Jump to content

Talk:Crimea/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago?

The referenced text should be summarised. Now a propaganda phrase is quoted.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In what way does this title make any sense? In 1954 the government of the Soviet Union controlled by the Communist Party headed by Nikita Khrushchev took an executive decision to administratively move the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. "Russia" did not exist as such, and the RSFSR certainly was not involved in the Soviet leadership's executive action.Moryak (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

explanation

I made this change because I thought the previous wording was out of date, implied Ukraine was continuing to host the Russian fleet in Ukrainian Sevastopol, under the terms of the 1997 Peace and Friendship Treaty, when Russia seized both Sevastopol and Ukraine, in 2014, and the two countries are in a defacto cold war. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Before being annexed...

"Before being annexed..." (opening paragraph) then leads on to describe geographical features that remain true. Revision required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.230.161.45 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Information about book that predicted 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea says nothing about Crimean culture

Currently in Crimea#Culture there is written that "Vasily Aksyonov published "The Island of Crimea" in 1979, in which he predicted the annexation". Since Aksyonov is not a writer from Crimea this book (nor he) says nothing about culture/the arts of Crimea. Unless there is a good source that states that the book somehow influenced the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea information about the book only belongs in the Wikipedia article about Aksyonov. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crimea. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Selectively using 'illegal'

Just a question: We know that the Crimean referendum in 2014 was illegal as it was not in accordance with the constitutions of Ukraine or Crimea. We also know that the removing of the Ukrainian president in 2014 was also illegal under the Ukrainian constitution as it was done with less than the required proportion of MPs voting for that proposition.

So why do we include 'illegal' when describing the referendum, but not when describing the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for describing the removal of the president as illegal? If the answer is yes, then in my opinion you should describe the overthrow of the lawful president as illegal and cite sources. If the answer is no, then you have answered your question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The source for substantiating that the removal of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was illegal would be the Ukrainian Constitution Article on impeachment. The conditions for impeachment were not met but the president was politically removed nonetheless.Moryak (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Then this is a question of legal interpretation and there are diverging opinions on the matter, even among the jurists. To simply declare it illegal would not be impartial. But the same could apply to the referendum. Maybe it would be best to continue to classify it as a "controversial referendum", instead of an illegal one. --Pedro Gomes Andrade (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Small "Ancient history" section

I have to say, I was pretty astonished by the amount of horrendous errors in this section. Basic stuff such as the Alanic language, an Iranian language, was listed as part of the obsolete/hypothetical Ural-Altaic languages, whereas the unknown Hunnic language was also somehow listed as part of the same obsolete/hypothetical language group. To add to that, oddly enough, the Iranian Scythian/Sarmatian languages were listed as if they are not a part of the Indo-European family tree, whereas the uncertain Cimmerian language was listed as an Indo-Iranian language. Last but not least, the Mongolic language was also mentioned as if they were part of this obsolete/hypothetical language family (the "Ural-Altaic languages").

I just made a few clarifying edits/copy-edits, and added the missing (verifiable) occupants in the history of Crimea.[1] Feel free to add those which I might have forgotten to add. Anyhow, the section is in quite a dire need of a proper expansion, with sources, in the (nearest) feature. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The section was utter crap (excuse me) and there were many more errors than just the ones you noticed. Honestly I fail to see how (incorrectly) listing the language family of every people some editor managed to remember who ever set foot on Crimea is helpful. Also more than half the people listed did not inhabit the peninsula during any times that could be called "Ancient" (i.e. Byzantines, Kievan Rus', Mongols, Khazars... these are all clearly medieval and yet they were included). I've removed the bulk of it.--Calthinus (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. A good decision. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crimea. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Ukrainian Republic (1991-2014)" and "Russian Federation administration (2014-present)"

I won't edit the article without a consensus, but I hope you consider when I say that these subsections should be edited more accurately as follows:


"Ukrainian Republic (de jure) (1991-present) "

"Russian Federation administration (de facto) (2014-present) "


Crimea is still widely recognized as part of Ukrainian Republic's territorial integrity by the vast majority of the UN. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep a WP:NPOV by changing Ukraine's mandate over Crimea to be present time and also adding de jure and de facto?

I think the reason why the heading is "Russian Federation administration" and not "Russian Federation" is precisely because the fact that the Russian Federation administers Crimea is undisputed but the question as to whether Crimea should be recognised as part of the Russian Federation remains very contentious. Also the heading "Ukrainian Republic (de jure) (1991-present)" would be inaccurate as it is only since 2014 that the situation has become de jure - prior to that Ukraine also had de facto control. Therefore I would leave both headings as the best that can be achieved. Lin4671again (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Change from High to Top class article

Crimea temporarily occupied by Russia is Top class article for UA wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.79.115 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

change "from the Russian SFSR by Nikita Khrushchev" to "from the Russian SFSR by Presidium of the Supreme Soviet "

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea

It was, by decision of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet .

signed by Voroshylov, Pegov.

not related to a signle person at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.200.143.183 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

First, please sign your comments using the four tildes.
Second, again, as i said in my edit summary, a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, please note that the burden of proof relies with you because you're the one who is changing the article. Also, refrain from posting irrelevant "warnings" on other editors talk pages while they are simply asking you to provide sources for your edits. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
now it states - transferred by Khruschev. can i see a source of this statement?
otherwise i presented a reliable source - act of transfer by Presidium of the Supreme Soviet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.200.143.183 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What reliable source ? A picture in Russian is not a reliable source here. Also, you should take a look there.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
source can be in any language. anyway: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=XH9IDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=transfer+of+crimea+1954+Presidium+of+the+Supreme+Soviet&source=bl&ots=DAHgJxHe3h&sig=T4ERY11jkZq3dZ_v65binW0BKb0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSndvDrODbAhVFCCwKHQYUCcw4FBDoAQhUMA0#v=onepage&q=supreme%20&f=false
pages 284 285 303 307 46.200.143.183 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This one seems ok.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


This ties with mainstream (subconscious) thinking that everything that happens is pinned on the leader of a particular government. Yes, it happened under Nikita K's watch and he may have been the driver, but without an undercarriage nobody rolls anywhere. People are making a song and dance about Trump for instance, as if removing him would solve anything. JFK died and the policies went on as before. Obama came in on a 'change we can believe in' ticket and the policies went on as before. When you need to change something you need to change the undercarriage. Nikita K's administration would have probably thought that administering Crimea from Kiev is cheaper than from Moscow. Simple?! Crime is well worth a visit, my husband was there for the Balalaika Festival in 2017. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AD3C:9000:51FD:7333:A4A5:2866 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

supported by "most" countries in intro

China supports the annexation of Crimea, so saying that "most" countries oppose it is just plain wrong. This is American exceptionalism.MasterofAllWorlds (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

What you say does not make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
"Most countries" does not mean "all countries", therefore, the fact that China supports the annexation of Crimea is not in opposition with what Ymblanter said.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
And China does not support the annexation.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
If so, then MasterofAllWorlds' edit is completely unwarranted.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Which is indeed my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the edit. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I also opened a topic at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"This is American exceptionalism" Do you even know what that means? Because it usually does not cover matters of diplomatic recognition or United Nations resolutions. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The non-recognition of Crimea as Russian means that travel insurances are not valid there and online bookings have been discontinued, too. A member of my family participated in the "Day of the Balalaika' Festival in Sevastopol in 2017 and found it very enjoyable there. One of the Russian speakers even changed the accommodation to a fairly inexpensive serviced apartment - all very recommendable. They did many interesting tours. On the German language net I have also read very positive travel reports. It should be time now that there be some kind of place/teller in the Moscow airports where they sell insurance for the Crimean leg of people's journey and where accommodation bookings etc can be made, too. People will travel to Crimea, the historic Yalta etc. but the insurance and booking situations need to be put on an even keel. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:580A:1DD0:8ADB:BC36 (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Since writing I met a woman from Crimea living in Australia whose Russian parents still live in Sevastopol. She told me she had just celebrated getting her Russian passport. All people there and expats seem to get them. It brings to the fore that there are people living there and when you talk about Crimea you are not just talking about a spot on the map. Same was with Kaliningrad. Russia had wanted to sell but there were people/Russians there who did not want to move and who the reluctant buyers did not want to take over. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:4944:4660:1D64:8075 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Crimea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Crimea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crimea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Space missing in section heading

Missing space in section heading of 2.9 Annexation of Crimea by Russia(since 2014), between "Russia" and bracket opening --AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for—41.113.31.46 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a test message to me. The coordinates for this article are correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"recognized to be a genocide" in the introductory section.

Recognized by whom? If tartar collaboration with the Nazis is "alleged", then the above statement needs to be modified to include an international body that "recognizes" this an act of genocide (preferably with a reference to a resolution and date) or modified to soften it to say "considered by some" or something to this effect.

Because otherwise this is an unsubstantiated assertion.

M. Tovbin 09:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, a new user with few edits aand Russian name just happens to have stumbled across this page. Not suspicious at all.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state Crimea is internationally recognized as Ukrainian land

First of all, not all UN member states consider so. Second, there is no legally binding document that states so. UNGA resolutions are not legally binding. And it can't get past UNSC resolution because of Russian veto. On the other hand, there is UNSC resolution stating Golan is Syrian land. Yet, despite that, Trump recognized Golan as Israeli land despite Israel never formally annexed Golan.

Furthermore, as time passes and Crimea becomes more Russian and less Ukrainian in culture and demographics, fewer countries recognize it as Ukrainian land. 100 countries did so in 2014. This number was down to 66 last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_A/73/L.47

208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, downfall of support votes of 2016+ Crimea resolutions of UNGA is largely due to their "harsh tone". 2014 document "merely" announced non-recognition of change of status, without any further condemnations of Russia (it did not mentioned Russia by name at all, except reference to Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, which contains Russian Federation as part of its name), while 2016+ documents are epxplicitly critical of Russia and are referring to the Russian claim and governance of Crimea as "[attempted] annexation", "occupation", and so on. Many of states, which otherwise supported 2014 document, are less enthusiast about 2016+ "harsh resolutions" - out of concern of too damaging their relations with Russia, but not necessary out of recognising Crimea as Russian (i.e. we don't know if "softer tone" akin to that of 2014 resolutions would have prompted them to support document). What would be a true indicator of whether Russia gained/lost support on its claim of Crimea would be an explicit record of voting over resolution on recognising Russian sovereignty of Crimea. But so far, Russia did not even try to introduce that resolution at UNGA. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

new section regarding Crimea's disputed status?

I think a new section should be created describing Crimea's disputed status. Since 1992 Crimea has been disputed between Ukraine and Russia. In 1992 Russian parliament passed resolution designating Crimea as Russian territory illegally occupied by Ukraine. Since 2014 Ukrainian parliament passed resolution designation Crimea as Ukrainian territory illegally occupied by Russia.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/22/world/russia-votes-to-void-cession-of-crimea-to-ukraine.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporarily_occupied_and_uncontrolled_territories_of_Ukraine

69.166.123.87 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

1992-3 resolutions by Supreme Soviet of Russia were "shelved to death" by the Russian executive (headed by President Yeltsin), which acted contrary to irredentist wishes of those documents (to the point, that in 1993 Russian representative in the UN was instructed by his government to support statement condeming his own country's parliament decision to claim Sevastopol as Russian city!) and disbanded Supreme Soviet by force year later. And while Duma and Federation Council would try to reopen that matter again in mid-1990s, they had even less powers than 1992 Supreme Soviet and also resulted in no territorial claim. On the contrary, 1997 Friendship Treaty and 2003 state border agreement (both ultimately ratified by the Russian Parliament) recognised Crimea as Ukrainian territory. So, while there indeed was a possibility of start of a Russo-Ukrainian territorial dispute in 1990s, it did not materialise, meaning that no actual territorial dispute existed until 2014, when Russia took Crimea but Ukraine, backed internationally, contiuned to assert its sovereignty over the peninsula. The dispute is therefore not "since 1992", but "since 2014". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It did not matter what Yeltsin think. Yeltsin was not an elected president. It matters what the Russian people think. Russian people always claimed Crimea as part of Russia occupied by illegally Ukraine 208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Still, such irredentist sentiments did not evolve into official territorial claim on behalf of the Russian state until 2014, meaning, again, that no territorial dispute between states existed before 2014. Early post-Soviet legislatures of Russia attempted to declare such claims, but to no avail - no changes of the Constitution followed (unlike 2014, when Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol were inserted into art. 65 enumeration of Russian regions). And even these limited efforts at making pre-2014 irredentist claim were overturned by ratification of border agreements. Since 2014 there is indeed full territorial claim by Russia of sovereignty over Crimea, but before that there were merely popular irredentist sentiments at best, not an active dispute. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeltsin did not abolish Russian parliament. In fact, the original resolution passed in 1992 stating Crimea is Russian land illegally occupied by Ukraine is still valid. The new Russian parliament in 1993 is the direct successor of the old Russian parliament and all resolutions passed by the old parliament is continued in the new parliament. Ever since that resolution passed in Russian parliament in 1992 Crimea had become disputed land with the Russian state officially claiming it as Russian land. Since 1992 Russia never considered Crimea as Ukrainian land in its border agreements with Ukraine. Land claims do not necessarily involve constitutional change. For instance, Japan officially claims Iturup as Japanese land without mentioning so in the Japanese constitution.

208.72.125.2 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggest changing de jure Ukraine de facto Russia to administered by Russia claimed by Ukraine

Obviously, a UNGA resolution is not international law. It is not legally binding. Obviously, should Ukraine cease to exist or drop its claim on Crimea, every country would immediately recognize Crimea as Russian land. So this dispute is between Ukraine and Russia, not between any other country. So I suggest changing the de jure Ukraine de facto Russia in the article to administered by Russia claimed by Ukraine.

RusPow (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is de jure Ukraine, not just claimed by.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
De jure according to Ukrainian law only. No other country's law considers Crimea as Ukrainian land. --RusPow (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh look, another editor with a tiny edit count who is totally not trying to minimize international recognition of Ukraine's territory. (facepalm).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I speak fact. Heck, not even the US passed a law recognizing Crimea as Ukrainian land. It only passed House. That's it. The only country that considers Crimea as Ukrainian land is Ukraine. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/596/text --RusPow (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. A single bill by Congress rejecting Russian annexation does not mean there are not other things stating our recognition of Crimea as part of Ukraine. The CIA World Factbook, a US government website, for example, explicitly states Crimea is part of Ukraine and occupied by Russia. A single bill from Congress need not fully cover existing recognition in order to reject an annexation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Those have nothing to do with US law. Map makers are free to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Trump is free to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Trump recognized Golan as Israeli land despite US signature on UNSC resolution didn't he? I'm stating the fact there is no US law that forbids US map makers and US department of state from recognizing Crimea as part of Russia. That's all. If someday US breaks diplomatic relation with Ukraine while maintaining diplomatic relation with Russia then by god the very same day every US map maker map Crimea as part of Russia. That's why I suggesting changing de jure Ukraine de facto Russia to administered by Russia claimed by Ukraine. --RusPow (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Recognition (or non-recognition) is a political act by state top officials and bodies, not necessary a separate law to that effect. Abkhazia and South Ossetia were recognised by executive orders (Ukases) of President Medvedev in 2008, not by any separate law. Russian technical recognition of the self-proclaimed Republic of Crimea in 2014 (done in order to facilitate the absorbtion of territory and in attempt to make it look a bit less reminiscent of annexation) was also done by an executive order, not by parliament. And indeed, your own example of Trump recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Golans also indicates that special "law on recognition" is not as necessary for recognition. Supportive voting on UNGA resolution, which roughly says that "we don't recognise anything happened there [in Crimea] in February-March 2014, so that territory is still Autonomous Republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol within Ukraine" is also one of many ways of non-recognition statement by a sovereign state. And given that there are more than half (100 of 193) of such non-recognition, we may clearly say that most of the countries don't see Crimea as Russian. And while one might pinpoint at recent resolutions (which were supported by far less number), I'm not too sure that this is unequivocal indicator - and I explained why right in section above. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @RusPow: As explained multiple times by multiple editors here and elsewhere, all of the claims you've made on Wikipedia are blatantly false as a whole. Please stop stirring the pot for no valid reason. These talk pages are not for you to crusade for changes you want to see in the world. They are for discussing the improvement of the attached articles. As you have yet to conclusively prove any point you try to make, you are merely being disruptive. If you continue down your current path, you will likely be blocked as a disruptive editor. Given your actions, I wouldn't be surprised if you are the former IP that was blocked for doing similar things. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"And given that there are more than half (100 of 193) of such non-recognition, we may clearly say that most of the countries don't see Crimea as Russian." This number dropped to 66 by 2018. This is far short of majority in the UNGA. https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/ga12108.doc.htm --RusPow (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I blocked the user for an indefinite duration since they have zero contributions in the article space and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I endorse your action. per WP:DUCK, I really think this is the same person as the blocked IP, above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, this is most likely the same person.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

BrightsideStu (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


I believe in the section Mongol Conquest (1238-1449), there is an error in which the word swept is used mistakenly instead of sweep. It may also be incorrect to leave "western" uncapitalized. Just starting editing on Wikipedia, I hope I can help with a few little things

"Trapezuntine Perateia had already been subjected to pressure from the Genoese and Kipchaks by the time Alexios I of Trebizond died in 1222 before the Mongol invasions began its western swept through Volga Bulgaria in 1223."

Thank you for your time, Stuart Keller

I've fixed "sweep". I can't make any judgement about the capitalisation of "western", so I'll leave that to someone else. Rua (mew) 14:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 Partly done: In this case 'western' is not a proper noun, but merely a cardinal direction, therefore it should remain lowercase. Melmann 19:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

re; languages section

There was an anglo-saxon community in the Crimea[1][2]. Perhaps Old English could be added to the Germanic languages mentioned?82.1.151.9 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A medieval new England: the Anglo-Saxons' eastern odyssey". HistoryExtra.com.
  2. ^ "The medieval 'New England': a forgotten Anglo-Saxon colony on the north-eastern Black Sea coast". CaitlinGreen.org.

I think it is conserved under Greek society. --178.34.158.24 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Change "marking the entry of Russia into the Christian world" to "marking the entry of Rus' into the Christian world" (country of Russia didn't exist yet). 217.196.161.171 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, well, sort of. Included is "later Russia" in parentheses, as in "marking the entry of Rus' (later Russia) into the Christian world". Thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Languages: Confusing section

The section "Languages" refers to "peoples" and "ethnic communities", but apparently groups them by language (language spoken? language of their place of origin?), and includes internal links to articles about languages. I don't know what this section was meant to communicate, and since there are no sources cited, I have no way to find out. (These remarks do not relate to the first paragraph of the section, which states that Russian is the main language, and includes a reference.) Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add : Crimeans face persecutions from the majority thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.196.188.16 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No. Provide a Reliable Source.104.169.22.138 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

suggest and recommend a change in the general section

even Under Russian Law the accord is still illegal. why? because the document in Russian and Ukrainian both signed in august 24 1991 specifically says the following " ..... Территория Украины является неделимой и неприкосновенной.

Отныне на территории Украины имеют силу исключительно Конституция и законы Украины.

Настоящий Акт вступает в силу со дня его одобрения.

google translate it as " ...The territory of Ukraine is indivisible and inviolable.

From now on, exclusively the Constitution and laws of Ukraine are in force on the territory of Ukraine.

This Act comes into force from the date of its approval."

inviolable means it cannot be removed any single part of land in this case further the document says "Территория Украины является неделимой и неприкосновенной.

Отныне на территории Украины имеют силу исключительно Конституция и законы Украины."

"from Now on, They are Valid exclusively on the territory of Ukraine Constitution and laws of Ukraine"

"Акт провозгласил неделимость и неприкосновенность территории Украины и объявил единственно действительными в республике Конституцию и законы Украины."

"The Act proclaimed the indivisibility and inviolability of the territory of Ukraine and declared the only valid Constitution and laws of Ukraine in the republic."

To see the official document here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Акт_провозглашения_независимости_Украины & also here https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Акт_провозглашения_независимости_Украины

in another words this basically makes the referendum of 2014 invalid even under Russian law.


VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE

August 24, 1991

ВЕРХОВНАЯ РАДА УКРАИНЫ

24 августа 1991 года" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.ds.Perez2312 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

1,000 years of missing history

This article skips from 63 BC to the ninth century AD. There must be something to report during that millennium! Richard75 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

In the, "Russian Federation (de facto since 2014)" sub-section of the, "History" section, please change, "A 2014 referendum on joining Crimea with Russia was supported by a 96.7% of voters with 83.1% turnout according to official counts, though it was boycotted by many loyal to Ukraine and denounced as illegitimate by Western governments" to, "A 2014 referendum on merging Crimea with Russia was supported by 96.7% of voters with a 83.1% turnout according to official counts, although it was boycotted by many loyal to Ukraine and denounced as illegitimate by Western governments." to make better sense-2409:4071:4E88:2BCB:B5C7:91DB:1DF9:8A77 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Polls show that a large majority of the residents of Crimea support the annexation"

The polls that are sourced show 54%, which I wouldn't say is a "large majority" I can not change it but I would remove large and say (54%) because this is pretty misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek Architect (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That question is about whether regions should be allowed to secede from Ukraine. For the annexation itself, it says "For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%)." Mellk (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Greek Architect: I agree with your assessment and have reworded the language to more accurately reflect the source. Popoki35 (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Popoki35: What is contentious here? The poll is clear. Mellk (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Moving content from this revision by Mellk here pending consensus on what should be included. The annexation survey results from this 2014 source have been used to make broad statements about the general thought among Crimeans on their government. The 2020 source cited is behind a paywall. Could someone with access include a quote of the relevant material? I believe the 2014 source is pretty old for describing broad current thought and should perhaps be attributed/written about more carefully.
@Mellk: The way it's being written about is less clear. Popoki35 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Note my edit was in response to your edit that had the edit summary "closer to source". I did not include the mention of the poll in the first place and don't really have an opinion on whether it belongs the lead or not. Mellk (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I think if someone can illuminate what the 2020 source adds to the discussion it will be easier to know what should be included in the lead. Popoki35 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
If you opened up the library for me: thank you. Here's what I would propose based on the 2020 source: "A 2019 survey with a response rate of 54% indicated a majority of Crimean residents support Russian governance, with approval for the 2014 referendum outcome at 84% among Russians, 77% among Ukranians, and 52% among Tatars.[1]" Popoki35 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that is OK. I am not sure if it belongs in the lead but I am not against. Perhaps can have other polls included in the body and they are summarised in lead. I know there was a 2014 Gallup poll and 2015 GfK poll. Mellk (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree about it not fitting the lead since the article doesn't go into depth about it yet. I put the content in Crimea#Politics for now. Popoki35 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ O'Loughlin, John; Toal, Gerard; Bakke, Kristin M. (3 April 2020). "To Russia With Love: The Majority of Crimeans Are Still Glad for Their Annexation". Foreign Affairs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 27 January 2022.

Islam in Crimea

90% of the population of Crimea was Muslim before the Crimean Tatar Genocide by Stalin. More info about this period of Crimean history needs to be included in the article. 176.55.110.166 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

185.6.111.106 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

To change the word «controlled» on occupated as it is more appropriate and clear explanation

 Not done: The work "Controlled" appears multiple times in the article. You need to provide the quote from a sentence so we know whereabouts in the article you want it changed. MadGuy7023 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Location

Crimea is in Ukraine, sure as Gotland is in Sweden. Can't we reflect this in the opening line? Does Wikipedia always have to feed the fringe view that Crimea is somehow "disputed" purely because one bully nation has occupied it illegally? --Billy Fiddle (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand how the anger at this horrible invasion can tempt people to abandon NPOV, but it is still a valuable policy for Wikipedia as a whole. That Crimea is currently occupied by Russian soldiers and has MPs in the Russian parliament is not fringe. We should deal with this topic in as neutral way as possible, even if - particularly if - there's a war on. JASpencer (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It might be an idea to take this to the noticeboard for WP:NPOV. It may be that an exception will be made because of administrators' dislike of Putin's actions, but a breach of WP:NPOV is probably not something that should be decided purely on this talk page. JASpencer (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
JASpencer, you reverted two edits of mine, the second one without a valid reason. I removed the claim that most inhabitants are ethnic Russians because it was based on a source citing the Russian census, which I consider an unreliable source.
Concerning the question whether Crimea is part of Ukraine: I had no intention to breach NPOV, and I don't think we should ever breach NPOV. But NPOV means reporting what reliable sources say, and I don't think there are RS claiming that Crimea is "de facto" a part of Russia. If there are, I'll be happy to learn something new. Regarding "anger": I think the best answer to Putin's lies is to stick to WP guidelines, i.e. correctly reporting what RS say. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
A few issues here. First, if an exception is made based on the concerted views of admins, that would set the project's face against the policy guidelines it purports to abide by. Also, there is no source "reliable" or "unreliable" claiming that Crimea is de facto Ukrainian. They say it is de jure Ukraine, but none claim that Kiev controls the peninsula. Finally, there is no such ting as "correctly reporting what RS say". It's correct or it is RS. Having engaged in a drawn-out bitter discussion that was shut down per NOTAFORUM a good while back, it was never a case when discerning "reliable" from "unreliable" that block 1 was "truthful" and block 2 was "untruthful". It was a case of lining up all of the sources, splitting them apart based on what they report, and then looking for distinctions within the preferred set. When this becomes impossible globally, special pleading becomes the order of the day to keep block 2 "unreliable" and block 1 "reliable" with one of two outliers from block 1 eventually being depreciated for other reasons. But anyone to claim that block 1 is "truthful" means to be claiming what the truth is before reading it in sources, and then ticking those who agree with you with "pass" or "fail" stickers per the pre-determined bias. In summary, one's editing expectations are that he should report what RS says, and not report what Non-RS says: i.e. on talk pages, nobody should be claiming that something is "true" because RS says so, just that RS says so and therefore only that can go onto the article (provided RS is the be-all-and-end-all which it isn't always). It is circular reasoning anyhow (begging the question), a fallacy, so nobody should be using talk space to claim something is "true". The world's coverage outside of corporate media, state-owned western outlets (eg. BBC, VOA, etc.), the voices of the regimes of the collective west and their clients outside, and commentators/self-proclaimed "experts" sympathetic to the western selling points do not back the western narrative over Crimea (and the whole post-2014 Ukrainian crisis) exactly the same way as each other. At the moment, this alternative block has been curtailed and even silenced in some quarters by organisations who dictate in advance from whom its subjects are allowed to know about Ukraine, and English Wikipedia is no exception. Though given how easily they dismantle myths originating from so-called "RS" (oftentimes from passages where RS has gone into hyperbole and spoken the quiet bit out loud), you can see why so many predisposed editors hasten to "not consider Russian sources reliable". That's all I wish to say here in response to the contributions on this thread. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Next time, please read WP:DUE before commenting. See also WP:TLDR. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
TLDR is a personal choice. DUE is not that simple for one, not that I was arguing for alternative media, and it sure doesn't form an honest basis as to how RS is identified. That much is arbitrary and varies across Wkipedia languages. I learnt Russian before I learnt English so I know only too well. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence of WP:DUE speaks of "correctly reporting what RS say", only in other words. If you want to criticize WP rules, this is not the right place to do so. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
"Reporting what RS say" will suffice then. If it's "incorrectly" reported then it's not what RS is saying. You however have crossed the rubicon and claimed that Putin has at some stage "lied" (your words). You said this in talk and not on the mainspace, so this carries the burden of proof, and not something you get to demonstrate has been proven based on "RS" reporting so (that would invoke a fallacy called confirmation bias). My own elderly parents are have taken refuge in Russia all the way from Lvov (Lviv) as we speak. They are not there to flee from Russians but from our homegrown lunatics. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
<redact PA>

Neutrality of section "Russian Occupation (2014–present)"

"Disputed" means there is a meaningful dispute about something. In this case, the condemnation of the Russian actions by the international community and by experts on international law is very clear. Also, the section tells the story of the annexation in a way very close to the Russian narrative. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

All occurrences of "disputed" have been removed from the section and other edits have made it less close to the Russian narrative. Nurg (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, less POV doesn't mean NPOV. The whole idea of starting with demonstrations against the ousting of the president and not mentioning the session of the Crimean parliament under threat of Russian arms is still too close to the Russian narrative. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of section "Politics"

The section presents the elections under Russian occupation as meaningful, while in fact they were far from free. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried to solve the problem by deleting all text which I think would not be selected by a neutral observer. I know that most of the text I deleted was sourced, but the NPOV also obliges us to be neutral in our choice of the details we include. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zihao Wang(Clement) (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Bridge attack

@Jjpachano: The attack on the Russian-built bridge was added to this article in this edit. That's two and a half months ago. According to WP:NOCONSENSUS, the stable version should remain until consensus is reached. To reach consensus, you should give good reasons why you want to change the current text. Since the attack was broadly covered by media around the world, it is surely notable. It was also used by Putin as a pretext for his attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

ahistoric use of Russia in the first paragraph

this is biased: "Russia was often the target of slave raids during this period."

Until middle of XVIth century Russia did not exist. Territories attacked were under control of first Lithuanian state, then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and only partially at the end by Russia.

If ahistoric apporach is taken Russia should be replaced by Ukraine in this statement.

If historic - it should be reformulated either to include all states or, if we limit to the one that was most impacted, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth— Preceding unsigned comment added by JacekPliszka (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done using text from Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe small jars tc 10:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

In this section, there is a sentence that says "Russia then claimed to have annexed Crimea, although most countries still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine." Can this be edited to remove the "claimed" word and make it clear that Russia has in fact annexed Crimea? The source provided for the UN General Assembly voting to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine is fine, but the word "claimed" is strange here, as it implies that Russian control of Crimea is uncertain and doubted. My suggestion is to just remove the word like this:

"Russia then annexed Crimea, although most countries still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine." JasonMacker (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

De jure, it is absolutely disputed. The annexation has not been de jure recognized by most countries in the world. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no dispute that Russia has de facto annexed Crimea. I have no objection to noting that this annexation is unrecognized by the majority of the international community. My edit request clearly has a clause saying that Russia's annexation is unrecognized. But the annexation has happened. The Republic of Crimea is under Russian Federation control. It's not a "claim". Russian annexation of Crimea is condemned by many western leaders. So it has happened and is not in dispute. JasonMacker (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: Yep, no consensus for now, and this is a complex topic. Lemonaka (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This particular instance is pretty clearcut. The annexation happened, the annexation has not been recognised. The word "claimed" there makes no sense, as JasonMacker notes. Without the annexation, there is nothing to not recognise. CMD (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of the lead ?

@JeromeWillettID: I removed your POV template because you didn't give a reason here on the talk page, and I couldn't see anything pro-Ukrainian in the lead section. Please explain what you think is pro-Ukrainian, but please remember that neutrality for WP means neutrally reporting what reliable sources say. It doesn't mean having a position in the exact middle between two parties. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: These are the reasons why I add the POV template: the very first paragraph of main lead and the infobox currently only display the de jure status of Crimea, being controlled by Ukraine. However, these omit the fact that Crimea is currently de facto annexed by Russia since 2014, although it appears in the last paragraph of main lead. Because of this, I say these details on that first paragraph and infobox as biased of Ukraine. I suggest to accommodate the views of both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian supporters, one should add the fact that it is also currently annexed by Russia. —Jerome Willett 13:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, see WP:DUE. The stress is on reliable sources, the footnote there stating explicitly that the views of WP editors or the general public are irrelevant. So, the view of both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian supporters, as you called it, are irrelevant. The problem of pro-Russian people is that there are simply no reliable sources supporting their point of view in the conflict with Ukraine. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
At the end of the day, only 9 UN member states (including Russia) recognize Crimea as part of Russia and not as part of Ukraine. This means that 184 UN member states (including Ukraine) recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. When only 4.7% of states say that Crimea is part of Russia, and 95.3% of states say that Crimea is part of Ukraine, the neutral point of view is not going to be giving equal weight to both opinions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The old misunderstanding that NPOV means that WP should always maintain a "neutral" whenever there are opposing views is probably the most common misunderstanding there is here - but a misunderstanding nonetheless. NPOV certainly does not imply neutrality between two different views when one view is clearly the more accurate one (for two obvious examples, we don't pretend there's any NPOV issue is saying that flat-earthers or creationists are flat out wrong). This situation is rather similar: WP,based on reliable sources, certainly does not pretend that there is some form of equal validity between the aggressor and the victim in the war in Ukraine. Crimea is legally a part of Ukraine, and that's not a POV statement, simply a sourced fact. Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't see that as a neutrality issue, but it's strange that the lede has no mention of which county controls the region. It says right at the start that it's in Ukraine, then there are three paragraphs about geography and history and only at the very end does it mention the 2014 occupation, without even making it clear it's still ongoing. A casual reader can easily assume they can get an Ukrainian visa and breeze into Yalta. It's very misleading to present only the de jure status without making any mention of the de facto state of affairs until much later. That's not done in other Wikipedia articles: the Golan Heights aren't blithely introduced as a region of Syria, nor is Taiwan defined as part of the PRC. – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    It turns out this is a recent problem. The current version of the introductory sentence dates to this edit from a month ago. It says "per talk" in the edit summary, but the only relevant thing on the talk page I can see is the thread #Location: in this brief discussion there's clearly no consensus for the change: it was proposed by one editor (who shortly thereafter got blocked for sockpuppetry), supported by one and opposed by two others. The previous version of the article defined the region as being in Eastern Europe. Between this edit from March 2020 and this edit almost exactly a year later, the introductory paragraph contained two sentences on the political status of the peninsula, and they appear to have been removed simply because there existed a more detailed paragraph on this topic further down in the lede. But at some point between then and now, that more detailed paragraph was removed as well. As far as I can see from a quick browse of the earlier history, in the years before 2020 the lede has been consistent in introducing the region as being in Eastern Europe, but leaving any talk of its political status for a longer paragraph later on in the lede. – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see any problem at all, because the last paragraph of the lead is very clear, and Golan is a different case, let alone Taiwan. Although both cases are often mentioned by Russian propaganda, RS don't describe them as similar. I was the one who made that edit five weeks ago, i.e. before the sockpuppet was blocked on 5th November. Maybe I was bold then, but the edit has since been accepted by silent consensus. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there could be silent consensus given the objections on the talk page (in this thread, as well as in the immediately preceding and following ones), and the edit-warring over the first sentence ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]). Even ignoring all that, the implicit consensus of eight years is probably quite a bit stronger than the implicit consensus of one month.
    I'm going to restore the status quo (at least of the introductory sentence, I haven't looked into the rest of the lead that's been disputed), and we need to get consensus here for any changes. As I wrote above, I'm not happy with this version either. It's bizarre to dish out three full paragraphs of geographic and historic details while dancing around the elephant in the room. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    It was stable from Nov 4 to Dec 6 (between edits no. 2 and 3 of your list), which is 32 days. WP:NOCONSENSUS explicitly says retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. And this is not the version that has been stable for the longest time, but the most recent stable one. On the other hand, we should focus on discussing the content issues, and you should show that RS support your point of view. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    How about the following introductory sentence:
    Crimea is a peninsula in Ukraine that has been occupied by Russia since 2014.
    That way, we start from and side with the internationally recognised status, but don't omit mention of the crucial ground realities. – Uanfala (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I like your proposal, but I can't say that I like the way you were edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    This sentence fixes everything, it remains the position held by reliable sources, but also the reality of the situation in Crimea. Other fixes would involve changing most of the introductory paragraph, which is not happening in the current discussion scenario. 2804:4B0:1256:A00:3C4E:9387:2757:A878 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

I removed the statement of "Crimea is a peninsula in Ukraine" in favour of "Crimea is a peninsula in Eastern Europe", despite the fact that the territory is claimed and fully controlled by Russia since 2014.

Crimea is legally a part of Ukraine, and that's not a POV statement, simply a sourced fact. But, in the other hand, it is also legally a part of Russia under that country's law. Internationally, it is recognized as a part of Ukraine, but as I said, its control falls under Russia, so this short description should remain neutral. LUZ Y FUERZA (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think three editors, including myself, already answered to this in the previous section. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not neutrality. That's placing undue wait on the Russian position, which is a fringe position. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's a little silly to call the actual material conditions in Crimea a "fringe position." it's been defacto part of russia for 8 years. Aachenshinto (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not what we are discussing. The idea that Russia is occupying Crimea is not in dispute. The idea on whether it is legally part of Russia, rather than legally part of Ukraine, is. De jure, not de facto, is what we are discussing. It is absolutely a fringe position that Crimea is de jure a part of Russia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this is the topic of discussion, as no text has been proposed that states Crimea is legally part of Russia. CMD (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The proposed text is to remove the fact that Crimea is in Ukraine, with the justification being WP:NPOV. However, removing the claim that it is in Ukraine is not an action of neutrality, it is giving undue weight to the fringe position that Crimea is in Russia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
No, it's simply not interpreting the word "in" in a very specific and legalistic manner. Perhaps worth noting again that the current text opening with that quite blatant legalistic interpretation is a recent insertion, replacing a long-stable lead. CMD (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I concur. I proposed the current wording as a compromise in the preceding thread, but I agree it's not optimal by any measure. I think it's best if the first sentence introduced the peninsula as being in Eastern Europe, then (maybe after another sentence about its overall geographic location), lay out three facts: 1) that it has been occupied/annexed/controlled by Russia since 2014, 2) that this situation is mostly not recognised internationally, and 3) that the international recognition is of it as part of Ukraine. – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is mostly about geography, politics should be secondary here. I see any attempt to find a compromise between the position of the international community and the propaganda of the Russian government as false balance. So, I'm clearly in favour of "in Ukraine". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
We could steer clear of the politics if we talked of Crimea as only being in Eastern Europe, but the moment we tried to say which country it's in, the politics become impossible to avoid. And by the way, what exactly in the introduction I propose above do you see as reflecting the "propaganda of the Russian government"? – Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say that anything in the first sentence is propaganda of the Russian government. I said that avoiding the statement that Crimea is in Ukraine would be a compromise with that propaganda. And therefore, we can't avoid politics by keeping silent. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
No it wouldn't be, and the content of Russian propaganda should be ignored rather than factor into the writing of this article. CMD (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what some contributors are trying to achieve here but it is not achieving a WP:NPOV. There is nothing wrong with User:LUZ Y FUERZA's proposed "Crimea is a peninsula in Eastern Europe", which is a fact. That statement should be immediately followed by the statement that "Crimea is claimed by both Ukraine and Russia", which is also a fact. Further discussion about what is legal and what is not, what is recognised and what is not, who recognises it and who does not, is almost irrelevant to these first two undeniable facts. Wikipedia does not take sides. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear IP, please read WP:NPOV before linking it. „Does not take sides“ is a claim often made by propagandists of fringe theories. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I shall quote to you from the top section of WP:NPOV:

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

"Articles must not take sides." I also note that your user page flies the Ukrainian flag while we discuss the neutrality of this article. You have insinuated that I am providing propaganda or fringe theory because I query the article's neutrality; I recommend that you cease doing that, and remind you that your comments are open for the world to read and for others to review. My proposal is in good faith - you might like to inform yourself regarding WP:AGF.
Now back to the issue without further obfuscation on your part, are the two statements factual or are they not? If they are not factual then you are cordially invited to identify in what way. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you read a little more. The section WP:GEVAL is roughly in the middle of WP:NPOV. I proudly fly the Ukrainian flag because Russian propaganda creates a lot of fringe theories. I'm not going to discuss with you further. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uanfala and Kashmiri: The version which I restored ("Crimea is a peninsula in Ukraine") has been stable since at least the end of December last year (I didn't check further back), so please don't change it before achieving consensus here, see WP:BRD. Kashmiri, I also randomly checked two other articles on peninsulae and they don't support your theory that a geography article should not start with politics (which I understand as should not mention the country the peninsula belongs to): Kamchatka Peninsula and Peloponnese. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have checked further back. The peninsula in Ukraine version was inserted on 3 November here, shortly after the #Location discussion above was started, with the discussion continuing since that point (up to now it appears). The version before that with Eastern Europe was inserted on 12 April 2017 and was stable since then, with previous versions just having the Black sea part. CMD (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Illegal referendum"

The article states that the 2014 referendum was "illegal", however the cited source states that this was illegal under the Ukrainian Constitution. The article needs to state this to maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It was also illegal under international law, e.g. the Charter of the United Nations and various other treaties signed by Russia. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
If that is the case then the article should reflect that, citing WP:RELIABLE sources, rather than some nebulous legal opinion about "Ukrainian law". Please initiate if this is so. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Russia recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine through the Budapest Memorandum, therefore the referendum and subsequent annexation of Crimea was illegal. Mawer10 (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be non-compliance with agreement or understanding. That does not make it "illegal". 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I suggest that all editors refrain from using the term "illegal", unless they understand well its meaning. The only universally binding laws in the area of international public law are Security Council resolutions (with the caveat that they are binding only on the UN Member States). Besides, it's sometimes accepted that the UN Charter is legally binding on UN members. However, violation of a provision of some international agreement is not in itself "an illegal act": just as states have a power to enter commitments at any time, similarly they have a power to remove themselves from these commitments at any time. The only "law" that makes countries to adhere to commitments is... custom, codified in the form of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (esp. the accepted principle Pacta sunt servanda). Nothing "legal" or "illegal" about it. — kashmīrī TALK 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. If reliable sources call this illegal, than that is what we have to say here in Wikipedia in our articles. If they don't say it is illegal, then we don't either. However, it is not up to editors' personal interpretations of international law to decide whether we say it is illegal or not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Only when they are reliable for legal matters, which in this case would be mostly academic publications. Or do you have an unlimited trust in Vogue? — kashmīrī TALK 08:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, there is something between academic publications and Vogue which can be normally seen as reliable, even in legal matters (from BBC to NYT, and many others) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
If a so-called reliable source says that something is illegal, and that is disputable, then we need to look at the expertise of the writer who is claiming it. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The Vogue is considered fully reliable per WP:RSPSS, and we are supposed to blindly follow whatever is officially branded as "reliable", no? — kashmīrī TALK 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
These types of media are badged as "reliable", yet they are only a conduit for journalists. The question then becomes "Is this journalist a recognised expert on the topic?" As per WP:REPUTABLE, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors....". That does not mean the magazine per se. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashmiri, apart from your suggestion being against WP rules (as OuroborosCobra pointed out), I don't think that a single expert on international law would agree with you. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Off-topic
Sure, expert. — kashmīrī TALK 08:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A better response would have been asking "Who has counted the number?". 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
True. Just no sensible answer to an argumentum ad populum came to mind. — kashmīrī TALK 21:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear IP and @Kashmiri: may I remind you of WP:NOTFORUM ? I don't claim to be an expert, but I've read something on the subject. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
To violate WP:NOTFORUM is illegal, right? — kashmīrī TALK 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
ENOUGH. Drop it with the snark and personal attacks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop using bold lettering - we are not "deaf" and therefore there is no need to WP:SHOUT. No forum happening here - other editors refuse to discuss the issue which I raised but instead dismissed it. The matter of WP:UNCIVIL is enough; the matter of the improper use of "illegal" in this topic is not enough, and has yet to be addressed. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Power Generation

I have tried to clean up the paragraphs regarding power generation to improve readability and clarity. I am not, though, familiar with the content, and may have inadvertently distorted the intended meaning. Could somebody familiar with the topic please check those paragraphs?"Pij" (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

I want to undo the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=next&oldid=1144913770 Lettres (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Please feel free to make comments in the discussions on this topic above. Tollens (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The new short description sums up the scope of the article better. The old is purely geopolitical. small jars tc 17:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Location in infobox

I suggest the location be changed from "Ukraine" to "Ukraine (de jure) Russia (de facto)" Sng Pal (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That has been discussed extensively. Which facts do you feel are missing from the previous discussions to start a new one? Jeppiz (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimea/Archive_2&oldid=1238807321"