Talk:Mariupol/Archive 1

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

[Untitled][edit]

Removed "splendid". It is actually a stinky (literally) heavily-polluted Soviet industrial city. And somebody please add it to the lists of important ports.AlexPU

  • IPA transcription is based on Russian, not Ukrainian pronunciation of the name. Why? --HectorVK 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the city is pronounced exactly the same in both Russian and Ukrainian. With respect, Ko Soi IX 07:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup badly needed[edit]

To be quite honest, the language for the most part is simply ghastly, as is the lack of references throughout. And some of it just borders on incoherence. "Today Mariupol is the second city on value in Donetsk oblast..." - can someone please explain to me what that means? Is the author referring to the city's economic output or some other characteristic? The list of names of the city in two dozen different languages seems redundant - the InterWiki bar on the left of the screen does the trick just as well if not better. And lastly, some of the sections need to be either trimmed considerably or aggregated into separate articles, as this one is starting to sprawl too much. Anyway, I'll do my best to contribute and clean up, but others should pick up some of the pieces as well. - Agorboun 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, correct the following "The city's steel industry (Ilyich Steel & Iron Works ) sponsors the FC Illychivets Mariupol football club, currently playing in the Ukrainian First League, the second division of the Ukrainian national championship." The point is that the FC Illychivets Mariupol football club has already been playing in the Ukrainian Premier League for one year.Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.221.39.108 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language Structure[edit]

FWIW, the claims about Greek made here are accurate; I have access a bibliography of 30 items at http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/Work/deadtree2.html , and a couple of other articles and a couple of books. Sorry I won't give detailed refs to back the section right away, will get back to it.Opoudjis (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

the pronunciation given is valid for the Russian name of the city only. --77.181.247.79 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

An addition to the history section (6/13/2014) introduces a current event from a very volatile and hostile situation as well as being composed in a plainly non-NPOV. The text stands out as especially ill-fit in an otherwise objectively phrased section. No benefit is gained from introducing this contentious text and may likely spark an editing war. I will allow an opportunity for the author to revert it himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative on how a re-write would only pour oil on fire, e.g.,

After a coup d'état in February 2014 by a minority faction junta within the Ukrainian government and the subsequent installation of a rump parliament, the citizenry of Mariupol as part of a regional referendum proclaimed independence as part of the "Donetsk Peoples Republic". In response, the Ukrainian junta government mounted a military operation to quash the DPR independence, stormed the city and seized control of key government buildings and took prisoner an undisclosed number of the DPR self-defense forces. 71.163.119.98 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that "Arbutus the tree" is intent on turning this History section into a running log of current events. He should consider permitting history to play itself out.Tachypaidia (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current civil conflict[edit]

"civil"?Xx234 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freebooters[edit]

Dwkaminski on 22 April 2016 placed a "What" after the term "freebooters". The basis of the requested clarification is not given, but one must assumed that the meaning of the term itself cannot be in question since it can looked-up easily enough. If the application of term to the Zaporozhian Cossacks is in question, viz. “The Zaporozhian Cossacks in Western Print, 1486-1600” in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 19 (1995): 531. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mariupol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mariupol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mariupol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Please link to the disambiguation page Mariupol (disambiguation)

Please add a hatnote

{{about|the city|other uses|Mariupol (disambiguation)}}

This page is about the city. For other uses, see Mariupol (disambiguation).

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finances[edit]

It is stated that the GDP of Mariupol is $4.5 million. It's completely impossible, that would make a GDP per inhabitant of 10 dollars. Later some sectors are claimed to generate hundreds of millions. Please correct it Klinfran (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should now be able to edit the article yourself Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mariupol[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mariupol's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto5":

  • From Ukrainian Navy: "Pro-Russian crowds seize 3 Ukrainian warships – Europe news". Mail.com. 2014-03-20. Archived from the original on 2014-03-21. Retrieved 2014-04-23.
  • From Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: "Lo scontro all'ONU tra Russia e Stati Uniti" [The clash at the UN between Russia and the United States]. Il Post (in Italian). 1 February 2022. Retrieved 1 February 2022.
  • From Siege of Mariupol: "Russia confirms senior naval officer killed in Mariupol". BBC News. 20 March 2022. Archived from the original on 20 March 2022. Retrieved 20 March 2022.
  • From 2020s in political history: Gladstone, Rick (December 2019). "With Brutal Crackdown, Iran Is Convulsed by Worst Unrest in 40 Years". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  • From 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: "Ukraine refuses to surrender Mariupol as scope of human toll remains unclear". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 21 March 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2022.

Reference named "auto3":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence, "The same day, as Russian forces continued their siege of the city, the Russian government demanded a full surrender, which several Ukrainian government officials refused", is taken verbatim from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where it is followed by <ref name="auto3" /><ref name="auto5" />. Please use the refs from that article, as given above. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:85D6:D171:B633:8CCA (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is a bot Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cannot find so I guess someone has already fixedChidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rough translation?[edit]

For some reason this article has been listed, untagged, as in need of cleanup from an unknown language. Does anybody know why? I am fairly certain this is recent, as I do language identification there. On the other hand I have recently been through this article and didn’t find it all that bad, I fixed what I saw, and I see it’s getting lots of attention, so...I am going to go ahead and remove it from the list. But if anyone feels it should be there, the thing to do is to put {{rough translation|Ukrainian}} at the top, then please specify/describe the problem on the talk page. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak (fluent) Ukrainian or do you have other proof that the translations from Ukrainian are rough?
If not then that template should not be added.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. It’s already showing up on the list even though it isn’t tagged. I am questioning why. I also think you aren’t clear on the criteria for that template, but that isn’t at issue here. The article is in reasonably good shape, do we agree on that? I believe it is either tagged in error — “unknown language” might be because there are several language versions, but the original article was almost certainly Ukrainian or Russian— but that isn’t the point either. I believe it most likely since been edited into shape. Unless you disagree? I went all the way through the article and only found a couple of very small problems. I am going to seek help removing it from the list. Elinruby (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: It seems to me there's a tag in the Mariupol#Infrastructure section, added in 2007. Whether that answers your question I don't know. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: it might! I will re-review that section and go from there. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was it, thanks again. Apparently went though it too fast the first time, and missed that. There actually were some puzzling wordings there Elinruby (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022[edit]

Change (country=Ukraine) to (country( de jure)= Ukraine) (country(de facto)= Russia and Donetsk People’s Republic 2603:7000:3B01:280A:91EB:3273:7F8B:857A (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

Everyone has left. The best we can do is say what it was. Also, one of the sources is 20 years out of date and the article needs to say so. Or perhaps there's another way to say how it ranked in the region.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should now be able to edit the article yourself Chidgk1 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No there are close to 100,000 civilians still trapped there, according to numerous sources. And they are believed to be in the process of starving to death. Chesapeake77 (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check the talk page archives of New Orleans from late 2005, when it was devastated (but not destroyed or depopulated) by Hurricane Katrina. The city still exists and everyone who insisted otherwise from their armchairs ended up looking foolish. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you shouldn't get rid of everything pre war as there still needs to be a record of it. Maybe it could be split into pre and post war sections or something Fourdots2 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022[edit]

Please add notable person in the section about notable people

82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not notable as Wikipedia page doesn't exist . Kpgjhpjm 16:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

=Bold text Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022Bold text

The text now reads “On 17 May 2022, Ukraine evacuated it's last troops from the Azovstal Steel Plant”. Quite sort from the its/it’s error, to describe what was a surrender, with the Ukrainians becoming Russian prisoners of war, as “Ukraine evacuated” is just propaganda and Orwellian dishonesty. It should read 

“On 17 May 2022, Ukrainian troops at Azovstal surrendered to Russian troops, this was described by the Ukraine government as “an evacuation”[11]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.221.142 (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Ecology' describes the past[edit]

Should be rewritten. Probably the whole page similarly.Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I can find no evidence that it was a Cossack encampment. In any case a camp would appear to be very temporary. According to the Encylopaedia Britannica the town on the present site which received a town charter in 1778 was called Pavlosk. It was later changed to Mariupol. Obviously before 1992 it was a Russian city. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:A0A2:9B03:8B58:FC82 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing left of it. It is no longer a city.[edit]

Article falsely presents it as if it's still a city. The entire place is destroyed. Should be referred to in the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:6807:4600:A83C:AB3E:2DF9:CA58 (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar problem - is 'severely damaged' enough? The reference 70 says 'destruction'. The reference 6 informs about the 'hero', not about any damages.Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'destruction and status already covered' - false statement.Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the article, the Siege of Mariupol has been compared to the devastating Siege of Leningrad during World War II. Since then, the city has recovered completely and regained its former glory. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War propaganda is unreliable as a source. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:A0A2:9B03:8B58:FC82 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massive, catastrophic war damage to Mariupol city has been noted in article opening[edit]

Future editors are encouraged to carefully note and cite destroyed neighborhoods, destroyed commercial areas and destroyed landmarks in the article. As well as human casualties as numbers become available.

However, due to still-unfolding human rights situation in Mariupol along with world-wide allegations of ongoing war crimes in Mariupol, Wikipedia Editors are encouraged to FIRST give attention to the article, Siege of Mariupol, for now.

Despite what you may be feeling, please only edit with neutraility (See WP:NPOV) and with careful attention to good quality citations and sources. Do you feel angry because you believe that evil has been done? Remember that neutral, carefully and properly cited, fact-based encyclopedic writing will always shine the brightest light on the worst of things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake77 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I updated the 'Infrastructure' section of the article because the city has already been destroyed. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical affiliations - Reichskommissariat or Military Administration?[edit]

From what I can tell (including from the maps and descriptions on the page Reichskommissariat Ukraine), Mariupol was never incorporated into the civil administration, although it was planned to be. Instead it appears to have been a part of part of the Military Administration of the Occupied Eastern Territories, under what the Germans called the Rear Army District South, or Wikipedia calls Army Group South Rear Area. – AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 04:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian name?[edit]

Why isn't the Russian name at the start of the lead? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Russian name has no official status in Ukraine and the Russian annexation has not received international recognition. Rsk6400 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the way this is done on other place articles Russian should be there because it has a significant connection with the city and area, even before the current situation. Being official or not is not relevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FIRST says Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read, and in my opinion there is already too much of that. We could also add the Greek and Turkish names (there were significant and historically important minorities before the war). Also, according to WP:DUE, we should avoid treating the two names in a way that gives the impression that both nations have somehow similar claims to the city. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The start of the enthnicity section says "The city is largely and traditionally Russian-speaking". That is significant enough for it to be no less significant than the Ukrainian name. Your comparison with Greek and Turkish is not really relevant due to their distinctive lack of significance, so no, we could not also add those languages. There is only one foreign language word there now, Ukrainion: adding a second is not in any way clutter. Implying both countries have an equal claim to the city? Perhaps in your imagination: nothing of the sort is implied. You reference to wp:due is misplaced owing to its already established significance. It looks as though personal opinion is being allowed to influence the way this page is being edited. I suggest the sooner Russian is put there the better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still hold that it is important whether a name is official or not, but it seems I can't convince you. On the other hand, you will not convince me that my editing is influenced by my personal opinion. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Ukraine has one official language does not mean we cannot add other languages if they are relevant, such as if they are local or historical. See for example WP:PLACE. Which is why Uzhhorod has the Hungarian name and Chernivtsi the Romanian one. Mellk (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have boldly proceeded to add the Russian name here. I believe that it is worth noting since Russia has de-facto control over Mariupol, just like Crimea. And Crimean cities have Ukrainian names and Russian names alongside each other. What do you guys think? Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why did you add the Russian name to Kherson[1] ? Rsk6400 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was recently under control of Russia, and is near the frontline. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, the Russian name has been in the article for ages (4 years ago, 1 year ago). It was removed in November and the removal was contested. Therefore it should clearly be considered the stable version. Alaexis¿question? 15:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 years ago? Try 15 years[2]. Mellk (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is almost 17 years now, ouch. Mellk (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal: Pinging Rsk6400, Roger 8 Roger, Mellk, RFC for guideline: I would also like to propose a new guideline for this issue, since I've been seeing heavy disputes with this:

If an article of a population center in de jure Ukraine that have the exact same English rendering of Ukrainian and English rendering of Russian names (i.e. Kherson, Simferopol, Yalta, Kerch), the header would display both Russian and Ukrainian names if at least one of the criterias below are met:

  • The population center is near the frontline or is in a battle between Russia and Ukraine.
  • The population center is under de facto control of Russia.
  • Significant events occuring in or near the population center that relates with Russia.

If an article of a population center in de jure Ukraine has a different English rendering of Ukrainian and Russian names (i.e. Kharkiv, Kyiv, Luhansk, Kryvyi Rih), the English rendered Russian name, as well as the Russian name, shall be put alongside the English rendered Ukrainian name and the Ukrainian name, if at least one of the criterias below are met:

  • The population center is under de facto control of Russia.
  • The English rendered Russian name of the population center has a higher prevalence than the English rendered Ukrainian name of the population center, in at least one comparison, when compared with Google News, Ngram, etc.

Let me know your thoughts about this proposal by pinging me, thank you, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Russian name should be there if there is a significant Russian speaking population, or if there has been a significant connection with the Russian language in the past (to be determined on a case by case basis) The war is a side issue and is going off course and is not a good enough reason to use the Russian name. These guidelines are already in place so there is no reason to change anything. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I concur with Roger 8 Roger, above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was part way through typing a response, but really Roger 8 Roger covers all the points. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree with Roger 8 Roger. Per MOS:GEO we should provide notable equivalent names from other languages. Wherever Russian is widely spoken and recently was official on the regional level it is clearly notable. Alaexis¿question? 14:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, if Russian is widely spoken it is likely appropriate to include it. It has been like this the whole time. From what I can see, Rsk6400 decided to remove it[3] and kept removing it. Mellk (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Russian has no official status. --Synotia (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Ukrainian bias[edit]

It seems incomplete to not have a single mention of the Russian annexation of Donetsk in this article. Regardless of any opinions on the invasion, Mariupol, and other large swaths of Donetsk are de facto parts of Russia, and that should be reflected in the article.
See Tskhinvali, Tiraspol, etc. Lord ding dong (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP only reflects what WP:RS say. You should also read WP:NPOV. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[4] [5] [6] [7] "Reliable sources" seem to agree that Russia annexed these lands. They don't agree that it's legitimate, in the same way that Serbian media would likely describe Kosovo, but they still obviously mention that Russia annexed what Ukraine claims as Donetsk Oblast, and therefore Mariupol. Lord ding dong (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare reliable sources with Serbian media and the Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine with Kosovo, this discussion is not likely to lead anywhere. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Wikipedia's reliable sources seem to agree that Russia claims (and largely controls!) Donetsk Oblast, which Mariupol is a part of. Refusing to state this obvious fact in the article is absurd. Lord ding dong (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's reliable sources" ? Looks like you feel the need to distance yourself from a core principle of our community. That Russia controls Mariupol is made quite clear in the article. I don't know of RS that use the expression "de facto". Rsk6400 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this depends on the question: Is the illegal annexation relevant to the article in the historical scheme of things? So far, I don't see it. Unless a bunch of important stuff happens in Mariupol that the annexation is important context for, I don't think it needs to be added yet. HappyWith (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian plans to rebuild Mariupol[edit]

@Mellk: Once again, I deleted the section "Aftermath" you created. It seems to me a WP:RECENTISM, and I also have the impression that Russian plans are not notable since nobody knows whether Russia will get a chance to put them into practice. Also, we should not present Russia in a favourable light, reporting the nice plans to rebuild the city while keeping silent about the ongoing Russian crimes (which are not just allegations by Ukrainian authorities connected with the demolition of the theatre.) Rsk6400 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it suggest they are rebuilding out of the goodness of their hearts, the motivation is already mentioned. Also if you do not like plans being mentioned, then why did you delete the whole section when the plan is one sentence? If you want to add details about crimes, then add to it rather than blanking, otherwise it is strange to not mention anything from the past 8 months under the occupation. Mellk (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The El Pais article (which also seems to be the source for the text you mistakenly attributed to the Moscow Times) presents the Russian actions and intentions in a less favourable light than you did. The population estimate by El Pais is "a quarter" of 440,000, that would be 110,000. I don't know where you got the number of 212,000 from. I still don't think that plans or actions to build new houses in a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants are notable. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian estimate of 100,000 is already mentioned in the lead and infobox. The 212,000 estimate is mentioned in TMT article. And no I do not expect it to sound like El Pais with only two sentences (even though the key points, the actual rebuilding and motivation are mentioned). So again, please give a valid reason for blanking. Mellk (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you linked the wrong article of Moscow Times. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned here. This was cited. Mellk (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you gave was this one. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. The URL was wrong but the title was for that article. Not sure what happened there. Mellk (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROPORTION and WP:RELEVANCE are the main reasons behind my reverts, I thought that was clear enough from what I wrote above. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just misrepresented the section as all plans and claimed "recentism". Mellk (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, there are other articles about the rebuilding by Euronews and WSJ, in addition to El Pais and Russian media. That should be sufficient for inclusion. Alaexis¿question? 11:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:PROPORTION: For example, a description of isolated events [...] or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. I think that is a good description of my concerns. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, surely it's not proportional to have a 4000-character section on the siege and not even one sentence on what is going on in the city after it ended. Alaexis¿question? 12:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quote above links "proportional" to "significance". Unless other editors want to join us, I feel that this discussion has come to an end. If you want to seek dispute resolution, I'll of course join in constructively. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely include info on the Russian occupation. It's definitely getting coverage - specifically, a bunch of articles have been mentioning that during the "rebuilding", the Russians have been demolishing buildings and monuments important to Ukrainian cultural identity and scrubbing evidence of war crimes. [8] [9] HappyWith (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should mention the key developments. I've added some information from the AP article. Alaexis¿question? 20:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, after both the siege sections and the post-siege sections have been reduced significantly in size, I'm going to combine them for now. HappyWith (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: It seems that you didn't take into account my concerns, and you didn't even correct Mellk's reference error which they accepted after I had pointed out three times. I'll add more later. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which reference error you are referring to but I apologise if I didn't correct it. Regarding the proportion and relevance concerns, a new source was mentioned by u:HappyWith which in my view confirms the relevance. If we can't make incremental changes work, I'm happy to use other dispute resolution channels. Alaexis¿question? 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a look at the sources, I don't think that you represented them correctly, sorry to say. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the misrepresentations still in the article, or did you remove them already? If they're still there I can help to try to fix those. HappyWith (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, they are fixed. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "2018 Crimean Bridge incidents" section[edit]

Is that section even relevant to this article? The article on the Kerch Strait incident itself doesn't mention any effect on Mariupol at all beyond the general economic downturn of Azov Sea ports. The other material is only related to Mariupol in that the ships that were harassed by Russian authorities were heading to the city. I'm thinking of reducing its size or merging it with other sections, but I want to get other editors' thoughts first. HappyWith (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The work you already did looks very good to me, I think reducing and / or merging is a good idea. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to put it more in the context of the annexation of Crimea overall, reducing it to a single paragraph and merging it with the War in Donbas section. If anyone has a good idea for what to rename the section (is there a collective term for the annexation of Crimea and War In Donbas that doesn't include the 2022-23 invasion?), feel free to rename it after my merging. HappyWith (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations says the demolition of Mariupol constitues cultural cleansing and a violation of international human rights[edit]

In the last part of the section "2022 Russian siege and subsequent occupation", a description from Associated Press about Russia eradicating vestiges of Ukraine and covering up war crimes is mentioned. This is fine. This is a very important issue, since the aim is to dramatically change both the cultural heritage, most of the buildings, and the nationality of the citizens. More information about this should be given. E.g., the Holodomor monument was demolished, the Miru Prospect ("peace avenue") has been renamed into Lenina Prospect ("Lenin avenue"), and large parts of the city are being demolished. United Nations characterizes the process as cultural cleansing and a violation of international human rights.

This extensive Russification is so important that in my view it should be mentioned in the introduction of the article.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-russia-tries-to-hide-crimes-as-it-rebuilds-destroyed-mariupol-into-model-city-12814769

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-war-how-mariupol-is-becoming-russias-new-model-city-12812574 Joreberg (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect english translation of substance names[edit]

concentrations of benzapiren reach 6–9 times the maximum concentration limits; fluoric hydrogen

should read

concentrations of Benzopyrene reach 6–9 times the maximum concentration limits; hydrogen fluoride 93.89.137.150 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of 'illegal' annexation of Crimea[edit]

Annexation is descriptive enough, with 'illegal' usually being assumed. Sources don't call what they deem "legal" annexations that, anyway (see annexation article). And it is not like using just annexation pushes Russian government pov, as they don't call it that. Adding 'illegal' is usually just editorializing. So, in my opinion, just annexation is sufficient for most mentions. Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really true. For example Texas annexation. Volunteer Marek 08:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What we are talking about is mostly after-1945 mentions. Anyway, you aren't proposing that 'annexation' by itself presumes legality, do you? Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we be ambiguous ("annexation") when we can easily be clear ("illegal annexation") ? Rsk6400 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it looks like editorializing (and in context of this article, it is not ambiguous - it does not discuss this annexation or it's legality). Also, because we can't just cite some court that ruled Texas annexation legal and Crimean one illegal. As we have a link, anyone can easily go to the Crimean annexation page and see the international community opinion by themselves. Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since Russian propaganda continuously tells us that the annexation was legal, and since all experts on international law say the opposite, I say the word should stand. Personally I think this discussion has gone on long enough. Feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Please add the logo back to infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:City_of_Mariupol.svg 213.134.161.116 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rsk6400 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariupol is de facto part of Russia, de jure part of Ukraine. Please use consistent, factual language. Do better.[edit]

Some cities are listed as "de facto" part of Russia, while others are falsely listed as part of Ukraine without elaboration. Pro-Ukrainian bias is contrary to the neutrality rule and it needs to stop. 70.121.162.56 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of neutrality is wrong, see WP:NPOV. WP has a pro-RS bias. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mariupol/Archive_1&oldid=1211032518"