Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1

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

Requested move 29 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A new move request can be opened on the proposed option of "Russian occupation in Kherson Oblast". (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast → Russian occupation of the Kherson Oblast – The current title is missing a definite article where having one there would be more natural — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Use lowercase for "oblast", as is typical for "province", "district", and "vilayet". When sources are mixed, Wikipedia prefers lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Context is needed: For the title, it should be capital because it is a direct reference to the name Kherson Oblast (Wiki article is capitalized). The term "oblast" is not capitalized, but the name of the oblast is Kherson Oblast. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    You are right, but the main article is capped Kherson Oblast (also known as Kherson region or sometimes Kherson province). The change should be made globally for all twenty-four oblasts, updating the guidance at WP:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). I would support this. —Michael Z. 16:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Hm, maybe I spoke too soon. My impression is that academic books l.c. oblast in a name, but perhaps general sources treat it as part of a proper name because it’s an unnaturalized foreign term, therefore unfamiliar (proportional Ngram), as opposed to the Anglicized versions.[1][2] Ngram shows that province and region are more common in recent decades.[3]  —Michael Z. 16:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose with new option: Unlike in most occupations, the entire region being referenced is not occupied. The title should be Russian occupation in Kherson Oblast. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose, we are not using "the" for Ukrainian (or Russian, for that purpose) oblasts and districts. Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose  Sounds unnatural. Oblast names are proper nouns and do not usually take the.[4] —Michael Z. 16:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ymblanter and Mzajac—blindlynx 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. 180app (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "The Kherson"? Is this like saying "The Ukraine"? Which is incorrect. Nythar (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Comment ""Oblast doesn't appear to be the English language name commonly used (province is more common, see [5]) and it doesn't appear to be capitalised in Ukrainian. However, this should be addressed more centrally and at a country level. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Later events section format

The current format (link of current format for future editors) seems to be starting to grow out of control. What is a good standard format for this cases? Does anyone have any other example? I have my doubts the current one is the way to go, so I wanted to raise a discussion. AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I really don’t know the best way to format this. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No coverage of the topic

Where is the description of the actual occupation of Kherson? There's nothing in this article about the initial occupation of either the oblast or the city, only what has happened since the occupation. That seems a rather severe oversight. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The occupation started the moment the Battle of Kherson ended, so not really much to cover besides what has happened since March 2. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Kherson military–civilian administration"

Per MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Per MOS:CAPS, the burden is to show that capitalisation is necessary in accordance with the criteria of MOS:CAPS. Looking at news sources here, it appears to fall well short of the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Ping Ultraprime12345. 23:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ping Elserbio00. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Population

Should one show pre-invasion population in the infobox? A large part of population fled from Russian occupants, so 1 million is a very-very wrong number. Wikisaurus (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy moved to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. No such user (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian occupation of Kherson oblast → Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast – "Oblast" should be capitalized to match with Kherson Oblast, Administrative divisions of Kherson Oblast, etc. This was the previous title, and there was never consensus for changing it to lowercase. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment an interesting situation. Something should probably change but which? It would not be capitalised in Russian or Ukranian and both languages have similar orthographic conventions to English for capitalisation of proper names. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy move This is uncontroversial and should be closed early and moved to conform to the main article’s spelling and caps. In the future, just boldly move or file a technical request for such moves. The question of the main article’s capitalization is a topic for elsewhere, and was recently discussed. —Michael Z. 15:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy move As per above. Vic Park (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Short description 🇺🇦🆚🇷🇺

It's good not to repeat stuff already mentioned in the article title in the short description. With this in mind, I updated the description, you're welcome. :) ToniTurunen (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Unclear map

The attached map shows both controlled and claimed territories. Controlled by which party? Claimed by which party? We can only guess. Is this the standard of an Encyclopedia? Besides, the word "claimed" (why not "disputed"?) suggests that the rest of the city is recognized by Ukraine as belonging to Russia, which is absurd. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisaurus Thank you for the correction. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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) 19:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Putin recognizes independence of Kherson oblast

Hi Currently, Kherson oblast is a puppet state recognized by Russia. Should we change the infobox? [6] Panam2014 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I've removed the RfC tag as an RfC is premature given the lack of prior discussion. It's also not clear what the proposed change to the infobox would be. signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It does not seem that there has been a declaration of independence or any renaming or reorganization of the local pro-Russian administration like with the Republic_of_Crimea_(country) or the LPR or DPR, so I don't see any way to change the infobox in an accurate way. By a couple days there will probably be a new administration system and the procedural details of the annexation can go in the article text like with the Crimea case. Inteloff (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I have removed any mention of "independence" in the lead paragraphs. I believe that the concept can be mentioned somewhere in the body paragraphs. But I believe that we should not be pushing such a fringe idea into the main space. There was a big drama over this issue at the article "List of sovereign states", because some users were adamant that Kherson and Zaporizhzhia were "real countries" simply due to Russia's recognition of them as such for one single day. There was also a lot of propaganda and original research going around, which got embedded into certain articles, about the idea that the four provinces were "not annexed into Russia until October 5 (or October 8)". The territories were annexed into Russia on September 30, that's final. There was no "interim period". All of the reliable sources point to September 30 as the definitive date of annexation. October 5 is just semantics. I am not partial to the idea that we should pay lip service to a country existing for just a single day. As someone else has said elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is like describing Catalonia as an independent country during the 6 seconds between when its leader declared independence and then immediately retracted his statement. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the infobox

See the topic on Talk:Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Beshogur (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have made changes that I think are appropriate. Personally, I consider the problem to have been solved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jargo Nautilus: we could add the infobox federal subject of Russia. Panam2014 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
That is a disputed claim. If we were to add something like that, we would have to say "it is disputed by Ukraine". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Like to LPR and DPR. Panam2014 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Local/regional government

On the pages of these military-civil administrations, there is always mentioned a Head of Government and Head of Administration. What is the difference between these two offices; are they connected/integrated? Criticalthinker (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the "head of government" is supposed to be the head of government, exactly as it is described. On the other hand, the "head of administration" is a euphemism for the head of state. The self-proclaimed Russian-installed authorities in these military-civilian administrations regard/ed themselves as sovereign states, which is/was a fiction that is/was unrecognised by the overwhelming majority of the international community.
The info-boxes and articles are not very clear on the matter, but that's my impression. A head of government controls the civil/internal affairs of a country, e.g. managing education, civil laws, services, etc. On the other hand, a head of state acts as the "personality" of a sovereign state on an international stage, representing the sovereign state in international contexts. Heads of state often but don't always have executive powers; some heads of states are merely figureheads, such as the late Queen Elizabeth II of England/the United Kingdom/the Commonwealth. In situations where the head of state has executive powers, they are often but not always synonymous with the head of government, holding both positions simultaneously. In certain countries, there exists both an executive head of state and a head of government, although many of the powers of the head of government are possessed by the head of state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This would all make sense if it were not for the fact that this is not how any of the federal subjects in Russia are set up. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are supposed to have been incorporated into the federation as typical oblasts and Donetsk and Luhansk as republics; regardless of the title of the federal subjects, all just have elected governors as the combined government-and-state leader. This seems to have been the case in Dontesk and Luhansk when they were 'formally' incorporated into the federation (they simply have a "Head" of government).
Perhaps someone who is fluent in Russian could figure out what is supposed to be the administrative/legal differences between these two offices, because I can't figure it out. Perhaps, this was an interim set-up until the incorporations happened, and we'll see a reconfiguration of administration to singular governors. Though none of this is seen as legitimate by most international bodies, I do think it's worth some research to see the development of government in the occupied territories. Criticalthinker (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe that this was an interim format, as you've suggested. The Kherson MCA was initially branded as an "independent country" as a precursor to annexation. So, it styled itself in that way, presumably, which included the structure of its government. After being annexed by Russia, the governmental structure will presumably be subject to change. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that would make sense. And looking at who took each office, it would appear that it's actually the Head of Administration who is the figurehead "head of state," and the Head of Government who is the actual chief administrator/executive. At least in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the former is always a Ukrainian collaborator, and the latter is always a bureaucrat from the Federation. But that is just an educated guess as to what the terms "Head of MCA Administration" and "Head of MCA Government" mean. Even the Russian-language wiki pages on these don't seem to specify what these terms means or what the actual structure of these interim administrations are/were. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this man -- Sergei Yeliseyev (appointed as the head of government of the Kherson MCA) -- is a Russian politician (not Ukrainian in the slightest) with a history of governance (as the second in command?) in Kaliningrad Oblast, among other positions. Presumably, this means that he is actually capable of running a government, i.e. he's the man for the job. In contrast, this man -- Volodymyr Saldo (appointed as the head of state/administration of the Kherson MCA) -- is a Ukrainian politician who had fallen from grace in the leadup to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Saldo has presumably been propped up by Russia as a collaborator in order to give a "Ukrainian face" to the Russian-installed puppet regime in Kherson Oblast, i.e. to demonstrate that "Ukrainians actually want to join Russia!". Interestingly, Ekaterina Gubareva -- the wife of Pavel Gubarev, one of the earliest leaders of the DPR separatists in Donetsk Oblast -- seems to be currently serving as one of the many deputy leaders of the Kherson MCA. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, translating the terms from the Russian language version of this article, it would seem that "Глава ВГА" would actually translate to "Head" of the military-civilian administration, and "Председатель правительства ВГА" translates to "Chair of Government" of the military-civilian administration. I'm being picky over the terms used in the English language article's infobox, because "Head of Administration" made Saldo sound like he's the chief administrator/executive of the oblast, which he obviously was not during the military-civilian government. I think I'll provide more accurate translations in the article/infobox. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Just coming back to say that I was wrong about this. Apparently, there is an office of head-of-state and head-of-government, though in most federal subjects these offices are usually held by a single person elected as the "governor." That is to say that the governor is elected to both offices and functions are head of both, simultaneously. So, the military-civilian administrations (MCAs) are actually nominally in line with typical RF governance of its regular federal subjects, though they are different in that it appears that the head-of-state and head-of-government roles are functionally separated roles in the MCAs. Just wanted to say that Jargo was right in his first guess as to how these MCAs have been setup and function. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Puppet government"

The infobox describes the Russian occupation MCA as a "puppet government." This terminology is inappropriate; it was not "nominally independent" as such a definition would suggest. Firestar464 (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It *was* a nominally independent puppet government though. See the section above where I and another user are discussing the leadership roles in the Kherson MCA. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request In Infobox

CoA of the Kherson MCA seen from the official site
CoA of the Zaporizhzhia MCA

A Change in CoA

The current rendition of the Kherson MCA's Coat of arms made by @Flagvisioner differs from the one seen in the ceremonial "annexation" signage of 30 September 2022 & The MCA's official site. As the rendition made by Flagvisioner dated pre-ceremonial and used during the beginning months of the war. The current rendition uses a different coloring on the shield, a different eagle design, and a different set of crowns above it. I'd suggest that we change this for accuracy. In addition, the flag so far is currently being revised by me and Flagvisioner, it would be fair to say that the CoA should be changed to file:Coat of Arms of the Kherson Military-Civil Administration (30 Sept Rendition).svg to reflect this change.


Detail

In the official site, the laurel and crown supporting it isn't present and only the Escutcheon is displayed, inline to what Zaporizhzhia MCA's coat of arms's design stature. Meanwhile for the flag it still retains the support; but again, a different eagle, coloring, and crown.

New file page

Concerning the placement of the file. I've made it to a different file instead of replacing it, due to the fact that it was a different rendition and both were used at once point, just in different time. So it might be considered as historical? Ones pre-30 sept and another is the current. if there is any problem from this file separation, I'll gladly allow the file to be deleted. Kaliper1 (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Edit: Grammar and concerning file placement

Alright, thank you for pinging me. Flagvisioner (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Left and right bank of the river

Left and right bank of the river has a different meaning depending on whether one travels upstream or downstream. Correct wording would be either east(ern) or west(ern) bank of the Dnipro River. 2A02:AA1:161C:5549:8CA7:34A2:957:954 (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Left" and "right" banks are determined by looking downstream; the direction of travel does not matter. Look up Bank (geography). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV Rule break; renaming request

As now the area have been annexed into Russia, regardless of what we personally think of the matter, it should be fair to the NPOV Rule of our community to rename this page to either "Kherson Oblast (Russia)" as calling it an Occupation would just make people seem that Wikipedia decides to endorse Ukraine's POV, while we shoudn't and thus I think we should adoubt the already mentioned alternative name; Just, for example, as the Afghanistan Page was changed to refect the new situation when the Talibans took over. Thanks for your attention! Mattia332 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop now. Panam2014 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me, what? Wikipedia is a free community, what are you refering to “stop now”? Everyone is free to express their opinion on wikipedia on a talk page, regardless of personal bias we are supposed to apply the NPOV rule in wikipedia, and i thus support [[Mattia332], as theres no reason to not support this proposal 79.9.242.83 (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The current page name, "Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast" remains the most appropriate one to use. In this case, one country through military means has occupied the sovereign territory of another country and has subsequently claimed to have "annexed" said territory. The United Nations has condemned the move as an "illegal attempted annexation" and has requested other countries to not support Russian claims over the areas. Within Wikipedia, a similar president exists for East Timor between 1996 and 1999. Indonesia occupied the then Portuguese overseas territory in 1975 and claimed to have "annexed" it the following year. The United Nations refused to recognise the claimed annexation and continued to regard Portugal as the administering power until East Timor gained independence in 2002. The main article for East Timor during this period is titled "Indonesian occupation of East Timor" despite the fact that Indonesia claimed to have annexed the territory. I don't think anyone on Wikipedia considers "Indonesian occupation of East Timor" to be a POV title for that article. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Cordyceps-Zombie. As the editor who began making the “Russian occupation of (Oblast Name)” articles, and subsequent creator of this article, the name should remain as is. There are countless examples of titles similar to this one in times of conflict: i.e. German occupation of the Channel Islands, Indonesian occupation of East Timor, British occupation of the Faroe Islands, Occupation of Japan (US occupation of Japan), Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011) (US occupation of Iraq), United States occupation of Haiti, Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia and the list keeps going. In fact, your argument that it breaks NPOV because a new government is in place does not hold true as the German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I has a German government installed, but that article remains German occupation of Luxembourg… The article name does not break the NPOV rule by any stretch of the imagination. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of reasons not to support this proposal. We had a massive Articles for Deletion discussion about this very topic after an article with that exact same title and premise was created beforehand. The result of that discussion was to delete the article on the charge of both POV-fork and CRYSTAL BALL. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly confess that I fully support Ukraine's position on the matter of the sovereignty of Zaporizhzhia. Russia invaded Zaporizhzhia in February 2022, in what could only be described as an unprovoked war of imperialist aggression. Russia then illegally "annexed" (on paper) the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, but the annexation has not been recognised by the international community due to its sheer illegality under international law, as well as on account of the horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity that Russia has committed during the process of invading, occupying, and annexing the territory. Furthermore, the "referendums" that were held in the occupied territories were incredibly compromised, with democratic processes being ridiculed in what could only be described as a "sham" or "staged". In conclusion, anyone who supports Russia's actions in this conflict has a severely demented sense of morality and justice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Remember, there's nothing wrong with taking the side of the good guy. You just have to make sure that the facts and the law are on your side as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
For the record, the situation in Afghanistan is different. The Taliban is not a foreign occupation entity; it's a "rival administration" that has always intended to take over the country of the Afghanistan as a whole, rather than annex it into some larger empire (unless you count the Muslim World as an empire). On the other hand, Russia's invasion of Zaporizhzhia can only be described as an war of imperialist aggression, wherein a foreign power has attempted to take parts of a neighbouring country under its control and expand its empire. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps for now the article name should be changed to "Russian-occupied Kherson Oblast", as such change would better reflect the fact Russia has incorporated Zaporizhzhia Oblast into its territory. El819 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrative centre

@YantarCoast - If Russia no longer controls Kherson City, then it can no longer physically serve as the administrative centre. It is very likely that Russia still claims Kherson City as the administrative centre despite lacking control. But in terms of the physical centre of operations following the loss of Kherson, Henichesk seems to be a strong candidate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian invaders declared Henichesk the capital of their occupation administration

https://meduza.io/news/2022/11/12/vremennoy-stolitsey-anneksirovannoy-hersonskoy-oblasti-ob-yavili-genichesk Qexypnos (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. As I've suggested above, and quite obviously, Kherson City remains as the de jure capital city. However, the de facto administrative centre is now Henichesk. So, the insistence of certain editors that Henichesk isn't the capital city is somewhat splitting hairs. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The second map in the infobox

I don't really see the point of the second map in the infobox since it is outdated, wouldn't it make sense to put it in the Military occupation section along with other historical maps? 83.134.77.236 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

Please add this image into Ukrainian counteroffensive and liberation.

Kherson military-civilian administration officials in Henichesk.

DinoSoupCanada (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've altered the caption slightly for a bit more information. Hope you're happy with the result. Thanks for the suggestion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! DinoSoupCanada (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Arkhanhelske

Arkhanhelske was occupied on March 15 according to the video Kherson Region School Director Tells Of Horrors At Abandoned Russian Base (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, YouTube). In the short video the director also mentions interrogation and torture in the school building (Arkhanhelʹsʹkyy Profesiynyy Ahrarnyy Litsey, Архангельський професійний аграрний ліцей) to get information about the Territorial Defense. Hallogen (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ukrainian counteroffensive and liberation" section

Does that section even belong in this article? It's not about the occupation at all, it just covers events from the Kherson counteroffensive, which has its own article. HappyWith (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Change article name from "Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast" to "Russian-occupied Kherson Oblast", as this is now a description of a claimed federal subject of Russia. El819 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Igor Kastyukevich

There's a passage in the article where it says that Kastyukevich was reportedly appointed as a mayor of Kherson, which he denied, and then Kobets silently replaced him (if he was ever mayor in the first place) like a week later. Maybe this is in part because of the language barrier and me not being able to use the right search tersm to find the Russian/Ukrainian-language sources that cover this, but I can't find any follow-up as to what exactly happened, or whether the original news was even true or an unsubstantiated rumor. Does anyone know what's up? If it turns out to just be a rumor, I think we should delete the passage. HappyWith (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_occupation_of_Kherson_Oblast/Archive_1&oldid=1190805670"