Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Crimea (Russia)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

POV mess

Right here we have an article about a country that existed for one day. How notable. Is it notable for being the shortest lived country? You have a hat note telling you to go to the peninsula via Crimea but it actal links to the (disambiguation) which also advertised in the hat note. Autonomous Republic of Crimea has demographic information as does the peninsula page. Nevermind the list goes on. Most of the issues are obvious.

There is room for the dejure status and the defacto status. For all of these articles to actually be well written that's probably what it will take. Everyone splitting up and doing their own thing is a mess.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a federal subject of Russia. It's currently being disputed whether this article should also cover the 1-day country, or whether that should receive its own article at Republic of Crimea (country). CodeCat (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
For reference, the Russian Democratic Federative Republic was shorter. Maybe the self-declared independent Crimea doesn't need a separate article per se, but it should be incorporated as a subsection into a relevant article, in such a way that it stands out as if it was its own article. And we have an example of that here. Abstractematics (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The information is certainly relevant but it isn't notable enough for it's own article. A country for a day. Besides this article, most of the Crimea related articles are in a mess. The Primary article Crimean Peninsula was just named Crimea. It was changed as a redirect to Crimea (disambiguation). This whole thing is a mess. You have proUkraine POV pushers and proRussian POV pushers fighting and making a bigger mess.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
why do you keep going on about "a country for one day"? This is the article about the republic within the Russian Federation. Widely unrecognized, to be sure, but hardly lasting just "one day".--dab (𒁳) 11:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is a major masterpiece of OR and POV. Are you really going to keep it alive? --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. An article describing a proclaimed political entity is acceptable, as long as you address what different countries/views (Russia, Ukraine, etc.) thinks of that claim. There's no problem with having one article about a claimed Ukrainian entity and one about a claimed Russian entity. Now, if the article outright declares that "this is the only legally justified claim", then that's a POV. It's about how an article is written. Abstractematics (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hardly! This article has virtually no sources. The only sources are from news. I will tell you why this article should not exist:
  • WP:FRINGE - Only Russia consider this region of Ukraine as part of Russia.
  • WP:OR - Is there any book describing Crimea as currently part of the Russian Federation? This article has been written gathering together carious information without any real source in support.
And I am just wandering on the maintenance that should be carried out on three articles describing almost about the same thing. Because the big difference between Crimea and Kosovo is that geographically speaking Crimea is almost (if not exactly) the same landmass in all the 3 articles. Good sense should suggest to merge this article with the original one. User:Silvio1973|Silvio1973]] (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:FRINGE - Several countries are beginning to accede to Russia's claim over Crimea one by one. The vote on Resolution 68/262 was 100-11 with 58 abstentions, far enough from unanimous. Meanwhile, Ukraine is pulling out its forces from Crimea. And most important is that the Crimeans themselves voted for Russian control. You could say Russian/Crimean control is "reluctantly gaining ground".
  • WP:OR - And how are you supposed to find "a book" for a current event?
  • Crimea may be the same landmass, but the two articles have separate parent articles because they are subdivisions to two different countries. Duplicate information can be minimized and linked to other articles, but because you're talking about political units intertwined in the same crises over the same territory, some overlap of information would be necessary to connect the articles. Abstractematics (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Switch to Moscow Time

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Belongs on Talk:Time in Europe

Crimea has switched to Moscow Time on 29 May, 2014, however that change is still no updated on the map of the Time in Europe. Can someone please update the map as soon as possible. 99.225.193.121 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Including sentence

The 100 states voting in favor represented about 34% of the world's population, the 11 against represented about 4.5%, the 58 abstentions represented about 58%, and the 24 absents represented about 3.5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.212.0 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, why not WP:BE BOLD and add that information to the article? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"Represented" is a strong word, considering a lot of the countries that abstained are not functioning democracies. But either way, it sounds a lot like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH designed to advance a certain viewpoint to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It is OR. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kudzul, I hope you're kidding?? Do you honestly think we're supposed to function as some internet forum that decides which countries do or do not "represent" their people? -- Director (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We're decidedly not. Which is exactly my point. The UN vote doesn't work like "34% of the world's population voted this wage, 58% voted this way" -- it operates on the basis of one member state, one vote. It's pure WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POV to present information as this IP editor proposed, and I'm very much against it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that its perfectly fine to use the word "represent". Governments always "represent" their population, whether the country is entirely "democratic" or a complete dictatorship. Its not up to us to declare "this or that government does not represent its people".
How the UN functions has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. And if the IP has a source, then its not OR. -- Director (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess, "have about 34% of world's population" (or "inhabitated by about...") would lift question on which countries represent peoples and which don't. Seryo93 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course would lift a lot of questions. Because the UN does not work that way. You can report that 65% of the world's population live in countries with right-hand traffic, but in the UN one country is one vote so equating the number of votes to the % of population is OR. Yes, there is a source. And so what? A source can be found for everything, what counts is its notability.--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel

I've raised this issue with User:John wilson swe, but he seems to be more interested in pathos arguments about the history of the Jewish people than offering an explanation of why he has added a specific section to this article (which is on a second-level division of another country) highlighting Israel's lack of a position on Crimea and making a WP:COATRACK argument about how Israel breaking with the United States is somehow significant. It smacks of undue weight and POV-pushing to me, and I've tagged the section accordingly until this is resolved. My preference would be to simply acknowledge that one small country not taking a position is not relevant to this article, and to remove it. It could be relevant on the Israel-United States relations or Israel-Russia relations page, I suppose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

John wilson swe (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Can't you just help me editing the text so it becomes less "Anti US", that was not my intention, I just copied some text from the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John wilson swe (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

John wilson swe (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)I belive it is relevant because the Russians did a great job liberating Europe in WW2. So how can the Jewish people be forced to select side between two of the most significant liberating forces. I also beleive that if the Red Army would not have been able to liberate Crimea during WW2 the world we live in would be very different today. Hundreds of thousands soildiers died in 6 attempts to liberate Kerch, 30 million Russians died during WW2 in order to save the Jewish people. We were nearly eliminated, how can we be forced to select side. Ok I am not acting like a scolar anymore, but I still beleive from a academic point of view that this is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John wilson swe (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok... But which sources? Where are they? Silvio1973 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


John wilson swe (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the first source after the first sentece: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.585333 Then from another copy which contains the full text, after the second sentence: http://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed/8f2883bc/u-officials-angry-israel-doesnt-back-stance-on Plus the Russian sources at the end, were parts are based on the Haaretz article and Israeli TV.

He means the sources that support the degree of notability that you're affording it with its own section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

John wilson swe (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Note that I am a subscriber of Haaretz, that is why I provided the second link as proof. Note that I don't use words as "invasion" in order to offend anyone. Besides from that it was cut and paste from the full version on Haaretz, plus some introducary words the the sentace from the Russian media.

If it's a cut-and-paste job, it's WP:COPYVIO and isn't allowed under Wikipedia terms and conditions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

John wilson swe (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Now there has been so many edits so I don't believe it is a cut and paste job anymore. A citation is always a citation you can't change to much of those either. The other wordings I have changed now because on you request.

John wilson swe (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Kudzu, why can't you help me here? If you think it is "Anti US" please tell me about those parts and I will gladly remove them without any question. From my point of view, which some claim to be pro-Russian, I think this whole page is becoming more and more "Anti Russian" in it's wording. Aren't WP supposed to be neutral, If I fail in my neutrality I appreciate a helping hand. Isn't it good to also have a editor that can contribute with information from a different angle? If we work together here we can perhaps become even better, even if we don't fully agree with each others assumed to be "political" views?

John wilson swe (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC) In my opinion the notability is about Israel for the first time voting differently than the US in the UN, in relation to Crimea. I also believe it is very informative if people can understand the historical reasons for that. Perhaps many of the world conflicts can be avoided if we learn to understand each other and our feelings, which might have a root in history. It worked so well in the beginning of the 90's when the US stared to work together with the Russians on the MIR space station. Later this work ended up in the International Space Station and the Sea Launch platform. If large counties always have to fight each other just because people don't understand why people act the way they do, how can we ever evolve if we always must think about destroying each other. What if Europe would have understood the Jewish people our tradition and history before WW2 started? Isn't WP about spreading information on a global scale? If this information can help people to respect each other, it is even better? As long as we can agree on the info we write about on WP, that should be okay, shouldn't it?

This article isn't about the Jewish people, and it's not about U.S.-Russia relations. What you're doing is using the article as a WP:COATRACK for completely separate topics by including WP:UNDUE material in a non-neutral presentation. This article is categorically not the place to expound upon relations between Israel and the U.S., or the U.S. and Russia, and Israel not taking a position on Crimea is not somehow notable enough to merit its own section -- probably not even notable enough to merit a mention per WP:NOTNEWS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
John wilson swe (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Kudzu1 can you please explain to me; why you think the text in the article is unrelated to Crimea? I mean to me it seams that the entire section is about the "International status" of the Republic of Crimea and about Israel being compelled to take a certain standpoint in that question? I also do not share your view regarding the comment you made when you undid my edit: "um, what? it's undue weight to highlight one small, geographically distant country's..." - I don't believe it is solely the size and the graphical location of a country that matters. After you have explained your arguments to me in a meaningful way, I would be delighted to learn about my motivations for writing on this article, but if it becomes to personal please keep it to my talk page.

@John wilson swe. We all see what you mean but you need more solid sources. By the way, can you please sign at the end of your posts? --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Silvio1973 the paragraph states that it is the Haaretz newspaper that provides this report, it does not claim to "solid evidence" for a certain position. I believe the text makes this very clear to the reader. The same kind of reference to certain media outlets are also mentioned under the "On March 27, 2014, the UN General Assembly voted..." paragraph with reference to Reuters and Russia Today. Just because an article get a huge number of copies from different media outlets all over the internet and on mainstream media, does it give the source more credibility? These kind of spam reports basically always seams to refer to the same source in the end anyway. Besides that, the map under the "International status" section also clearly marks Israel as "absent" during the vote, so some kind of "logical" reasoning can also be applied in order not to dismiss this report entirely based on other aspects.John wilson swe (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You put me in an uncomfortable position, because I tend to agree with your POV. The thing is that Wikipedia does not work like that. Indeed very often it works like that (this article it is an example, a bad one indeed), but should not. Well, try to propose a brief mention, carefully worded and perhaps thi will find its room in the article. I must confess that due to the lack of proper sources the general quality of the article is quite low, so unless you do not push too much I think you should find your way trough to get your edit accepted. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't try to turn this back around. It's clear you have a strong personal sympathy for Israel as well as for Russia -- it comes through in your editing, unfortunately -- and that is, by your own admission, biasing your judgment in dedicating an entire section to one country that isn't even in the same geographic neighborhood as Ukraine or Russia not taking a position on a territorial dispute between them. I don't see a section for Ireland's take on the Cambodian–Thai border dispute on that article, or a section outlining New Zealand's perspective on the Senkaku Islands dispute on that article. Why is it so important that Israel's non-stance be outlined -- mostly through news sources repeating hearsay, including Russian state media with a systemic bias against the United States and Ukraine -- in excruciating detail on the page for Republic of Crimea, a territorial unit of Russia? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I have been trying to turn the text around in order for it to be less biased. Now the text appears far more neutral from my point of view at least. John wilson swe (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is still the wrong page for it. Try Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol#Stances, Israel-United States relations, and Israel-Russia relations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Aksyonov's title

Putin has just appointed Sergey Aksyonov as acting Governor of Crimea http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/727761

Should his title in the infobox be changed now?

SergeiXXX (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: officially this post styled "Head of the Republic", not "governor" (see this and this). But yes, I agree, that we should change title. Seryo93 (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mistake in Background section

There is a FALSE statement in the article - "After World War II, in 1945, Soviet authorities deported the Crimean Tatars", the Tatars were deported in 1944 - DURING THE WAR!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.60.35.11 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I fixed that. Thank you for pointing out to mistake. Seryo93 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording in the lede

I have rephrased the wording in the lede from "several" to the "overwhelming majority" but I must confess that I am the first not to like this wording. The issue is that "several countries" does not correspond to the prevalent opinion expressed by the international community about the annexation of Crimea. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1:I do not mind that you reverted my modification, but perhaps you might want to explain why consider your edit more appropriate. Indeed I think a most appropriate wording is between the two.--Silvio1973 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
"Most" is more concise than "the _______ majority of" and flows better, without exposing us to the argument over what constitutes a "large majority" or an "overwhelming majority" and this and that. Considering some editors have already cast aspersions on the UN vote by pointing out that the 100 countries that voted to condemn the annexation of Crimea, while a majority of the UN General Assembly, contain less than half of the world population, I just think it's best to avoid editorializing as much as possible -- especially in the intro. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Kudzu1, I can only be happy to edit in a way to achieve the largest consensus, but please can we stop applying to the UN this approach of population share? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Useless ugly mess

This duplication of the Republic of Crimea in two articles according to the political perspective is really an ugly mess. Clearly two requests for deletion have not been approved but I genuinely feel we are voting for a matter that should not be eligible for such discussion. The fact is that we are in my eyes violating a basic cornerstone of Wikipedia pillars. The entire article is a duplication of an existing article with a "strong POV flavour". I have indeed an hard time believing that for the most of administrators this is absolutely fine. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about, Silvio? On what grounds would you delete anything?? -- Director (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Direktor, I never said this article should be deleted. If you are here to provocate, please do it elsewhere. I merely wrote that this article duplicates an existing one.
However, assuming that you want to discuss...
1) In my eyes (and not only mines) it should be merged with the first (chronologically speaking) one because here we speak of the same geographical entity. This relevant fact makes the present issue completely different from those of Kosovo.
2) I have not seen so far any strong argument to have two articles, unless not to push a POV. The information contained in the two articles can be conveniently merged in one. Or seen the other way round, the arguments to merge the articles are stronger than those sustained by those who want two separate articles.
3) To whom are we making a favour creating two articles? I would really understand to whom, hardly to the reader. просто. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No one can understand what you said, Silvio, that's the problem. What are you saying?? There are three articles, not two.. ugh.
Merging or deleting this article is simply out of the question, if that's what you're trying to propose. Regardless of the legal status of this entity, it is definitely in existence, administering the Crimea (sans Sevastopol). -- Director (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Small useless provocation... we do not discuss here to merge the article Crimea, but about the other two.
If you do not understand what I write, seek for help somewhere (you really need it). It is not my problem. No-one here contests Russia administrates Crimea, but this per se does not justify to create a separate article. Merging the two articles is a fair question. Silvio1973 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Those are entirely separate political entities. One is Russian, the other is Ukrainian. Merging them is just silly. This entity is indeed illegal, but it still exists nonetheless. I'm done here. -- Director (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Silvio is right and I would endorse a merge of the two articles. There is no Ukrainian political entity in Crimea. --Trimbitrima (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
But there is a political entity called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in Ukraine, and a majority of countries recognises it. It has also existed for two decades before the present. So where would that subject be covered? CodeCat (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I intended a merge from Republic of Crimea to Crimea as the two are duplications. To resopond your question: Countries recognize Ukraine (inclusive of Crimea), not the Autonomous Republic of Crimea: countries recognize other countries, not regions of their countries. That subject can be covered in its own article, but making sure that we state that it is a historical republic in that article (i.e. dead in 2014). Recognition is not important if something doesn't exist. It is a political entity which does NOT exist in Crimea any longer. Trimbitrima (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It exists in law, if not in practice. This discussion has already been had. Consensus is in favour of the status quo, per the large move discussions that resulted in the present layout of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester is right, but the issue I have here is the general lack of sources. Is it possible to sustain an entire article on links from newspapers? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's the problem with current events, and WP:NOTNEWS. However, judging by discussion at Donetsk People's Republic, and elsewhere, no one is keen to allow events to play out before writing an article on them. RGloucester — ☎ 14:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It is exactly my problem. i live and work in Russia and I understand fairly enough the language. Linking WP articles to Russian newspapers and sources close to the government should be forbidden. Also I have a reasonable doubt about the intention of some users. I know that I should assume good faith, but perhaps if you were in Russia now you would have the very same concerns, also once you see the use the local medias make of WP right now. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Or, we could NOT introduce such a blatant anti-Russian POV to our coverage of these events? -- Director (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The ARoC exists de jure, but not de facto, while the RoC exists de facto, but not de jure (arguably). What Silvio1973 means by "merging" - is in fact deleting this article in favor of the pro-Ukranian point of view - i.e. eliminating Wikipedia's coverage of the non-Ukranian Crimean entity. Which de facto exists as part of Russia, regardless of its legal status.

If we had to have a single article (which we don't) - a better argument could be made for merging the Autonomous Republic of Crimea into this article, as this one at least exists beyond on-paper.

And Silvio1973, there are many, many articles on this project sourced entirely by news sources. You don't seem to be aware of that. -- Director (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss of the other articles but only of this one. And here there is an issue of recentism. And of neutrality because there are links to sources so close to one side of the view that existe a reasonable concern of neutrality.
I never spoke of deleting but only of merging. I do not have a pro-Ukrainian point of view. Indeed I do not even understand what you mean. I stick to sources, secondary whenever is possible. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Situation with Crimea is something similar to Taiwan: we have separate articles about de-facto and de-jure entities. Do you consider merging them too? BTW, aside from newspapers ("news" sources), you have sort of official sources of the Republic, which can be (with known caution, of course) used in some parts (such as describing Republic of Crimea system of governance by relying on 2014 Constitution) Seryo93 (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"I do not have a pro-Ukrainian point of view" - sorry, but "Linking WP articles to Russian newspapers and sources close to the government should be forbidden" (note italics) is nothing less than censorship of not only Russian gov't POV (but it's still too relevant to ignore, only proper and cautious description is needed), but everything coming from Russia. It's POV, because it censors all Russian sources. Do I made myself clear? Seryo93 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Seryo, I understand very well that my position can be perceived as wrong. And in theory it is. The issue is that here in Russia there is absolutely one common position about Crimea. Government and opposition agree on the same position and almost 100% of the people, except a small (but very small) minority those components are considered as enemies of the country. However, I would have no problems linking to Russian sources (if secondary) and even linking to neutral newspapers. The issue is that the main medias are more or less controlled by the Government. And can we agree that linking to sources directly from the governement (such as the case of the sources used in the article Russia) is a different matter. And by the way, I do not trust less the sources close to the Ukraininan Government. What I would just like to see here are more secondary sources. And I don't. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, same "media control", more or less, exists in all countries (at least in form of media licensing - if you violate law license will be revoked - isn't this censorship, even when seems justified? (such as in European countries, where law prohibits hate speech, for example)). But there is a major point: a) this entity exists and has to be described; b) another entity (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) has existed in the past (and formally (per this and this) exists now, just like Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (within Georgia)), it has long history (1992/1994-2014(de-facto)) and must be described too. Even Abkhazia, which seems (from lead) to be "single article", in reality has two entities: one for de-facto entity, recognised by Russia &co. and one for de-jure Georgian entity). The better question is, therefore, how to present AR Crimea: as former entity (as in case of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) or as existing but "virtual" (de-jure only) entity, as in case of PRC Taiwan Province. Seryo93 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of the ongoing dispute mentioned at WP:AN/I between two of the editors above. I wish we'd not have to extend that dispute across more talk pages. There is no consensus for any merging of anything, at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There will be no dispute here. And yes, consensus is to keep the article. Still it should be better referenced. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that referencing may be better. It's young (established less than a month ago), albeit existing, entity, this is one of explanations why there aren't so many secondary sources yet (unlike other articles about breakaway regions/Russian fed. subjects). When time passes, we will get more and more info. Bests Seryo93 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Russians say the US/EU news are biased, the US/EU say the Russian news are biased. Who's correct? Its like the Cold War, basically: both sides introduce a slant to support their case. And frankly I myself have noted many instances of media bias in US/EU media. E.g. the Kosovo case is practically an exact replica of this situation, in terms of legality (autonomous region declares independence without the consent of the central government) - and yet somehow I don't recall as many invocations of international law as now (to put it mildly). But that's a different can of worms. The point is: its not up to User:Silvio1973 to decide which country can not publish sources for use on Wikipedia.

The concept that "media not directly owned by the government must be neutral" is a massive non sequitur. Even if we were to assume there was no way for governments and corporations to carrot-and-stick media outlets (which is silly), its still in the interest of the media conglomerates to support their own country/block of countries. Its in the interest of the EU to bring (as much as possible of) Ukraine into its sphere. Its ultimately in the interest of EU media corporations to support that endeavor. There's no room here for the sort of naïveté Silvio is talking about. -- Director (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is matter for the RS noticeboard, which has multiple discussions ongoing about this very matter, not for this article talk page. Neither you, nor Silvio, nor I can decide which sources are appropriate to use. That is a matter for consensus to decide. At present, many at the noticeboard have recommended that Russian state sources be used as citations for the 'Russian government position', but that they are not reliable on the whole for reporting on the crises in Crimea, Donbass, &c. I don't have a position on the matter, but if this is a concern, I suggest you take it up there. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hm. That's only fair if US and EU sources are presented as the "US and EU media position". The only thing to do is to stay above the slime and cover what both sides are saying. -- Director (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Our trouble is the world is so small :). There is no third party. In US/Russia confrontations, there is no superpower on Mars whose media will be able to provide a proper, disinterested and unbiased coverage (Russia is not to be compared to the US, but then the USSR was also never really a match for the US; one can hardly presume the weaker entity must be the more biased one). Ultimately all notable media sources belong to one "bloc" or another. We should not hope to find a formula for unbiased sourcing of these events, until at least a decade has passed. In the meantime, notyhing to do but present what major news outlets on both sides have to say. -- Director (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Direktor, I do not really mind if you think that I am "naif", neither I mind about all the endless list of offenses your directed to me since I started contributing on Wikipedia. Whatever you will do, I have decided not to react. Perhaps you'll be tired of offending one day.
@All, I do not have any problem in partially referencing an article with news, but referencing an article only with news is a concern and actually WP:NONEWS is not my invention. The fact is that this article should not exist. I mean should not exist yet. It treats a fact that is too relevant and too recent to be supported only with news. IMHO it would have been far better to keep the facts listed in this article in the existing article Crimea and create a new article when things are more settled (and they will, I doubt Russia will ever leave Crimea). Please note that we are creating precedents giving right to exist to articles such as Donetsk People's Republic or godness knows what else. Not good, really not good at all.
Last but not least. It is somehow surprising that in spite of the discussions going on, no-one has placed a banner warning for recentism or NPOV. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As usual you don't quite understand what's being said, but do assume bad faith. And as usual - I'll explain, and you'll take offense. I did not say you were naive: I could care less whether you are or are not. I said you're talking about naïveté, i.e. promoting a naïve perspective.
Did I ever tell you how annoying it is when one doesn't post anything personally offensive, but the other fellow, who doesn't rightly understand the language, then tries to "retort" in the same language to the imaginary slight in a condescending, mock-sympathetic way? Esp after expressing bigotry and a posture of "superiority" over whole nations and regions of Europe?
The rest of your post is appalling. Not only do you not understand that Wikipedia already has dozens of articles about semi-recognized political entities, and has had them for years (no "precedents" are established here at all), but you also seem to be laboring under the delusion that we here decide what entities do or do not "have the right to exist" by creating such articles. And again: you just don't read what's explained to you. As has been said several times: this project hosts articles on all political entities and governments, whether (you perceive them as) "legal" or not.
As for WP:NOTNEWS, you (once more) have no idea what you're talking about. News sources are sources just like any other. They're not top quality, but in essence they're perfectly fine if used with due care. Using news sources has nothing to do with NOTNEWS, and many articles like this one, that cover contemporary topics, exclusively utilize news sources. -- Director (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Direktor, you should really comment on the edits and not the editors. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the use of news as sources, this is possible but with caution and really it depends on the quality of the sources. The thing is that the medias used here as sources report every day in Russia that what happened in Crimea and what it's happening right now in Eastern Russia is the struggle of the Russian patriots against the western nazism and imperialism. Also, there is a big conflict of interest here. It is like editiong the article Silvio Berlusconi using as source one of the media he owns/controls.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Since we come to Berlusconi analogy, I'd like to remember that we use Kolomoyskyi's UNIAN as RS. Ihor Kolomoyskyi is a revolutionary (i.e. pro-Kyiv) governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. That's conflict of interests too. And well, as DIREKTOR pointed above, we have *nearly* zero independent RS when it comes to US/Russian conflicts (and events in Crimea and Ukraine in general are one of them, just like Georgia/SouthOssetia&Abkhazia in 2008, Syria in 2013, et cetera). Sad, but true. Seryo93 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course Seryo93, the absolute neutrality does not exist. But here the issue is really the opposite. Astronomically opposite if the word could be used in this context. But for some reasons (political?) this does not seem to be an issue for some users. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Just one example: US & co., and much of their media (I'm not pretending to say "all of their media", btw.) ignored violent nature of some of protesters actions (Molotov at Berkut, etc.), calling 2014 revolution "peaceful protest" and dubbed Yanukovich as dictator, but years ago same Western countries, and much of their media, hailed Yeltsin suppression of "red Maidan in Moscow". And what's your proposal about sources and/or articles. Banning all Russian media? Why you assume that Russian media (and "some users") are more biased than Western ones? Seryo93 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I never said (and thought) anything like that. But on this specific article I believe there is a real issue, because in Russia there is an almost uniform POV. In the respect of the first part of your edit I cannot answer in detail because this is not a forum. But for what I have seen in almost three years of work and life here, yes I must admit (and it hurts me because I really love Russia) that media are more biased than in the West. But this in general is not an issue because you still find a diversity of opinions (when you know where to read and where to look for it, e.g. diversity is not home at RAINOVOSTI). But in the case of the current Crimean issue the situation is different. Very different. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, cautionous use (not removal) of Russian sources, such as attributing controversial statements as non-weaseled opinions solves much questions. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Seryo93:, in principle no-one would disagree with the content of your last post. The reality is however different. I have just sourced an edit linking to Euronews. Mind well, I did it because Euronews reports the primary information coming from the UN. Under such circumastances I am happy to use news as a source (with care, of course). But honestly in the current context IMHO we should refrain from using Ukraininan or Russian sources, expecially when primary. At least untill things are settled down. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Disputed territory

Shouldn't this be labelled as disputed territory, or does it legitimately belong to Russia and not Ukraine? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No. This article is about a unit of incorporation within Russia. Ukraine has nothing to do it, just as Russia has nothing to do with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (a unit of incorporation within Ukraine). The disputed territory is Crimea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 5, 2014; 11:49 (UTC)

Real results published by the Russian Human Rights Office reveals Crimean Referendum fraud

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.87.25 (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

consider talk: Crimean status referendum, 2014#Voter turnout. Seryo93 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I considered it but don't see any connection with the very narrow question in hand concerning the date the Republic of Crimea (Russian subject) came into existence. If you see a connection, I would welcome your explanation.
Separately, I thought this was interesting too: [Question: The agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea is going to be ratified today. Will Crimea and Sevastopol do the same, and when? Sergey Lavrov: The same procedure is not envisaged. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the agreement enters into force as envisaged by this agreement. The agreement, which was signed in Crimea, based on the wish of the Crimeans to accelerate this procedure, states that it is temporarily adopted from the date of its signature, i.e. the 18 March, and the Republic of Crimea is considered to be accepted into the Russian Federation from that date. Before it was signed, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council took decisions based on the results of the Crimea-wide referendum, by which they authorised their representatives to sign this agreement. According to its text, the agreement enters into force, when signed. As to the Russian Federation, in our case we need to carry out these procedures according to Russian law, and this is what we are doing right now.[21 March 2014](http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/1EB0F5937A80B6B444257CA500519090)]. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea (Russian subject) was established on 21 March, not 18 March

Above is the position. The sources are in the body of the article itself. I will edit the info. table to show the date of establishment as 21 March and not 18 March. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Either way, you must state, that for Russian legal purposes it considered established on 18 March (yes, this is retroactive application of law, but nevertheless...). Just two articles of law (important moments translated):

Статья 1. Основания и срок принятия в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым

1. Республика Крым принимается в Российскую Федерацию в соответствии с Конституцией Российской Федерации и статьей 4 Федерального конституционного закона от 17 декабря 2001 года N 6-ФКЗ "О порядке принятия в Российскую Федерацию и образования в ее составе нового субъекта Российской Федерации".

2. Основаниями принятия в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым являются:

1) результаты общекрымского референдума, проведенного 16 марта 2014 года в Автономной Республике Крым и городе Севастополе, на котором поддержан вопрос о воссоединении Крыма с Россией на правах субъекта Российской Федерации;
2) Декларация о независимости Автономной Республики Крым и города Севастополя, а также Договор между Российской Федерацией и Республикой Крым о принятии в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым и образовании в составе Российской Федерации новых субъектов;
3) предложения Республики Крым и города с особым статусом Севастополя о принятии в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым, включая город с особым статусом Севастополь;
4) настоящий Федеральный конституционный закон.

3. Республика Крым считается принятой в Российскую Федерацию с даты подписания Договора между Российской Федерацией и Республикой Крым о принятии в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым и образовании в составе Российской Федерации новых субъектов. Republic of Crimea is considered to have acceded to the Russian Federation from date of signing of Treaty between the Russian Federation and Republic of Crimea...

Статья 2. Образование в составе Российской Федерации новых субъектов, их наименования и статус

1. Со дня принятия в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым в составе Российской Федерации образуются новые субъекты - Республика Крым и город федерального значения Севастополь. From date of accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation new federal subjects shall be established - Republic of Crimea and city of federal importance Sevastopol

2. Наименования новых субъектов Российской Федерации - Республика Крым и город федерального значения Севастополь подлежат включению в часть 1 статьи 65 Конституции Российской Федерации.

3. Новые субъекты Российской Федерации имеют соответственно статус Республики и города федерального значения.

4. Государственными языками Республики Крым являются русский, украинский и крымско-татарский языки.

http://base.garant.ru/70618342/#ixzz31CcARznh

Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already read a full English translation of the Treaty in question. I previously provided the full English translation in a link here on this talk page at one point. I have also previously discussed the very sentences now again being referred to. So we are going over the same ground. The sentences referred to do not at all resolve the date on which the new Russian federal subjects were created. After all, what was the purpose of the ratification and the gun salute on 21 March if the new federal subjects had already been created. This is old ground for me as I've discussed this very point before and got nowhere. No source has clarified the position. I refer you to what Foreign Minister Lavrov said on 21 March where he noted the need for ratification to be done for Russian purposes. That was on 21 March. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could write a letter to the Russian Foreign Ministry seeking clarification. Or perhaps there is Russian language content stating the date on which the two new federal subjects were created. The sentences referred to here simply do not clarify the position. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to more neutral title

This should be moved to a more neutral title like Russian-occupied Crimea per Israeli-occupied territories and all the propaganda in Wikipedia calling Israel's lands "occupation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F241:7A00:D4FA:7B16:D650:EB82 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. "Russian-occupied" is POV. We use official subdivision name. It's stated in text, that this fed.subject is disputed. Seryo93 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
(addendum to my msg above) we can have both Provisionally occupied Ukrainian territories (or, better, Ukrainian law on occupied territories, as in ruwiki AND ukwiki) and Republic of Crimea/Crimean Federal District pair. Seryo93 (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wording in the lede

I have modified to precise that the "referendum" was not authorised by the official Ukrainian government. But I think it can be better worded. All suggestions welcome. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Current wording seems pretty fine, IMO. Seryo93 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
OK thank you, stay like that so. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Countries today in infobox former countries

How should we approach the "countries today" section of Template:Infobox former country in a case where a former empire controlled parts of Crimea, for instance, Republic of Genoa and Republic of Venice? Right now, both of those articles list them as controlling territory in modern-day Russia and Ukraine. However, with the disputed status of Crimea, should Ukraine be included? If it is removed, then it could be seen as NPOV, but the same could be said if it stays.--¿3family6 contribs 03:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, Genoa also controlled what is modern-day Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi for a while, so there's no problem including Ukraine for them. But the Venetian republic still poses a problem.--¿3family6 contribs 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian language lessons no longer in Crimean primary schools

As of when I wrote this it seemed that in Crimean primary schools Ukrainian language lessons will no longer be given, except maybe for 1 Ukrainian gymnasium in Simferopol. Should this be mentioned in this article? It seems significant that although the Republic of Crimea preserved three official languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar most children will only learn Russian; and a minority (also?) Crimean Tatar. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Russian

Why is this article acting as if Crimea is only a part of Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5D00:249:9942:EC01:A4A1:3139 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it is about a political entity within the Russian legal framework? The counterpart Ukrainian entity is covered in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea article, and the article about Crimea in general, as well as about the recent events surrounding it, is, well, at Crimea. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2014; 11:53 (UTC)

Kosovo

So.. do we follow the Kosovo precedent and have Crimea be about the Republic of Crimea? In terms of legality the situation is indeed pretty much identical.. -- Director (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have a different situation with Ireland at the moment. Also, the Republic of Crimea (the Russian entity) does not cover the entire area of the peninsula. The independent state that did so, existed only for a short while. - Anonimski (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The Ireland route is the only NPOV manner at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Um.. Ireland is not an analogous case, not by a long shot.. Do I need to explain all the numerous differences? China, on the other hand, is a much closer case. Kosovo, though, well that's the same thing. — Director (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimea and Ireland are both geographically distinct land formations, independently of national borders. China isn't. - Anonimski (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
How does that matter at all? Crimea does have a land border with Ukraine, and some islands too if I'm not mistaken. How is that relevant? -- Director (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
(see the other post further down, posted simultaneously) - Anonimski (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
China is not the same at all. The PRC has never controlled any of the territory presently governed by the RoC. Kosovo is not similar either, in that it has much more recognition than the Republic of Crimea. We cannot give WP:UNDUE weight to the Republic. We must provide equal coverage of the claims, and strive to be neutral. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
But what is undue? And what is "neutral"? I would argue that, on the contrary, it makes us look biased if we don't follow the Kosovo precedent: "the US POV is favored on enWikipedia".. "If the US says its ok to secede illegally, then they cover the new partially-recognized country as legal; but when the Russians say its ok to secede - then they say the country isn't recognized". Its not my idea: Kosovo was actually cited as a precedent by the Crimeans in their declaration of independence from Ukraine. Its a comparison being brought up by the media.
Is it "neutral" to go by recognition? Recognition is not a reflection of legality, it is a reflection of the diplomatic influence of various blocs. Besides, the RoCrimea isn't out to gain diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state: it has already joined the Russian Federation (unlike, say, Abkhazia). Going by diplomatic recognition, in this case at least, would be detrimental to our coverage of the Crimea. The RoC holds the entire Crimea, and isn't about to get recognized. Bias aside, unless we're prepare to have this state of affairs in perpetuity, we should merge. I would say that's inappropriate considering the RoC's secession is illegal, but then - the Kosovo precedent.
Re the precedents:
  • Ireland is a completely unrelated case: #1 the RoI does not control the entire territory of Ireland, and #2 recognizes Northern Ireland. There is no current diplomatic dispute (outside the IRA ofc). Further #3, Northern Ireland does not claim the whole of Ireland.
  • China is a more related problem: because while the PRC also doesn't control the whole of China (as with Ireland), there is at least some kind of diplomatic dispute to speak of, as both countries claim the whole of "China".
  • Kosovo is an identical legal case. The RoK controls the whole of "Kosovo", and there's a serious diplomatic dispute: the RoK doesn't recognize the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Similarly, the RoCrimea controls the whole of the Crimea, and does not recognize the ARoC.
-- Director (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo would be an identical legal case had it been set up after an Albanian occupation of that region of Serbia. As it is, international observers were not present during the referendum, and it is doubtful that the results are legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.106.130 (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I care about neither law nor recognition. I care about giving the reader facts. At present, "Crimea" can refer to different entities, whether Ukrainian or Crimean. That's why, to be neutral, we send them to an article on the geographic entity, Crimea, which explains the dispute, and then allows them to be directed to the article they are looking for, whether the declared Russian federal subject, or the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic. This is the most neutral way, and simplest for the reader. We cannot give preference for the Russian claim by directing Crimea to Republic of Crimea. If you'd like to move Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo, be my guest. That doesn't concern me here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As I explained, it does concern us here, since both the Crimeans and the media draw the same parallel. Its a precedent. As a matter of fact, Kosovo did used to have the same coverage as Crimea does currently, but the consensus was that this was inappropriate.
We should give the same precedence to the Crimean claim, as we do to the Kosovar claim. Note: the Republic of Crimea does actually administer the Crimea. The ARoC does not administer a square inch of the republic. One might say it has nothing to do with the Crimea. -- Director (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In our case, we have two Russian administrative regions on the geographical landmass known as Crimea. Your proposal would link Crimea to just one of them, instead of describing the whole landmass and its features. - Anonimski (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This is true as well. It was wrong for Crimea to ever be the title of an article that dealt with the Autonomous Republic, and I'm surprised it wasn't changed earlier. However, there is another reason we cannot refer to the Republic of Crimea as Crimea, and that's because of WP:COMMONNAME. At present, "Crimea" does not commonly refer to the Republic in English language sources. It refers to the geographical area, which is disputed between two parties. I wasn't present for the Kosovo decisions, but we do not base our decisions on consistency. We base them on what is better for the encyclopaedia. I'd also point out that a discussion was had on this matter recently, at that it was closed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That's just ideal. One the one hand, read above, "the US POV is favored on enWikipedia". For reference: in US, the court rulings are based on precedent (unlike a lot of other countries, Russia included). On the other hand, read above once more, "we do not base our decisions on consistency". So smooth, convenient and one-sided, with all bases covered, almost perfect - except for common sense. That kind of logic must be really convenient.--128.69.101.99 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I'd echo something Anonimski said above. The Kosovo case and the Crimea case are different insofar as Crimea is a naturally salient geographical unit. We would have an article about Crimea the peninsula even if there had never been a polity of that name or territory. So, as long as the politial matters are messy and contentious, Crimea the peninsula is an obvious contender for primary use status and having the geography article at the simple title is therefore an obvious good solution. With Kosovo it's different: Kosovo (in the territorial shape understood today) is not a natural geographic unit, but exists as a geographic concept only because and insofar as it also is a political territory. The whole concept of "Kosovo (region)", the politically "neutral" compromise topic that was the alternative contender for filling the simple "Kosovo" title, was never really much more than an artifact of Wikipedian political correctness. It had a much weaker claim to be considered the "primary topic", and thus having the polity in that title instead, even if politically contentious, was the correct solution in the light of common usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, alright, agree. Far be it from me to challenge Future's auctoritas... :) -- Director (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
User:DIREKTOR - Agreed that Ireland is irrelevant. Disagree with your use of names. Ireland controls all of the territory of Ireland. It does not control all of the territory of the island of Ireland. IRL please, not ROI (no official status). The Chinese thing is a bit different; there you have a case of rival ideas of state succession etc. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol also isn't part of the RoC, but is part of Crimea, so that's another reason for keeping separate article titles. If we were to merge titles, it would be merging Crimea and the Crimean Federal District, not Crimea and the RoC.--¿3family6 contribs 15:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(Russia)/Archive_2&oldid=1225577738"