Talk:Mariupol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mariupol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe.

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.

History - Russo-Ukrainian war, 2022 siege no citations at all, bad wording

"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)

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)

de facto

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Russian administration website

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Alaexis_¿question? 08:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

And please refrain from WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. TylerBurden (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from fabricated charges of personal attacks, where none exist. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It's been three years since the Russian takeover – Infobox

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)

There is a very active war going on, with an active resistance movement in Mariupol, which did not apply to post 2014 Crimea and Sevastopol. That makes Russia's position in Mariupol that of an occupying power, not an administrating authority, de facto or de jure. I think you are confusing how the term administration is understood in international law: it is not just about being in control and making the rules. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

So is your standard then, that we should wait for the active war to end? Has the "active war" ended for Sevastopol? Is that why their infobox is different? Occupying powers engage in administrative work. Especially for Mariupol, where the Russian government is requiring all residents to obtain Russian citizenship and identification. That is administration, but it is wholly separate from whether Russia's actions are legal under international law. JasonMacker (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@JasonMacker, that makes a lot of sense. We're supposed to describe the situation as it is. We definitely should say that Mariupol is recognised as part of Ukraine by nearly everyone and we also should give information about the current administration.

Occupying powers administer occupied territories all the time, there is no contradiction there. For example, here BBC mentions the "Russian administration" of the city and also mentions one "Serhii Orlov, who calls himself Mariupol's deputy mayor in exile." Alaexis_¿question? 08:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a wicked irony in your use of the phrase Wikipedia-policy driven, right after your suggestions that we ignore e.g. WP:V and WP:NOR. The subdivision parameter, as per the template, is for the country of which the settlement is a subdivision/part. Reliable sources state that this is a subdivision/part of Ukraine. They don’t say it’s part of Russia. Why do you want to ignore WP:NOR? Not so keen on policy-driven edits after all? As part of Ukraine, the Ukrainian website is the official website. A Russian website is just a website. One might argue it could go in external links, but it fails WP:ELNO. I’ve no opinion on the photos; agree population should be updated provided that RS are available. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alexaixis Respectfully, you too are confused. Your BBC article, called 'Mariupol is diseased': Residents deny Russian claims occupied city returning to normal' confirms the city is under occupation, as does other parts of the article, which also confirms the pretensions of a city being under normal authority are but a myth. An opinion piece published by the BBC is just that - it isn't a secondary source. Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier - 'administration' has a simple dictionary meaning. However, it's meaning and use can change slightly depending on the situation. Such a nuanced change applies here, and in international law, the administartion of an occupying power during a war is not the same as that of a state government in a time of piece. Finally, Mariupol is in Ukraine - period. Please don't fudge the issue by saying things like 'recognised as part of Ukraine by most other countries. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

"Mariupol is in Ukraine - period." OK great, we're getting somewhere. Using that same logic,would you also say that "Sevastopol is in Ukraine - period"? If so, why is that city's infobox different from Mariupol's? Should Mariupol's infobox become more like Sevastopol's, or should Sevastopol's infobox become more like Mariupol's? JasonMacker (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think the infobox on the Mariupol article ought to be the same as the infobox on the Sevastopol article? There is no reason to do so. They are different cities. Their status is different. Reliable scholarly sources describe their status differently. (e.g.^[1]^[2]) We follow reliable sources. We don't treat things as the same, when they are different, for no reason. For the record, I think the Sevastopol infobox is excessively pro-Kremlin. But discussion about that article is to take place on its talk page. This page is for this article. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Could you explain where, exactly, those two sources describe their statuses differently?

2. I'm asking when should they become more similar, and in which direction. You say that the Sevastopol infobox is excessively pro-Kremlin. Okay, do you think that the infobox should primarily be pro-Ukraine then? What would be the "correct" amount of pro-Kremlin in the infobox, if Sevastopol is "excessive?" JasonMacker (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on you to attain a consensus for your proposed changes. It's not on me to answer your questions. If you choose to answer a question with a question, the answer to your "could you explain..." question is - why should I? The status quo is already appropriate. The infobox should represent neutral facts, which the status quo does. You haven't given a reason that justifies your proposed unsourced change. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody here is saying that we should just pretend that Mariupol is a Russian city in Russia. Saying that reliable sources state Mariupol is part of Ukraine is directly acknowledged in the text you're responding to. Please address the concerns I raised, rather than argue against a ghost. For example, in Sevastopol, the Ukrainian administration no longer has a de jure mayor. Is that what we are waiting for here, in order to make the infobox more similar to the Sevastopol one? We can't assume that the only readers of this article are Ukrainian nationalists who only want to know about the government-in-exile of Russian-controlled (Ukrainian) territories. I think the average reader wants to know things about a city: who controls the city (Russia), what are the latest population statistics (about 100,000 population in 2025, a 75% decrease from pre-war population), where is the city located (a port city deep in Russian-controlled territory in Ukraine), what is the city's infrastructure (many destroyed buildings, but some new Russian constructions), etc.

You talk about reliable sources with respect to administrative subdivisions. Those same reliable sources state that the Russian occupation forces have dramatically changed the subdivisions of the city. For example, look at this Swiss news report:

https://www.nzz.ch/english/how-russian-occupation-has-changed-mariupol-ld.1884731

It is saying that Russia is building a new neighborhood called "Nevsky" in the west of the city (Russian news sources also say this, such as here). Right now, the Mariupol article here does not mention this neighborhood. Russia's actions, especially with respect to changing the character of the city, should be recorded in this article.

So again, I'd like to hear solutions. What should we do as Russian control of Mariupol is physically changing facts on the ground? JasonMacker (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait for WP:RS to tell us that it's Russia and not Ukraine, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is for basic facts, basic fact is that it's still internationally recognized as Ukraine and "de-facto"/"de-jure" as evidenced by this lengthy discussion is more nuanced content that should be covered in the article body and lead as appropriate. TylerBurden (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

When you say that RS should say that "it's Russia and not Ukraine," why is that relevant? Nobody here is arguing for Ukraine to not be present in the infobox. So, an RS that says "internationally recognized Ukraine, occupied by Russia" would be sufficient for having an infobox also say those things. How is this confusing? JasonMacker (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You're arguing for the country parameter to be different. That parameter is for the country of which the place is a part, not for which country's military is occupying it. Why is that difficult to follow? Cambial — foliar❧ 00:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You propose above, of the infobox "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")." The "country" part of the infobox comes from the subdivision parameter. There is no evidence of anyone seeking to "argue against a ghost" here. Merely TB and I pointing out politely but firmly that your proposal fails to adhere to the most basic principles of Wikipedia. The infobox is for facts. Facts require reliable sources. You suggest changing the "country" part of the infobox. The "country" part comes from the subdivision parameter. The subdivision parameter is for the country (and other regions) of which the subject is a subdivision. Neither the source you link to, nor other sources, state the article subject is a subdivision of Russia. Nor do they state it is a part, section, component, parcel or bit of Russia. Your proposal is unsourced. We don't include original research. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts here you go, here's an article that has a bunch of reliable sources that explains a lot of facts about Russian occupation. So now that there are reliable sources that discuss Russian occupation of Mariupol, you'll agree to change the subdivision parameter, similar to how it is for Sevastopol or Majdal Shams, right? JasonMacker (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The sources don't say it's a subdivision of Russia. Sources must support proposed changes. They don't support your ridiculous proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As thar article points out, sources directly state that according to the Russian government, "Donetsk" oblast, which contains Mariupol, is a subdivision of Russia. JasonMacker (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So what? The Russian government is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring the "de-facto"/"de-jure" bit for a moment (which are terms I've funnily enough only seen be used by editors who want to add Russia to infoboxes about Ukrainian locations, not WP:RS, it's still recognized as Ukraine whether people like it or not), I don't think it's a great way to start your grievances with misrepresenting facts, the article features an an image taken in 2024, so since you're acting as if this is something that Wikipedia is nefariously hiding, how many of these images do we need? TylerBurden (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I was talking about the infobox. If you read the title of this section... it has the word "infobox" in it. Right now, the infobox contains 5 images: three from 2020, and two from 2021. And if you want to nitpick even further, I'm referring specifically to the images between the word City and the image of the flag. Just those.

Weird how you failed to answer any of the questions I asked. Why? Why not engage in constructive conversation? Can you explain when, exactly, this article's infobox should become more similar to Sevastopol's? So weird that you can't answer simple questions and instead focus on casting aspersions and making ridiculous statements about WP:RS somehow not explaining that Mariupol is under Russian control.. JasonMacker (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Because your proposal is unsourced and ridiculous. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

My "proposal" being that we should acknowledge that Mariupol is currently under Russian control and administration? That is "unsourced" and "ridiculous"?

Also, noticed how you ignored the pertinent questions. JasonMacker (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You proposed putting it as the "country" section of the infobox, not that the article merely "acknowledge that Mariupol is currently under Russian control", which it already does. The country section of the infobox shows the country of which the place is a subdivision. The notion this is a subdivision of Russia – de facto, on the ground, whatever - is unsourced. Putting the word "unsourced" in inverted commas won't change the fact. Given that the requirement that content has a reliable source is a basic and fundamental principle of this website, yes, that proposal is ridiculous.

As the premise is that you want to add unsourced content to a website that does not permit unsourced content, you haven't asked any "pertinent questions". Cambial — foliar❧ 15:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It seems like we're unable to reach consensus here. I believe that we need to seek outside input, probably via an RfC. Is anyone willing to draft one? Alaexis_¿question? 06:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@JasonMacker, @Cyrobyte, @Cambial Yellowing, @TylerBurden, @Frank-Horst Alaexis_¿question? 06:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

If this is really a hill you're willing to die on, do it yourself, both WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:FRINGE are clear, Mariupol is a Ukrainian city under Russian occupation, both in terms of international consensus and consensus in WP:RS. That there are a handful of editors who insist on violating WP:NPOV by inserting Russia as the "de-facto country", listing Kremlin websites and inserting photos of new constructions mostly circulated by Russian propaganda into the infobox doesn't change those basic facts.

The infobox's function is to offer a basic overview of the topic, not be a WP:PROMOTION of Wikipedia editors WP:OR, which this whole "de-facto" nonsense is. TylerBurden (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

If you choose to pursue this pointless endeavour, note WP:RFCNEUTRAL. "Should it be a or b?". Cambial — foliar❧ 19:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Aleaxis, I agree with the comments just made by others. I think the current wording in the lead should be altered slightly, to make it clear the city has been under Russian occupation since the invasion, but that is all. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger, well, the occupation is already mentioned, so what would you add to the lead?

I think that the problem is that the infobox simply ignores the occupation administration, as if it didn't exist, while RS do mention it (e.g., "Russian administration" in this BBC article). Alaexis_¿question? 06:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and its occupation of the city, Mariuplo/it was the tenth-largest city in the country and the second-largest city in Donetsk". This sentence doesn't flow from anything and is not in context. I suggest adding the part in italics, or similar - that is all. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there an infobox item which can say it is currently occupied by Russia? Guz13 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I looked at Famagusta, and we can add "Country (de jure)" and "Country (de facto)" to make things clearer to readers. Guz13 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No, Wp:NOR still applies and your original research can’t be included. You still don’t have a reliable source that says Mariupol is part of Russia, nor de facto part of Russia. So that can’t be added. An article about a completely different city is irrelevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There are sources on this page: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8 Guz13 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources there say Mariupol is part of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There are 24 sources there. I clicked through several, including the only one that has Mariupol in the title and was cited next to the only mention of Mariupol in the text, which seems to imply the opposite (directly calling Petro Andriushchenko "Advisor to the Mayor of Mariupol" - no "de jure"). Can you link which ones you are referring to? LordCollaboration (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not part of Russia, but there has to be a way for the infoxbox to say it's adminsistred by Russia. Guz13 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a footnote or something noting that it is occupied by Russia. LordCollaboration (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

We already have the Russian installed mayor Oleg Morgun included as "de facto" mayor of the city. TylerBurden (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

References

[1]
Heaney, Dominic, ed. (2023). "The Government of the Russian Federation". The Territories of the Russian Federation 2023 (24th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 43–51. ISBN 9781032469744. Archived from the original on 16 August 2023. Retrieved 28 July 2023.
[2]
Sakwa, Richard (2023). "Democratisation". In Gill, Graeme (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Russian Politics and Society (Second ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge. pp. 33–45. ISBN 978-1-032-11052-3.

Talk:Mariupol

History - Russo-Ukrainian war, 2022 siege no citations at all, bad wording

de facto

Russian administration website

It's been three years since the Russian takeover – Infobox

Arbitrary break

De jure mayor of Mariupol?

Adding links to youtube ?

Related Articles