Talk:Republic of Crimea (Russia)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Infobox former country

Since there was disagreement on the infobox, I'm starting a thread about it:

Republic of Crimea Республика Крым Республіка Крим Къырым Джумхуриети
2014–2014
Flag Coat of arms
Location of the Republic of Crimea, comprising the former Autonomous Republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol (green)
Status	Partially recognized state
Capital	Simferopol 44°57′N 34°06′E
Common languages	Russian Ukrainian Crimean Tatar
Government	Republic
Legislature	Crimean Parliament
History
• Letter of intent	11 March 2014
• Referendum	16 March
• Declared	17 March
• Annexed	18 March 2014
Area
Total	26,100 km2 (10,100 sq mi)
2007	26,100 km2 (10,100 sq mi)
Population
• 2007	2,352,385
Preceded by Succeeded by Ukraine Russia Republic of Crimea Sevastopol

The infobox was removed after I had started some cleanup and repositioning after it was added. I personally think it's fine, since it gives a good overview of the chronology and the establishment/disestablishment of the state. It also had the same name as the current de-facto Republic of Crimea, so using the Former Country infobox would be good to reduce ambiguity.

Other events related to Russia and Ukraine have already been dealt with using Infobox Former Country, even as separate pages (which is another option): Russian Democratic Federative Republic, Carpatho-Ukraine

What have the arguments been to motivate the deletion? - Anonimski (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

One infobox per article. Infoboxes only exist to summarise the article, and provide key points. They are not supposed to take up the whole side space of the article. There is no need for a second infobox. It is disruptive, and it against MOS:INFOBOX. RGloucester — ☎ 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then there's only one issue left - whether there should be an article for the entity between the Ukrainian and Russian administrations (as with the other examples mentioned). The infobox could be placed there, along with a more detailed day-by-day description. The current state of the presentation on Wikipedia is ambiguous, as the name Republic of Crimea is the name of two chronologically separate entities. - Anonimski (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No. There was such an article, and it was deleted by consensus. It will not be recreated as a fork. RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with re-opening a discussion about whether it's a fork or a separate (as described earlier) entity, now that the "fog of war" and uncertainty around the different events in 2014 has cleared. - Anonimski (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a fork and is a fork, fog or no fog. It isn't coming back unless a deletion review determines that the deletion was faulty. There is no justification for such an article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Any other people who want to share their argumentation on how the short-lived Republic of Crimea entity (which included Sevastopol) should be treated now when it's not so recent anymore? - Anonimski (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I supported having an infobox (and indeed, a separate article) then and I support it now. I disputed the process by which "consensus" was determined against having an article, but it happened, and that's fine, but my understanding at the time was that the infobox would be handled on this page (for which there is precedent; see History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi for an example). I think that's proper, even if the breakaway Republic of Crimea only "legally" "existed" for a day or so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and it's good to see someone with a more argumentative approach. What I don't get is why its article was merged into the article for the next political entity on Crimea. I rember RGloucester opposing it before and calling it a fork. I would like to hear why it is seen as a fork by him/her. I mentioned Russian Democratic Federative Republic and Carpatho-Ukraine, but I get answers such as "It was a fork and is a fork" without arguments that relate to the examples. Anyway, User:Kudzu1 do you think that a deletion review could be started to fix the inconsistency here? - Anonimski (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Under no circumstances. Those situations are not comparable, and even if they were, WP:OTHERSTUFF does not justify violating Wikipedia policies. It was a fork because the other entity was never independently notable in good RS, existed for only a day, and was only a stepping-stone for the purpose of the annexation. Russia was already in control of the Peninsula de facto, so the idea of an "independent state" is a fictional notion. It had no real "capital", or anything else. Such an article could have no more than a sentence or two worth of content that would need to be included here anyway as background information. That's the definition of a content fork, and it is also WP:OR. Please find a book written in the past year (after the events) that separates out this supposed entity. You shan't find one. WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that Russia had control over the chain of events. And I wouldn't condone describing it as "independent" either, it was clearly a transitional state under Russian control. However, your argumentation falls on the fact that there was a political entity that was legally separate from Russia for some while after Ukraine's control was lost. It wasn't like the 1997 handover of Hong Kong, where the Chinese-controlled entity started existing at exactly the same moment when the British-controlled one ended. Russia never formally claimed nor incorporated Crimea into its legal system until some while after their elections were over (even though they had posted troops there). The lack of an article for the "intermediate" step makes the topic lack depth - having an article would give a better overview on how the territory switched hands. As for finding a book, I have no idea what you mean by "separates out". A political entity doesn't need to have been fully independent to have general notability, if that's what you mean.

And how come you're saying that there would be two sentences worth of content? It was one of the most eventful times in the history of the region. Don't you remember how many incidents there were at Ukrainian garrisons, along with various condemnations and speculations from politicians and journalists as the events unfolded? There's a lot of stuff that happened during this intermediate time, so I most surely disagree on that the article would be a stub. - Anonimski (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Two sentences of unique content. The events are already described in depth at Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Breakaway republic, and the entity created is described here as well. There is already significant overlap. As for "finding a book", I meant you are creating WP:OR about this chain of events, because you've not shown RS that were developed after the events that separate the so-called "intermediate step" as a uniquely notable topic, apart from the overall events. Whether a "political entity" actually existed is in question, as well. No RS have been provided to support the existence of the entity in practice, other than immediate sensationalist news reporting on the ground at the time. The reality is that whether this was just a declaration, or whether it actually existed for that day or two, it was not significant in the overall events of the annexation/crisis, as RS do not give it that level of WP:DUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the infobox. I moved it here out of necessity. Someone kept deleting it from the page on the annexation of Crimea because it "didn't look good". Such idiocy does not represent a valid reason for the removal of the article. I tried to restore the article to the page, but the protection status had changed. Thus, I moved it here. If any of you could return the Infobox to that article, then by all means do so, Until then, I have moved it here, since it relates to this page as well. My apologies for any frustration this has caused. Anasaitis (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the thread above. There is no consensus to include another infobox in this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2015; 19:42 (UTC)

I commend Anasaitis for using the talk page rather than continuing to insert controversial infoboxes. Anasaitis has been a proponent of many infoboxes that were removed from other articles or that were part of articles that were deleted. This was an issue with several speculative "Republic of (insert Confederate state here)" American Civil War articles and infoboxes. The Crimea situation shares some of the characteristics, being merely a placeholder for a pre-arranged annexation. Red Harvest (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course I used the talk page. I never planned on ignoring consensus. The only reason it took this long is because I have a career in historical studies which takes up part of my time, I have been extremely busy as of late, so I really haven't had much time to discuss my edits. By the way, thank you for reminding me of the secession crisis. American History has been the main subject matter of my research recently, and it is one of my many specialties. Rest assured I will return my attention to those articles shortly. Anasaitis (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is the first I've seen of you using talk rather than simply reverting. And you have been frequently ignoring consensus and the talk pages with your additions and reverts. The unsourced/speculative material is not likely to gain much traction. Red Harvest (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Public opinion poll, 16–22 January 2015

Regarding this edit, everything has been discussed here, and here, and evidently no consensus was reached. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean that you disagreed with virtually everyone else.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

At least 9 editors: MyMoloboaccount, Tosha, Herzen, Haberstr, HCPUNXKID, Leftcry, KoolerStill, Lunch for Two, Anonimski, seem to agree with me -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Half of those have been banned from the topic or were fly-by-night single purpose accounts, most likely sock puppets. Anyway, no consensus means it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this yet another resurrection of the same old chestnut, Tobby72? Your editing tendencies seem to be incurably WP:TEDIOUS (until you do your short-term disappearing act when the going gets hot). Consensus has been formed already and is being adhered to. It's no accident that your forum-shopping activities die a neglected death and end up relegated to the 'ignored' archives. By no means does that leave them as unfinished business... it means that you cut gaming the system so close to the edge that it's only a matter of time until you've been given enough rope. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Your editing tendencies seem to be incurably WP:TEDIOUS" ... Oh my God! ... Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. It's known as calling a spade a spade when the contributor in question constantly rails against consensus, forum shops, and does everything they can to dart under the radar only to disappear just in time before ARBEE sanctions become the next step. Feel free to go through my contributions over the years: I drop the stick the moment I realise that I'm not hearing what other editors are telling me; I'm able to work collaboratively with editors who have perspectives on any given content that doesn't adhere to mine; I am here to create an encyclopaedic resource; I am not here to right great wrongs according to my own POV. Whatever positive input you've contributed to the project, it simply doesn't balance out against the negatives in your approach. Everything about your methodology smacks of gaming the system, and I say that without reservations or apologies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Visa for Crimeans with the Russian passports

I corrected info about visa for Crimeans with the Russian passports. They don't get visa for Western countries (see various sources). Besides the source TASS used "a representative of a tourist agency in Crimea" is not reliable, if not to say a bad joke. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the information about special permissions should probably go to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea article, not this one. The Ukrainian government does not recognize the Republic of Crimea, so any permissions they issue would pertain to the division of Ukraine, not that of Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 10, 2015; 16:22 (UTC)

I agree it is not about Republic of Crimea. About visas: my friends from Crimea have got visas of Latvia in Moscow. But in common is not a material for the paper. I think that in the paper we should write only summary about international recognition and give a reference to the main page of the quastion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoKiev01 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of the press in Russia is at the moment bad. So to use only Russian (or Ukrainian) sources about anything going on in Crimea is a bad idea. And in Wikipedia we can not use "personal experiances" to edit Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:No original research). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 12:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Besides LeoKiev01, I am strickly using Wikipedia guidelines when editing. And that is the only way to make Wikipedia better. So don't give me that "You know only declarations and statements from news. You don't have absolute truth". As I stated above; in Wikipedia it is not allowed to ask friends involved in the subject what is going on and then incorporate their findings in a Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not use "personal experiances" as sources (it was in "Talk" and just for you if you do not believe in the reality we should to live in). Ukrainian and Russian references are not worse than US or EU. We can use all the sources to prove a material. I see your variant with "The official line of" as good one. But again if you show one side of reality, let me show another too. LeoKiev01 (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "reality", it is about sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper to find out why I wrote my above comment today. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

PS Ofcourse Crimeans can get visas to EU countries; if they kept their Ukrainian passport they can get one in Kyiv (which is much easier then traveling to Moscow (to get one)....). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Annexation/acception

I once again remind that using term "annexation" is incorrect towards Crimea (see Annexation) and as a Ukrainian I ask wikipedia's editors not to support Poroshenko's regime in his info war. Viktor Š 21:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)

If we use Russian terms: Autonomous Republic of Crimea became the independent Republic of Crimea that was absorbed by Russia. If we use Ukranian terms: the Crimean peninsula was annexed by Russia. So I described both processes now: the formation according the Russian constitution (because the topic is about Russian federal subject maybe fake) and a link to annexation of Crimea in total.LeoKiev01 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Crimean opinion poll

Regarding to this edit [1] ... Sources are provided, this is nothing more than a POV push. Editing from a neutral point of view (per WP:NPOV) means representing "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Type in the word "poll" into the archive search box. Polls have been discussed before and it's up to you to convince editors that they should be included. You have a pretty skewed view of what constitutes NPOV. You're welcome to ignore the policy on edit warring because you think your own edits are "non-negotiable" but you do so with a risk of being blocked. Volunteer Marek  14:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring against multiple editors [2], [3]. Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources, not the opinions of editors. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please not mimic my comments? This issue was discussed, consensus was against you, yet ever since you come to these articles about once a week and try to sneak in your material. A pretty clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We were in the process of discussing the issue, but there was clearly NO consensus to delete the material in question, which was reliably sourced and verified. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If the material's contentious you need consensus to include not to exclude. You're also obviously aware of previous discussions, hence you actually KNOW you're edit warring against consensus. Volunteer Marek  20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No clear consensus was reached. You have repeatedly reverted edits by at least 2 editors: Tobby72: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed, Anonimski: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree Volunteer Marek may be too politicized. He may edit with its only opiniong without listening to others. And he does not participate talks he is invited by me. And nobody supports his point of view in the quastion. More information from different sources more chances to understand the truth. LeoKiev01 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I participate in talk. In particular the issue of this poll was previously discussed and consensus was not to include. And did I mention how sick and tired I am of dealing with suspicious single purpose accounts who come back again and again and try to do the same thing over and over again against consensus? Volunteer Marek  06:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you want to add the poll? You think it is too pro-russian, dont you? No, it is made by the side that is initially pro-western. I understand that results are no so good for us but we should accept ang go forward. May be we will add some other polls if we find them. Lets work together on looking for a broad information ? LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue of the poll has been discussed before. Look in the archives here and on related articles. "Pro-russian" (sic) or "pro-western" ain't got nothing to do with it. Volunteer Marek  13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@LeoKiev01:, I suggest that you stop with the revert-warring while this discussion is still ongoing. I've protected the article for now because the disruption is getting out of hand, and will start implementing stricter administrative measures (including blocking, if necessary) if these reverts resume when the protection expires. I suggest you use the following week to work towards achieving a consensus (which I hope you understand might not turn out to be in favor of your position).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2015; 15:40 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: Look what was reverted last time. It is about a Serbian PMs' visit like other load visits in the section. Discussion is about the pool and I don't touch it anymore. So please return the information about PM's deleted by Volunteer Marek and then by Kudzu1. LeoKiev01 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@LeoKiev01: I am not here to participate in this dispute; I'm here to make sure that disagreements are resolved in a collegial manner without disruption to the encyclopedia (and of course I protected the The Wrong Version, as any admin would). You'll have to work with the other party with regards to the matters of content in dispute.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2015; 17:06 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: - if you are neutral in the dsipute, you should also have asked Marek to stop edit warring. You can only protect one version, correct, but you can ask both sides to stop editing and to discuss. 2015-10-06a (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to warn both sides when there is a dispute with no consensus. Here, consensus clearly had been established previously, so there is little sense in warning a user who was in good faith trying to uphold it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 13, 2015; 22:04 (UTC)

@LeoKiev01 and Tobby72: per NPOV this should be included, not? 2015-10-06a (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72 and LeoKiev01, please can you drop this. There is a consensus, which Volunteer Marek is merely upholding.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Serbian PMs

Ladies and gentelmen
I offer to continue adding information about load visits to Crimea in the International status section and add a new paragraph after the Silvio Berlusconi's visit. It is mainly from a Serbian source.

On October 27, 2015, a Serbian delegation ot eight members of the Serbian Parlament and the Dveri Movement arrived on a visit to Crimea. "We want to express support for the Russian people and residents of Crimea who have returned to their historical homeland," - said Sanda Raskovic, the head of the delegation. Raskovic Ivic underscored that in the same way that the Christianization of Rus started in Crimea the Christianization of Serbia began in Kosovo. Serbian politicians are expected to hold an official meeting with Presidential Envoy to Crimea Oleg Belaventsev, Crimea Leader Sergei Aksenov and speaker of the Crimean Parliament Vladimir Konstantinov.

Are there any objections and why? LeoKiev01 (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot LeoKiev01. 2015-10-06a (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see two problems with last edit [4]. First, it changes lede in a POV manner ("after the independent Republic of Crimea had been absorbed" - this is highly disputable). Second, the visit by 8 members of Serbian Parlament does not change much the international status of Crimea. Same can be said about other similar visits by members of other parliaments. All of them should be actually removed from the section, especially since we have a separate page Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This section is about Serbian PMs. Your 'First' was replaced to a new section to discuss. So there are described load visits of politicians not ordinary people or even celebrities. It is very disputed if it changes much or not. Or if it should change much or not to be in the section. For example, does the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 change much? It determines nothing and any country may and does violate it without legal consequences. Our goverment has forbided foreign ships to go to Crimean ports. And what? The chinese ship lays submerged cables between Russia and Crimea in Kerch. So I don't see the reason to delete the information about politic visits. The article is not very big and is quite balanced. LeoKiev01 (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some things are highly relevant here. They include UN resolutions and official recognition by other governments. They can/should be mentioned here. Other things, such as visits by politicians are also relevant, but they should be mentioned on another page we already have: Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. The less notable and important claims represent WP:Content fork. Hence my removal. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand your idea. I think mentioning load politic visits can show that actually some politics and some countries allow themselves to go to Crimea despite restrictions. Some people refuse to accept this fact (I know them) so this information can help them to see the full picture. It helps to balance the article and show the problem from different points of view. If a quantity of such visits becomes huge we'll shorten them to mentioning that fact. Lets do it this way? LeoKiev01 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be described in another page that we have, Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. Here, we should only provide very brief summary. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

change needed as second sentence does not make sense

Any administrator reading: the second sentences does not make sense. It currently says "It became a federal subject of Russia after being Republic of Crimea had been absorbed by the Russian Federation." Could I suggest: "It became a federal subject of Russia after the self- declared, independent Republic of Crimea, had signed a treaty of accession with the Russian Federation: a move that most countries regard as an annexation." Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Black out

I am in Crimea now at my friends. One of main topics is repetead black out made by Ukraine as a new year gift. May be we should write about it too? LeoKiev01 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The formation of the Republic of Crimea

Copy the phrase of My very best wishes: 'a POV manner ("after the independent Republic of Crimea had been absorbed" - this is highly disputable)'

In the article we describe a fake and its fake history and formation. This is the Russian subject this article is about. In the first section there is shortly discribed what is the Republic of Crimea and how it has been formed. 1. The Republic of Crimea (not Crimea as a whole or the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) is defenitly a subject of Russia (as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a region in Ukraine). 2. How did Russia form it? Russia formed it from the independent Republic of Crimea. Is it true? Yes. Nevertheless we have to mention that the whole Crimea is recognised internationally as annexed by Russia formed its fake subjects. So the world recognise neither the absorbtion of the independent Republic of Crimea nor the independent Republic of Crimea. LeoKiev01 (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial international issue. It should not be discussed or POV-pushed one way or another in intro. I simply made it shorter to avoid disputable claims: "It became a federal subject of Russia after annexation by the Russian Federation". There is no questions that it indeed was annexed - per a vast majority of RS, and we have a corresponding WP page ("Annexation...") to link. P.S. An annexed territory can be internationally recognized as a part of another (annexing) country. This is a separate question. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right about a highly controversial issue. But your shortening kills everything)) May be we can think about another phrase? For example, the sentence from the Taurida Governorate: "It was formed after the Taurida Oblast was abolished in 1802 in the course of Paul I's administrative reform of the South-Western territories that had been annexed from the Crimean Khanate". May be in this way? "The Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol were formed after the independent Republic of Crimea had been absorbed by the Russian Federation. The short living independent Republic of Crimea was established with help of Russia on the territory of the Crimean peninsula that was considered by most countries as annexation it from Ukraine." ? What do you think? Both points of view are briefly shown. But I think the current version is quite balanced and brief. Maybe you can offer another balanced variant? LeoKiev01 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the subject of this page? It tells: "Republic of Crimea is a federal subject of Russia" [meaning modern-day Russia]. That's fine, but then the Taurida Oblast and the Crimean Khanate are hardly relevant. What relevant is the annexation by the Russian Federation which led to formation of the "Republic of Crimea" (subject of this page), and we have a large separate page on this subject. Some rephrasing is certainly possible. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. Taurida Governorate was for showing an example of description in another article for Crimea that was annexed by Russia in past time.LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Current version is misleading because it tells about "independent Republic of Crimea" that [freely] joined Russia, but in fact there was no "independent Republic of Crimea" because the Crimean Parliament (and the whole peninsula) was taken over by the Russian military forces, as has been openly acknowledged later by Putin. I know, you are probably going to object, but simply telling that it was annexed resolves all problems in intro.My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately in fact "independent Republic of Crimea" existed and in fact "the Republic of Crimea" exists... Goverment exists, Crimean laws exists, etc. Try to go to Crimea without Russian permission and you feel it... Sure, according to Ukraine law and most countries (de jure) there was no "the independent Republic of Crimea" and there is no "the Republic of Crimea". According to Rissia law (de jure too) there were the declaration of independence (like Kosovo did) and incorporation. The only powerful international institution UNSC could not make a decision about Crimea because of Russia. So what we see in the World is battle of laws of different countries (different de jures) and de facto Russian republic plus Sevastopol.LeoKiev01 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Right now it exists as a federal subject of Russian federation, not as an independent country. Before it existed as a part of Ukraine, and it is still considered a part of the Ukraine by many countries. If it actually was an independent country during a brief period of time is something highly controversial, in part because the local Crimean parliament was taken over by Russian special forces during this time. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Absorbed" is obvious POV.User:Volunteer Marek 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Absorbed" is sourced: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26630062 "President Vladimir Putin and the leaders of Crimea have signed a bill to absorb the peninsula into Russia." Is there that much of a difference? --62.154.197.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

But as discussed a dozen times previously, "annexed" is way way way more widely used. Even the source you quote uses "annexed".User:Volunteer Marek 18:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you what: find two, just two, reliable sources in English that say "annexed", put them as a source and we are done. Cheers, --62.154.197.99 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] etc. etc. etc. And that's just recent ones. See also [13].User:Volunteer Marek 20:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Bigger Yawn. Those links only show indirect references to Crimea being "annexed"... Plus, why don't you, Marek, explain why you had to sneak in the deletion of this part, which is both factual and sourced? "51% of the world countries, including Ukraine, making up about 33% of the world population, voted in favor of a UN Resolution that stated that the Crimean Peninsula is territory of Ukraine annexed by Russia.[13][14]" Cheers, --62.154.197.99 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This info belongs to a different page, Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sneaked in eh? I wonder where you picked up such language. Anyway, that part was original research. And no, those sources call the phenomenon "annexation" as do the vast majority of sources.User:Volunteer Marek 17:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it belongs *in* a different page, our beloved Marek could have moved there instead of deleting it, don't you think, my dear?

Marek: Yes, sneaked, or *snuck* like we would say in the US, but, instead of discussing ad nauseam, why don't you find a couple of English speaking, reliable, sources that directly quote "Russia annexed Crimea" (it should not be hard to find, since media all agree on it) and put it in? That would be it and we would be done. Cheers, --Sixtytwoonefiftyfouroneninesevenninenine (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. If you don't want to accept them, then that's your problem. And these gratuitous passive aggressive insults and tone along the lines of "beloved Marek", "Iryna, my girl", and the (mistaken) lectures on the proper usage of English... where have I hears that one before? Please go troll somewhere else.User:Volunteer Marek 02:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If sources are there then write "Crimea was annexed by Russia just like it was done for "Crimea was absorbed by the Russian federation", and done. You started the language diatribe, Marek, and you know my lecture is right otherwise you would have written, sorry, "you would have wrote", a rebuttal. Just like you started the personal attack by calling me a troll. I will respond the same to you, Marek> go troll somewhere else. You speak pretty good English, though, for someone who was not born in North America, I'll give you that. Cheers, --Sixtytwoonefiftyfouroneninesevenninenine (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Simply telling that it was annexed was exactly what I did [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You did state that it was annexed, MVBW, but there were two problems with your sources: 1) they are Ukrainian and to listen to Ukrainian sources about this issue is like listening to RT about this same issue, very biased; and 2) the sources are in Ukrainian: the vast majority of English speakers have no clue what it says in those two articles. You, Marek, Irina, Ymblanter, etc. are all Ukrainian, or Russian, or whatever, and therefore it is perfectly OK for you guys to see nothing wrong with a link in Ukrainian but this is en.wikipedia.org not ua.wikipedia.org. Look, I will go search for a reliable source in English, can you please give it a go, too? Cheers, --Sixtytwoonefiftyfouroneninesevenninenine (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

English language sources have been provided by VM above. Telling that they were not is just as bad as making personal attacks on another contributor. That's why you were blocked, and rightly so. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The use of Russian and Ukrainian language sources is completely acceptable under Wikipedia policy. They are also more useful to the reader than most English language sources, in that the authors know what they are talking about. Wikipedia articles often provide researchers with a way into the the sources for a subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Сolleagues, as we describe the Republic of Crimea (not Crimea as a whole) that exists only according Russian Law we need to describe it according Russian Law BUT BUT BUT After that we have to write that all these actions (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine) => the Republic of Crimea (independent) => the Republic of Crimea (Russia) ) are considered by many countries as an annexation. I agree in this way with Spiritofstgeorge. And there is no bad thing in "annexation". It is usual process in world politics. The plus here is that it was without blood and with the support of the majority of the Crimean population LeoKiev01 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term 'annexation' has been discussed to death (here are three examples of disputes over the use of force and incorporate as descriptors being POV pushed). Annexation is a neutral term. Under international law, the term is used to describe both legitimate agreements and legally contested acquisitions... but I couldn't be bothered finding the sources for the descriptor yet again. Reading the sentence "It became a federal subject of Russia after being Republic of Crimea had been absorbed by the Russian Federation." is pure cringe factor and unencyclopaedic. The RF is not a sponge or a piece of paper towelling, and presenting it as if it were is a really, really WP:BADIDEA. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it by providing an appropriate wikilink. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone correct population figures?

Hi. The population figures in thr infobox refer to the whole of Crimea and not just the Republic of Crimea. Should be changed if anyone can source the information or a note placed against the article to point this out. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Ezhiki, is updating population by locality on your list (or may be it has already been done)?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's on my list, but unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to get to it myself any time soon.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 4, 2016; 14:14 (UTC)

I can do it if you set up a template and use it as an example in one article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Just point me to the source you want to use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 4, 2016; 16:57 (UTC)

I was thinking about this one (specifically, the excel sheet which opens at 1.3).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to do it by the end of today. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 4, 2016; 17:21 (UTC)

Great, thanks. There is no hurry.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, but it so happens I have time today for just this sort of thing. Anyway, I've created two templates: {{Crimea-census2014}} and {{Crimea-pop-ref}}, which are used in the same way you would {{ru-census2010}} and {{ru-pop-ref}}. Let me know if you still would like a usage example, though. Also, Crimean Census (2014) is a red link; feel free to create/rename/unlink it if you think it would work better.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 4, 2016; 18:19 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I will start adding it and will see whether there are any difficulties.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

www.pewglobal.org

The following was removed:

A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation. [15] Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise the results.

So before someone says something, yes I searched the archives but it was mostly back/forth NPOV dispute ect... The thing I haven't seen answered anywhere is that; is www.pewglobal.org a reliable source? If it is a reliable source okay, then what other source can we add in the paragraph that also speaks for the other side? If you cant prove that a source is biased or that the people who conducted the polling on either side of the fence are biased then there is not much we can do here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:SELFSOURCE applies here. The source is published by the Pew Research Centre, about an activity by the Pew Research Centre. Such material is allowed providing:

• "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." - It is an exceptional claim
• "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." - It does.

Therefore, we also need third party sources that talk about this particular Pew Research Centre poll. If we have third party sources, then we can also use the Pew Research Centre link as a source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Disputed statement

From the lead:

"In March 2014, following the takeover of Crimea by pro-Russian separatists and Russian Armed Forces..."

I cant find any more neutral way of saying what is already in text, the Russians admitted later on that yes in fact they were in Crimea. Don't confuse Crimea with Donbass which is disputed by Russian media when it comes to involvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence from Ukraine

There is a subsection 'Declaration of Independence from Ukraine'. I tried to add a main article Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea and that change has just been reverted. Why can it be inappropriate to add a main article that is entirely about the subject of the subsection? It must be helpful to alert readers to the existance of the other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaz1984 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why someone would revert that. It's appropriate in the context presented. Did the person who did the revert explain why? If not, make the change again and ask for explanation if anyone is considering a revert. Jtpaladin (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of Russian names for raions and municipalities

An interesting edit has just been reverted that tried to change the spelling of some administrative divisions to reflect Russian instead of Ukrainian language. Since this article is written from a Russian perspective, part of this would be that the names should lso be from a Russian perspective. I understand that it makes sense to leave the names from a Ukrainian perspective in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea article, but don't see what that convention should also apply in this article. 1984Qaz (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that wasn't an 'interesting' edit, it was a disruptive, POV edit pointing to articles that don't exist. I suggest that you take a look at this RM, followed by this thread on the Luhansk People's Republic article's talk page to get an idea of the policy and guidelines involved in changing nomenclature. The point is that we don't change geographic nomenclature to suit the POV of an article: it's an across-the-board issue which is applied to all articles using the geographic terminology. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative response. However could I ask something else then: as the Republic of Crimea website uses different spellings for some of the names than those given in this article, should that not be a key factor in deciding the spellings used in this article? Thanks 1984Qaz (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in cases like this I believe the most efficient and simple way is to link to articles titled using the names/conventions for places in Ukraine (e.g., "Nyzhnohirskyi Raion") but to pipe them with variants used by the names/conventions for places in Russia ([[Nyzhnohirskyi Raion|Nizhnegorsky District]]). That's how I've been doing it on disambiguation pages and in set index articles, and I don't recall any complaints. Obviously, this only works when the entity in question covers the same territory from both Ukrainian and Russian points of view. When/if Russians start making administrative changes, then obviously having separate articles will become a necessity. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2016; 16:50 (UTC)

Well, piping is used (inconsistently) in the body of many articles for alternative COMMONNAMEs in articles, although usually for proper names for people. Strict usage is a WP:TITLE issue. My position on using Russian conventions for this article is neutral, so if there's consensus amongst editors to pipe any of the raions, I'm fine with it. Note, however, that the IP's changes were bizarre WP:OR changes. Most of the names here are actually English conventions. Just as an example, the change from Nyzhnegorskiy Raion (a mish-mash of Russian and Ukrainian) to Nyzhnohirskyi Raion was a straight change to the Ukrainian transliteration, as was Belogorsk Raion to Bilohirsk Raion and a few others. If it is deemed to be desirable, I think it needs to be properly researched in order to establish which convention is actually Ukrainian (i.e., the majority aren't straight Ukrainian conventions). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't that fond of the IP's version either, but then there aren't, strictly speaking, Ukrainian "conventions" to speak of. Over the years I've seen several editors use different naming approaches in editing articles related to Ukraine, but unfortunately none of them finished the job, so we now have a mishmash of different naming schemes. It didn't help that those approaches weren't well thought-out to begin with, so it looks that once those editors ran into situations where their approach didn't work, all enthusiasm for further work had been lost. In all, it's a mess. My comment, however, only applies to the disputed (i.e., Crimean) localities/entities, with the main link leading to whatever title the article about the Ukrainian entity uses at the moment. The main point is that in the articles covering the Russian point of view (like this one), it does not really help having toponyms transliterated from Ukrainian, since it's not likely that the majority of the readers of those articles would be prompted to come here by a Ukrainian-based source. Piping a link resolves that problem without having to create unnecessary duplicate articles. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2016; 19:13 (UTC)

NPOV

The Republic of Crimea is not "a federal subject of Russia". Only Russia and its closest minions maintain that Crimea is legally part of Russia. Wikipedia must follow the international law on such matters, and cannot be used to promote Russian propaganda. Crimea is part of Ukraine, illegally occupied by Russia since the 2014 invasion - that is the view of the international community, which Wikipedia must reflect.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the Republic of Crimea is a federal subject of Russia. It does not exist outside of this context. Your concerns are addressed in Political status of Crimea.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The facts are that the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, and subsequent rigged referendum, followed by annexation, are not accepted under international law or by the United Nations. Therefore the territory should not be described as a federal subject of Russia. It is Russian occupied Ukrainian territory. This is not my opinion, it is fact. You refer to the Wikipedia article on the political status of Crimea. To quote from there - "Ukraine and the majority of the international community do not consider the merge, the independence, the referendum, nor the annexation legitimate and still consider both entities as divisions of Ukraine". This article still shows the results of official Russian manipulation.203.80.61.102 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you failed to read my response. Republic of Crimea is by definition a federal subject of Russia and does not exist out of this context.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

POV statement regarding population

This article claims that this entity, unrecognised under Ukrainian or international law or by the international community, has "a population of 1,891,465" as if this was merely an uncontroversial statement of fact. That is patently false. Under Ukrainian and international law all of those are Ukrainian citizens. A wording on how many people live in the part of Ukraine in question should be worded differently; e.g.

1,891,465 people live in the area claimed by Russia to be part of the "Republic of Crimea"

--Tataral (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Whereas this is (almost) factually correct (of course not all of these are Ukrainian citizens, and the article does not address the number of foreigners living in Crimea), this is not how we do things in Wikipedia. Nobody writes e.g. that Taiwan claims its population or area to be smth; Taiwan article merely states what its population is. The controversy is appropriately addressed in the article, with sufficient number of references, and we do not need to write in every line "claimed to be" (like some immature Ukrainian vandals tried at the early stages of the conflict).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

At the time of the 2001 Census, 3.7% of residents of Sevastopol either held no citizenship, or were citizens of other countries.(see page 111).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Republic of China has not invaded any other country, at least not recently; moreover, it existed long before the People's Republic of China, which has never even held control of the island of Taiwan. That is not at all comparable to Crimea, universally recognised as an integral part of Ukraine today. --Tataral (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We hardly have an article where a population is sourced and still referred to "claimed as". If I am wrong please show me such an article. Of course every territory claims to have certain population and conducts censuses for that, this is pretty normal, we just do not write "claims to have the population of".--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Is there a competing claim for the population size?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)