on Friday.
Putin’s decision to annex territories while mobilising hundreds of thousands of Russians at home indicated that he was further raising the stakes in the war, said Tatiana Stanovaya, a political analyst and founder of R.Politik.
“The way that Putin speaks about Ukraine, it is clear that for him this is an existential problem. For him, if Russia doesn’t win in Ukraine, there won’t be a Russia,” Stanovaya said. “Russia is demonstrating that it is ready to use any means at its disposal to achieve its strategic goals. Including nuclear weapons.”

Result:

• The article's body uses the words "annexation" and "annex" without qualifiers 8 times. This includes reporting comments from NATO sources.
• OTOH, the article once of an "annexation announcement" and once of an "annexation declaration." However, the latter two strictly refer to the speech act about the annexation and hence are actually not actually counterexamples. The only such counterexample is the wording "supposed annexation" - but that's really a loner.
• All in all, the article nevertheless emphasizes that these annexations violate international law.

The conclusion is that is perfectly fine to speak of Russia's annexation of these four oblasts without condoning these acts.

Hence, I am restoring the version easier to read and more in line with the source. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You write "Hence, he has shown to be uninterested in compromises thus far.". No.

Let's look at the relevant scholarship, rather than one newspaper article. From the LSE:[3]

Russia’s attempted annexation of four Ukrainian regions following hastily organised ‘referendums’ has been heavily criticised by politicians in the West.

From an academic reference work on the territories of Russia (2023):. Both volumes were prepared recently enough that they give commentary on the invasion and the current position. Heaney, ed. 2023 (Introduction):

Between Putin’s presidential inauguration in May 2012 and the end of 2022 a total of 73 of the 83 heads of federal subjects (as the territories are known) were replaced (in addition to the heads of Crimea and Sevastopol, which were annexed in 2014, and those of four Ukrainian regions annexed de jure, if not de facto, in 2022.)...After Crimea and Sevastopol were annexed from Ukraine in 2014, the federal centre repeatedly emphasized internal and external threats to their stability. Particularly around the time of Putin’s March 2018 re-election as President, both territories were lavished with attention. If Russia were ever to achieve similar control over the four territories purportedly annexed from Ukraine in 2022, such focus on their security, too, would seem likely

Section "The Impact on the Regions of the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine":

Indeed, on 30 September the Kremlin claimed that more regions had come under its control when Putin announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions: the so-called ‘People’s Republics’ established in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk) by pro-Russian forces as long ago as 2014, and the southern Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhya (Zaporozhye), despite Russian control of all of these territories being by no means assured.

Section "The Government of the Russian Federation"

In March 2014 Russia annexed two territories internationally recognized as constituting parts of Ukraine—the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City— bringing the de facto membership of the Federation to 85 territories. In September 2022, following its invasion of Ukraine, Russia announced the annexation of a further four territories within that country—the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (established by pro-Russian forces in 2014) and Kherson and Zaporozhye (Zaporizhzhya) Oblasts, amending Article 65 of the Constitution accordingly. However, these annexations were, like those of Crimea and Sevastopol, not internationally recognized, and moreover substantial regions of these territories remained disputed or under Ukrainian state control, as the Russian–Ukrainian conflict continued...between 2005 and 2008 the number of territories was reduced from 89 to 83. Including the two territories in Crimea, the 85 territories comprise 22 republics, nine krais (provinces), 46 oblasts (regions), three cities of federal status (Moscow, St Petersburg and Sevastopol), one autonomous oblast and four autonomous okrugs. Of these, the republics, autonomous okrugs and the autonomous oblast are (sometimes nominally) ethnically defined.

"announced the annexation" "purportedly annexed", "annexed de jure, if not de facto" etc. Evidently scholarship views these as declared or claimed annexations, because they have a (admittedly flimsy) legal aspect but none of the facts-on-the-ground aspect of incorporating territory into a state. The authors are at pains to highlight the difference between the successful annexation of Crimea and the attempted, but thus far unsuccesful, annexation of Kherson and others. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Suddenly, when one is called for having no source to back up one's wording, one comes up with other sources. Well, these do not contradict that the annexations, as illegal though they were and as incomplete Moscow's control is, did indeed happen. Note, you quote one speaking of "annexed de jure, if not de facto, in 2022" - an annexation is always a matter of "de jure", while occupation is one of "de facto". And "announced the annexation" is not contradicting the fact they happened either. First they were announced (not really a noteworthy thing) and then they did happen.

And yes, you have shown yourself to be uninterested in compromise. You insisted on some qualifying be inserted in each and every occurence of the words "annex" and "annexation", pushing the POV that these annexations actually didn't happen. Well, as much I hate it, they did occur. The article should not shy away from saying so. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The mind boggles. You literally quote the part where they say the annexation did not de facto - in fact - take place. the source I quote extensively from above makes it clear that the Crimea was a factual annexation, whereas in Kherson and Z. the annexation only had the de jure aspect. Your misunderstanding of this word as only a legal term of art with no common meaning is neither here nor there. You also get your facts wrong, the invasion and occupation of some portions of land in the region took place before, not after, the declaration by the Russian government of “annexation”: so your claim that they were announced...and then they did happen is incorrect.

The rest of your comment does not merit a response. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The mind boggles indeed.

"literally quote the part where they say the annexation did not de facto - in fact - take place." is a very, let's say peculiar reading of that passage, which actually says something else. The difference between Crimea and the other annexations is that while they are ALL illegal (and thus in a very particular wording could be called "declared annexations" or "claimed annexations", Russia has full control of Crimea and not full control of Kherson Oblast. That however doesn't make the latter illegal annexation "not factual".

And this is the heart of the matter: you want to play pretend like the annexation did not really happen (for whatever reasons). This is a violation of NPOV and hence the article is flagged.

"whereas in Kherson and Z. the annexation only had the de jure aspect" - annexations are never de facto, they are always a matter of de jure. Austria de facto controlled Bosnia for 40 years after 1878 but it was the annexation of the region - a matter of law, hence de jure - that caused problems after 1908.

"You also get your facts wrong, the invasion and occupation of some portions of land in the region took place before, not after, the declaration by the Russian government of “annexation” " - Actually, you are misunderstanding my comments as I made no such claims. The Russian war against Ukraine has been going on since 2014 and the all-out invasion of 2022 of course preceded the annexations of the four oblasts. I never said anything to the contrary. However, the annexation of the oblasts was preceded by an announcement, hence "they were announced...and then they did happen".

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's the natural language meaning of the phrase four Ukrainian regions annexed de jure, if not de facto, in 2022 in English. It's unfortunate you perceive that to be peculiar, but it's not something anyone on Wikipedia can help you with.

"you want to play pretend like the annexation did not really happen". Again with the groundless speculation on other's motives. It does not merit a response. The article is to reflect the relevant scholarship. The current, status quo phrasing does so.

"annexations are never de facto, they are always a matter of de jure". You keep repeating this nugget of original research. Were it the case, the scholarship would agree with you. It does not agree with you. It says the regions [were] annexed de jure, if not de facto.

Wikivoice is for the reporting of facts. The meaning of the word annex, as per multiple dictionary definitions, is "to incorporate within the domain of a country, state, etc." "add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation." Were it the case that Russia had added Kherson to its territory, a. scholarship would say so and b. the article would reflect that, opening with Kherson Oblast...is an oblast (province) in western Russia. The scholarship doesn't say so, and the article doesn't say that. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not commenting on your motive at all (which I would guess is closer to my views than you think it is) - I am commenting your editorial behaviour. The sources uses, including by you, repeatedly speaking of Russia annexing - not pretending to - these four oblasts. And that is a fact, not a matter of opinion. Scholarship also takes into account that these annexations are illegal. But nevertheless, they happened. That is what we need to report.

Note that I am still open to the compromise that I suggested. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The article text does not say they pretended to, it says they claim to. The scholarship available says, variously, that this was "Russia’s attempted annexation", "regions annexed de jure, not de facto" - not in fact, "announced the annexation" - a synonym for "claimed" or "declared". They do not, as you inaccurately claim, "repeatedly speaking of Russia annexing" - they speak of the Russian state or Putin saying that they have done so, or attempting to do so. Therefore the article text reflects that. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)