Talk:Mariupol: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 71: Line 71:

:::If you insist on “secondary sources need to establish significance” please provide them for the Ukrainian administration. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 21:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

::::No. TylerBuden and I are not seeking to change the status quo nor add new content. It’s you that wants to add a fucking stupid pro-Kremlin website. The onus is on you to attain consensus. You haven’t done so. This page is about a city in Ukraine, a fact documented in innumerable reliable secondary sources. The current, status quo infobox website is the official Ukrainian website of this city in Ukraine. Take your POV-pushing elsewhere, it doesn’t belong here. [[User:Cambial Yellowing|Cambial ]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|foliar❧]] 22:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

== It’s been three years since the Russian takeover and it’s not clear that Ukraine will retake this city anytime soon ==

At this point, not mentioning the de facto control of the city in the infobox is highly misleading. Currently, it only lists a de facto Russian mayor, but no other indication that the city is under Russian administration, and has been, for years. If Ukraine was on the brink of retaking the city, there might be an argument for keeping the infobox as primarily discussing Ukrainian control of the city. But at this point, with Ukraine primarily engaging in defense of its remaining territories, it just does not make sense to continue to speak of Mariupol as strictly a Ukrainian city. Instead, we should look to articles with a similar situation, such as [[Majdal Shams]] or [[Sevastopol]], where a city is de jure recognized as part of a country, while de facto controlled by a different country. I acknowledge the previous two sections that also discuss aspects of the infobox, but I feel like they don’t go far enough. Here’s what I think would be helpful:

2. Country should either be like Sevastopol’s infobox (discussing de facto and de jure), or like Majdal Shams (something like “internationally recognized as Ukraine, controlled/occupied by Russia”).

3. The population figure should be updated with 2025 estimates.

4. Both the Ukrainian official website and the Russian official website should be listed.

For users who insist on maintaining the status quo of only listing it as a Ukrainian city and only using pre-siege images, the question is… until when? In about 7 months, Russia will have had control of the city for four years. Do we have to wait until it reaches five years, six years…? Do we have to wait until the current de jure Ukrainian mayor resigns or passes away? It seems like this insistence on pretending that Ukraine still controls the city is more aspiration-driven than Wikipedia policy-driven. [[User:JasonMacker|JasonMacker]] ([[User talk:JasonMacker|talk]]) 04:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

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

Please add verb ‘ended’ or ‘stopped’ or an appropriate verb after ‘When the fighting’ and before the comma, at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph in the section 2022 Russian invasion. There is a verb missing. Veridica Small (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jamedeus (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t we change the flag to Russia after the capture and reconstruction? BarakHussan (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. We follow RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Since the invasion is estimated to have damaged over 90% of housing in the city centre, the Russian government has invested significant amounts towards building new buildings. This process has included demolishing many damaged buildings, whose remaining residents are sometimes not allowed into the rebuilt buildings, and are offered new property further from the city centre with little compensation. Property prices are similar to before the war, with the Russian government maintaining mortgages at 2% to draw in Russian buyers. According to a Ukrainian official, they number around 80,000 as of mid-2024. In early 2024 the Russian government began a process to seize properties from those who had fled, requiring owners to obtain Russian citizenship and re-register properties with Russian authorities in person in order to keep them.”

That paragraph doesn’t have a single source, stating contradictory statements and sometimes involving even russian propaganda. Also, the wording is sometimes weird and incorrect:
– “Since the invasion is estimated to have damaged”
– “invested significant amounts towards building new buildings” – “This process has included demolishing many damaged buildings”: The connection “this process”, when “this process” is talking about building, but the sentence writes “demolishing”, is just wrong.

– No citations for offered new property, nor mortgages, etc.
– According to Ukrainian official data – again, no citation, which data, by whom, when.

No source about seizing properties and if it’s true, it has to be stated that the seizing is illegal.

So I either recommend a deletion of that part or a serious rewriting, with sources, with good and correct wording. Pettylein (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a source — this article from The Economist — which verifies the information from the text. Any suggested changes to the text should be supported by reliable sources. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s wrong with having both de facto and de jure subdivisions in the infobox? It’s used for some other disputed localities like Famagusta. This is not the argument that other stuff exists but rather an example that shows how the same problem has been successfully solved elsewhere. De facto seems like a neutral name but we can use a different one, like “according to Russia’s administrative division” to make sure that the reader understands that this refers to the situation on the ground. Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Find some reliable sources that use the terms, and you two would at least have the basics of WP:VERIFY to stand on. I will copy what I posted on @Cyrobyte‘s talk page here, which they decided to ignore in favor of edit warring.

“Speaking of sources, you’re once again adding “de facto” to Ukraine articles, none of the sources you’re citing use the term anywhere, equating “occupation” with “de facto” (you even went as far as adding “de facto” Donetsk People’s Republic, giving undue weight to what is essentially a puppet state) is WP:SYNTH, and this is the second time you’ve done it.”

If you want me to be more specific, find a reliable source that says Mariupol is “de facto Donetsk People’s Republic”, because until then it’s Wikipedia editor’s WP:SYNTH giving WP:UNDUE weight to a puppet state. TylerBurden (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden. First of all, no source is needed in the infobox anyway because the information is already included in the article. Second of all, your assertion that simply because the source it is synthesis of information is absurd. The BBC article mentions that the city is occupied by Russia. Just because it doesn’t contain the phrase “de facto” doesn’t mean what I said is synthesis. You need to explain why this information should not be included in these infoboxes, even though it’s always included in settlement infoboxes, as I told you in the 17 August message that you ignored. Cyrobyte (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you can’t provide what’s being asked, and you’re admitting the sources don’t support what you’re adding, no one has denied the city is occupied, the dispute is clearly about the term “de facto”, and I think it’s quite telling that you’re not able to find RS supporting it. Your argument is based upon the “other stuff exists” point Alaexis mentioned above. If other articles have issues with verification, or such policy was overridden to insert such terms, then that is a local consensus and it really holds no weight outside of those articles, unless you can provide some policy/guideline saying that all occupied locations should have “de facto” in their infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My sources do support what I’m saying because being occupied by a country makes a settlement de facto that country, which I believe is very obvious (apparently not to you, though). Just read the article de facto. Cyrobyte (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently you haven’t read WP:NOTSOURCE. TylerBurden (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not citing Wikipedia as a source. I am telling you to read the definition of the phrase “de facto”, because it is obvious that if a settlement is occupied by another country, it is de facto that country. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not obvious. It requires a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to this infobox issue, there has been a long-standing consensus to abstain from marking anything as “de facto Russia”, at least when it comes to Russian-controlled localities in Ukraine, which are not located within the boundaries of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. Furthermore, these Russian claims enjoy little to no recognition, and are thus likely irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of all readers, especially since the article itself treats the Russian occupation of the city in detail. It is also noteworthy that we are talking about an active military conflict with evershifting frontlines, which does not apply to the cited dispute in Cyprus. In my opinion, adding something like

“|blank_name_sec1 = Control |blank_info_sec1 = RUS” or “UKR (occupied by Russia)” could be a reasonable compromise here, otherwise I’m with @TylerBurden and agree that “de facto Russia” or anything similar does not belong into any infobox at this stage of the conflict. (see WP:UNDUE) Frank-Horst (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s one more example, we write that Afrin,_Syria is controlled by Turkey. This is a relatively recent conflict so this could also be an option. Alaexis_¿question? 12:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s wrong with having the website in the article? How is WP:DUE relevant? It’s not about viewpoints. Pinging @Durranistan who’s added it in the first place. Alaexis_¿question? 19:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing, I’m not sure I understand your edit summary. What do you mean by “secondary sources need to establish significance” of a website? Can you give examples of such sources for the official Ukrainian administration website? Alaexis_¿question? 12:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariupol is still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, since Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for promoting Russian occupation, it therefore lists the Ukrainian website. Unless Mariupol is recognized as part of Russia or you can demonstrate that secondary sources are referring to the Russian occupation website rather than the Ukrainian one, it makes no sense for a neutral encyclopedia to promote a Russian occupation website, which is something I would think you would be more careful with as an editor who has recently been logged in CT. TylerBurden (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources state that Mariupol is part of Ukraine. As you say, this is the official Ukrainian website for the city. Reliable sources do not state that Mariupol is part of Russia. controlled by ≠ part of. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you interpret the policies correctly. Consider the example of Famagusta which includes both de jure and de facto website. It’s not promotion, it’s just the website used by the administration that actually runs the city.

If you insist on “secondary sources need to establish significance” please provide them for the Ukrainian administration. Alaexis_¿question? 21:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. TylerBuden and I are not seeking to change the status quo nor add new content. It’s you that wants to add a fucking stupid pro-Kremlin website. The onus is on you to attain consensus. You haven’t done so. This page is about a city in Ukraine, a fact documented in innumerable reliable secondary sources. The current, status quo infobox website is the official Ukrainian website of this city in Ukraine. Take your POV-pushing elsewhere, it doesn’t belong here. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, not mentioning the de facto control of the city in the infobox is highly misleading. Currently, it only lists a de facto Russian mayor, but no other indication that the city is under Russian administration, and has been, for years. If Ukraine was on the brink of retaking the city, there might be an argument for keeping the infobox as primarily discussing Ukrainian control of the city. But at this point, with Ukraine primarily engaging in defense of its remaining territories, it just does not make sense to continue to speak of Mariupol as strictly a Ukrainian city. Instead, we should look to articles with a similar situation, such as Majdal Shams or Sevastopol, where a city is de jure recognized as part of a country, while de facto controlled by a different country. I acknowledge the previous two sections that also discuss aspects of the infobox, but I feel like they don’t go far enough. Here’s what I think would be helpful:

1. New pictures of Mariupol. Using images from 2020, over half a decade ago, is just not sustainable and presents a misleading depiction of the city of Mariupol. Instead, the pictures should have a portion of them being new pictures, perhaps an image of destroyed areas (similar to Gaza city), as well as an image of new Russian constructions.
2. Country should either be like Sevastopol’s infobox (discussing de facto and de jure), or like Majdal Shams (something like “internationally recognized as Ukraine, controlled/occupied by Russia”).
3. The population figure should be updated with 2025 estimates.
4. Both the Ukrainian official website and the Russian official website should be listed.

For users who insist on maintaining the status quo of only listing it as a Ukrainian city and only using pre-siege images, the question is… until when? In about 7 months, Russia will have had control of the city for four years. Do we have to wait until it reaches five years, six years…? Do we have to wait until the current de jure Ukrainian mayor resigns or passes away? It seems like this insistence on pretending that Ukraine still controls the city is more aspiration-driven than Wikipedia policy-driven. JasonMacker (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mariupol: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply