Talk:Republic of Crimea (Russia)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Possible consensus building.

@96.9.247.171 and Wikitigresito:

Before this spirals into a full-blown edit war, can we please discuss the issues at hand? Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, I do not really object stressing the fact that Crimea is internationally recognized to be part of Ukraine, but to my knowledge, this very controversial article has been subject to extensive discussions and therefore I object just changing important parts without building consensus first. wikitigresito (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The current wording under the map in the infobox is "Location of the Republic of Crimea (red) in Russia (light yellow)". It would be better if it said "Location of the Republic of Crimea (red) in Russia (light yellow). The Republic of Crimea is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine."-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a good compromise, yes. I do hope @96.9.247.171: responds to my request for comment. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In principle, the lede explains it, so I think it would be an overkill, but, well, fine with me. Btw I do not think we should search for a compromise with the IP since they clearly do not edit in good faith and are not here to build up an encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I understand your objective and generally agree with you, however, I think the argument does make some sense. Does someone have an overview, whether there are any precedents for this? wikitigresito (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

My objective is actually to agree once on the format and after that to avoid disruption caused by drive-by editors who are not interested in establishing consensus. (Contrary to what many users say, I do not nave pro-Russian nor pro-Ukrainian position, as many users who have been editing in the area long enough can attest). I personally think that the short description of the situation (Crimea was part of Ukraine and was occupied by Russia in 2014; Russia claims it is Russia, Ukraine claims it is Ukraine, internationally it is recognized as part of Ukraine) should be present in the articles, and more detailed description goes to dedicated articles such as Political status of Crimea. Once the description is there (and it is there, in the lede), it is not really necessary every time the article mentions Crimea to say that it is illegally occupied and that it is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. It is not just my opinion, we had a lot of these discussion all over the place in 2014, and all editors active in the area converged to this understanding. (I do not think there is one single place it is written, it is scattered through many talk pages). Despite the general consensus between all editors in the area, we still have a lot of nationalist, both Russian and Ukrainian, editors, who come and change things unilaterally, and typically are either not interested in discussing them, or claim that the consensus I mentioned does not exist, or variations thereof. I believe I have most articles on Crimean topics on my watchlist since at least 2014.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it is fair to challenge a consensus built four years ago based on arguments. It is true that the overall appearance of the article makes it look a little too much like any other Russian state, especially when compared with other disputed territories. What do you think about including a "status" section in the infobox, like it was done at Golan Heights? wikitigresito (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is an article about a Russian subdivision, not about a geographical area. (We also have Autonomous Republic of Crimea about the Ukrainian subdivision, and Crimea about the geographical entity. Crimea has the status in the infobox). If you want to challenge the consensus, open an RfC (though in this case the closing admin might want to cross out votes of editors normally not active on the English Wikipedia).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Though when an editor with a tenure of a month and 100 edits starts getting seriously involved in meta-issues like opening an RfC it most likely means block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see how this is normally included in article for the geographical region and not the political entity. Looks like I am fine with the current version then. Also, please stay cool and avoid speculations about block evasion. wikitigresito (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we accept my original edit? Again, I feel very uncomfortable having to discuss the obvious here as if Wikipedia page re-writes the truth and defines the truth. Indeed some topics may have multiple competing opinions but Crimea is different. European country borders, Ukraine, are being forcibly re-drawn by a larger country, Russia, and we try to reach 'consensus' if we should mention about this on a page about Crimea and ...somehow current version of the page just provides a summary: Crimea is a republic in Russia. The original edit reflects situation correctly and in the correct order: Crimea, internationally recognised as a part of Ukraine, is shown with respect to map of Russia who annexed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.247.171 (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Because (1) this is an article about the Russian subdivision, not about the Ukrainian subdivision; (2) it is already mentioned in the lede of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In its current form and it does not matter if it is about subdivision in Australia or Russia, the summary makes annexation look normal, an accepted fact. So unless you are willingly misinform the public, you have to mention that Crimea is internationally recognised as a part of Ukrain in the summary 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: theoretically, it is possible to add a non-recognition note, either directly visible as here, or in a ruwiki-like footnote manner. But this will require (1) template alteration to allow for one of above solutions, and, likely, (2) symmetric (foot)note about Russian control in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea infobox (which is technically simplier, however, since that template allows free wikisyntax in status field). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why provided that the information is in the lede of either article. It can not be more visible than it is now.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal: "Crimea is a part of Ukraine that is annexed and controlled by the Russian Federation. Internationally Crimea is considered Ukraine, Russia considers Crimea part of..." 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Note should be visible in the summary, use the same font as other messages. I believe current version is already acceptable. Footnote is not acceptable. Summary already hides a lot of important information. 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: It is really unfortunate that Ymblanter and some other contributors to this page consistently try to block me. I believe that Crimea pages are under strong control / influence of people connected to Russian government interests. Wikipedia should do something about this. Wikipedia should not be used for propaganda by a totalitarian regime as it happens here and now. 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This clearly demonstrates your battleground mentality and that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is why you will be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you stop 'building consensus'? Or you all already have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.247.203 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, disruptive editors have been blocked, and will be blocked again if disruption resumes.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter: you mean that you will try hard, with your co-conspirators from Russian troll farms, to suppress any objective edit? You have an assignment to claim annexed Crimea for Russia and you will do whatever it takes to fulfil this assignment. Did I miss something about you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.107.189 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are using a dynamical IP, otherwise I would ask to block your static IP. In the current situation, I will just stop reacting to the bullshit you are writing.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter: First of all, please use civilized language. Although, probably, you do have a military rank in the Russian army or security service, KGB/FSB, and they are not known for being polite. Second of all, let's get back to the topic of discussion. Summary page should mention that Crimea internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.106.164 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This Crimea page is being controlled by Russia government trolls

I start a new section to deal with proliferation of Russian trolls on this page. 'Republic of Crimea' page deliberately misleads public by providing incorrect information in its summary that the Crimea is a part of Russia. The Crimea is a part of Ukraine that was illegally annexed by Russia in clear violation of international law. Wikipedia is being used as a tool of Russian propaganda. It is time to stop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.106.164 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If the KGB were actually controlling this page, you'd be dead already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Great point - Thank you! KGB/FSB is well known for intimidation and threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.106.164 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Formatting/Coding bug

There appears to be a small formatting/coding bug under the subtitle "population estimate":

1,913,731 (<span style="color:Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".%)

I don't know how to fix it, but I presume it's no big task (:

This is an error in the template code. Some people just wanted too much to standartize the template and ignored the warnings that this standartization is going to produce too many errors. Everything was working fine before the standartization. Let them fix this now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Main article

It is the second time I have to remove irrelevant "main articles" to subsections like in the Science section to European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service and European Space Agency. Neither of those articles even mention Crimea lets along provide in-depth information about the Science there. What is the point?

I guess the user wants to inform readers that some Crimean scientific institutions cooperate with the European agencies. Please add this info to the body of the article or to the bodies of the "main articles" but do not add those articles as main without explaining to the readers what do you mean. Just as it done now is ridiculous. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an indefinitely blocked user evading a block. Just revert on sight, optionally block the IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article because of possible sockpuppetry. I see an IP user with a very weak command of English who is trying to contribute but whose edits are not helpful because it is often difficult to guess what he means. If he or she would suggest an edit on the talk page rather than edit directly it would be more useful. I guess we could even consider suggestions made in Russian or Ukrainian. I do not know if the IP editor is a sock of a banned user and so I feel uncomfortable to ban. The contributions seem to be in good faith but hardly usable Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

We paid a sum of money for the translation of the text. Are you sure of your judgment? --185.15.37.26 (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, this is pretty clearly a sock of ICrimea--Ymblanter (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not know, who is iCrimea! --178.34.187.142 (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Military on the peninsula of Crimea

Sevastopol Naval Base. Not Republic of Crimea. A sandwich Military of Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.15.37.165 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"R.O. Crimea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect R.O. Crimea. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a joke, right?

If Wikipedia needs a way to advertise its complete and irredeemable capture by the deep state, they should post this article on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.51.70 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Article protected status should be changed to semi-protected

Due to the controversial nature of the political status of the Crimean peninsula, there have been numerous anonymous users vandalizing this article. I believe that updating the protection status to semi-protected will help solve the issue of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael60634 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"de facto federal subject?"

How is Crimea a "federal subject" of Russia exactly? Wikipedia doesn't say the West Bank is a de facto part of Israel but rather that it has been under occupation. The same should apply to Crimea vis-a-vis Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.89.106 (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't expect anyone on Wikipedia to give you a sensible answer. That's why no-one trusts the site. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sirhissofoxley We don't ask anyone to trust Wikipedia(see Wikipedia is not a reliable source). You are right, you should not trust Wikipedia. We present the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to what to believe. Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources. We say that Crimea "is a federal subject (republic) of Russia located on the disputed Crimean Peninsula" because that is what independent reliable sources report. We say that the West Bank is under occupation because that is what independent reliable sources report. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone stop russian bots from naming Crimea a federal subject of Russia? This violates international law

Can someone stop russian bots from naming Crimea a federal subject of Russia? This violates international law and numerous national laws and should be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Russian bots" are not at work here, but humans. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, they state that the status of Crimea is disputed, that Crimea is adminstered as part of Russia, and that many countries consider Crimea to be occupied. If you have an army that you can send to Crimea to drive the Russian military out and retake Crimea for Ukraine, then go ahead and do so and independent sources will report that. This dispute will not be solved on Wikipedia, so we stick to summarizing sources. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian bot is a human that is paid to do what Kremlin tells him to do, if you did not know that. Status of Crimea is not disputed, it is internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, illegally temporarily occupied and administered by Russia and should be marked as such, not as a federal subject of Russia. And have you seriously suggested to start a war to make sure Wikipedia has a correct marking for this territory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk)

NO they are not a bot and Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a separate entity from Republic of Crimea. This article is about the latter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No one pays me to do anything. I suggest you withdraw your accusation or back it up with evidence that I am a Russian agent. I'd love to see that evidence. As noted, there are two different entities here, the political subdivision of Ukraine and the entity Russia created to administer its occupation/annexation. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please also show the international law or UN resolution which requires Wikipedia to display or not display certain content. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The article does not say that Crimea is a federal subject of Russia. It correctly says that the Republic of Crimea is, just as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an autonomous republic of Ukraine. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"*Please also show the international law or UN resolution which requires Wikipedia to display or not display certain content." are you serious? This is your argument?

"The article does not say that Crimea is a federal subject of Russia. It correctly says that the Republic of Crimea is, just as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an autonomous republic of Ukraine. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)"

Well it's exactly what 332dot keeps inputting here: "The Republic of Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia" while, even by his words, it should be "The Republic of Crimea is an internationally recognized part of Ukraine, temporarily illegally occupied and administered by Russia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ You said that it is illegal for the article to be written as it is now- I asked you to support what you claim by showing the international law or UN resolution which makes that illegal. I again request that you withdraw your accusation that I am a Russian agent or "bot" unless you have evidence of that. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That is because that is what it is, we do not say that "the Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia" or that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia" We say that the entity the Russians set up is a Rusian entity. we also say "which was annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014, but it is still internationally recognized as being part of Ukraine". So we do not say it is Russian.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well this is incorrect, as 332dot wants it to be written that Crimea is a federal subject of Russia. He edited this article in exactly this way. If the article would say that this is an entity set up by Russia to administer occupied Autonomous Republic of Ukraine, it would reflect the correct state of play. But for now, 332dot insists to have it marked as "Crimea is a federal subject of Russia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Russian-created puppet state, and we do say it was annexed by Russia, and it not internationally recognized. This article is not about the Crimea.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Once again, the article does not say that Crimea is a federal subject of Russia, but that the Republic of Crimea is. Until you get that difference there is little point discussing anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(separately -- also after edit conflict)

I don't want to do this as a WP:BOLD edit, but how about rewording

is a federal subject (republic) of Russia located on the disputed Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014, but it is still internationally recognized as being part of Ukraine.

to read something like

is located on the disputed Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014. It is considered by Russia and by Crimean lawmakers to be a federal subject (republic) of Russia, but it remained internationally recognized as being part of Ukraine.

... supporting the assertion re Crimean lawmakers by re-using the cite of this source which appears in the 2014 annexation section, if support is considered needful here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bit wordy, I think we only need "by Russia".Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That wording is blurring the distinction between the Crimean peninsula, the territory, and the Republic of Crimea, the republic established by Russia to administer that territory. That distiction is all-important to the very existence of this article, so I would not support blurring it in any way. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It is just incorrect. Republic of Crimea is a federal subject of Russia as defined by the constitution of Russia. It is not "considered by Russia" to be its federal subject, it just is. It does not exist outside of this context. What is of course disputed is that Crimea, or the Crimean Peninsula, belongs to Russia, no, most of the countries and the UN consider that it does not and that it is illegally occupied. But this is already in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How about "The Republic of Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia whose existence is not recognized by most nations created to legitimize Russias annexation Crimean Peninsula"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is acceptable but I do not see how this is better than what is in the article now. That was pretty difficult to achieve consensus back in 2014, and I would not touch that consensus unless really necessary, and I do not see why it is necessary to be honest. I do not understand what problem we are trying to solve.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Thank you all for finally starting constructive discussion.

I agree with suggestion by Slatersteven as well.

My understanding is that for the article on Republic of Crimea, entity that is obviously not a republic but a Russian puppet state created to administer occupied territory, it should be clearly explained in the first sentence, for example the way I provided earlier, "Republic of Crimea is an entity/federal subject created by Russia to administer illegally occupied Crimean Peninsula/Crimean Autonomous Republic of Ukraine". And in country it belongs to I would write "administered by Russia", not Russia.

Alternatively, we can follow the above suggestion by Wmitchell, at least it clearly explains that this is an entity created and recognized by Russia to administer occupied territory. Currently, this page is actually the first link that is brought up when googling Crimea/Republic of Crimea, and it is not clear that this is not in fact a de-jure situation. It's only a de-facto situation, a fake entity created by Russia to support it's occupation and administer occupied territory and should be clearly explained. People who do not know the story are in fact confused by this article.

As regards to what Ymblaner said - what he is writing is simply incorrect. Republic of Crimea is considered to be part of Russia only by Russia. Noone else recognizes this, and it should be clearly explained in a ways I provided above.

Actually, Slatersteven's analogy is a bit wrong. Republic of Crimea is not a puppet state (that is: ostentibly independent country which is in fact run by another state, similar to Northern Cyprus vis-a-vis Turkey), but a de facto province of the annexing state established on the annexed territory (similar to East Timor (Indonesian province)). And it is already stated, that annexation of Crimea is not recognised internationally and the peninsula in question is "still internationally recognized as being part of Ukraine" (quote from very opening sentence!). Yet, this doesn't change the fact, that RoC is, indeed, a de facto Russian federal subject, existing within context of the Russian subdivision system (just as British Indian Ocean Territory is, despite UNGA resolutions, still a de facto British overseas territory, and not a subdivision of Mauritius, "internationally recognised owner" of the Chagos Archipelago). The current writing is correct, but if it is not clear enough, it can be tweaked. "The Republic of Crimea (...)[a] is a de facto federal subject (republic) of Russia located on the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia annexed in 2014". But again, this will say the same thing as the current version says. So no real need for change the lead. Although, as far as infobox is concerned, modified East Timor (Indonesian province) approach could work. An example of how this would work (exact wording might well be tweaked) is here. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC) updated 10:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Russia

Hmm....? 174.26.115.59 (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what yo think you have asked for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you are confusing Crimea, the place which is widely recognised as still being in Ukraine, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the autonomous republic of Ukraine, and the Republic of Crimea, the Russian federal subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Nation of Ukraine and Crimea

Ukraine does not refer to any part of the Ukraine as an independent or autonomous republic, similar to US does not refer to any of its state, regional or local governments as "autonomous republics". This position had to be affirmed in the US by the Ukranian Ambassador. Bombing of the Ukraine (post 4.3 million refugees mainly children, 70 reported this week in US state of Idaho) is active today (6/11/2022) by Russia. Ukraine has the Crimean Peninsula on the world diplomatic tables post Hillary Clinton as US Secretary of State); 11 member nations of Black Sea Trade Association which includes Ukraine and Georgia (thus Russia an agressor on trade, land, property and lives), including "wanton destruction". 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:5877:9659:A509:4724 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)JARacino2603:7081:2000:3EF3:5877:9659:A509:4724 (talk)

Water supply

My understanding is that Crimea gets its fresh water from Ukraine. Why is there nothing about this in the article? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, should be updated. In 2022 Russia conquered portions of Kherson Oblast, which allowed it to unblock North Crimean Canal. Seryo93 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The era of conquest or burn and pillage is "not part of the 21st Century", and any such actions will call that Nation into disrepute at "gates of humanity" (e.g., WWII, concentration camps, death marches, starvation of cities, subjugation of labor). Today, we had reported that Russian troops are just West of city of Sevendonestsk, Ukraine with reports of thousands of cruise missiles fired into Ukraine since February 23, 2022 "declaration of war or special military operations" in NYC (New York City, USA) at the United Nations Security Council. Turkey claimed to be controlling access into and out of the Black Sea (national news), while 11 member Nations of Black Sea Trading Association, Black Sea Development Bank, and Black Seaports (e.g., 5 Ukranian seaports in Crimea) are "on wikipedia".

2603:7081:2000:3EF3:5877:9659:A509:4724 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)JARacino2603:7081:2000:3EF3:5877:9659:A509:4724 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea (sovereign state)

When Crimea illegally broke away from Ukraine, it was its own 'sovereign state' for a day before being integrated into Russia. Shouldn't there be a separate article for this like how there is for Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic? MicroSupporter (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What unique content would that article have? CMD (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It might just have to be a stub. Maybe a section on this page would work? Republic of Crimea (Sovereign state)? MicroSupporter (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a section on the annexation subpage, see Republic of Crimea (country). CMD (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't see that. That all answers my question. Thank you MicroSupporter (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It didn't last for long enough to have significant coverage to warrant its own article. The DPR and LPR existed for eight years and have received considerable coverage in international media. The Republic of Crimea was never really an "independent country" because it didn't have enough time to function properly as one before being annexed by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: we could do the same than for DPR and LPR and add a mention about status change. Panam2014 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Was wondering if I could be allowed if possible to update the article by adding the 2021 census results in the demographics section. If one of the mods or whoever is able to edit this page and would like to do it themselves, I can give you the source. Thanks. Soullone68 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soullone68 got you covered :) Make sure to next time open it as a 'New section' at the top for general edit requests like this to make sure it does not get lost or non-noticied by others! Tweedle (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

'according to the Russian census'

Russia occupies Crimea and oppresses Ukrainians and Tatars. You do not quote any references describing the 2021 census in Crimea. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• https://euneighbourseast.eu/news/latest-news/eu-condemns-russian-census-and-conscription-in-crimea/
• https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/ukraine-statement-spokesperson-census-and-conscription-campaign-crimea_en
• https://khpg.org/en/1608809687 Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

From the lead "As of the 2021 Russian census, the Republic of Crimea had a population of 1,934,630.[5]".

Should be "As of the controversial/staged 2021 Russian census, the Republic of Crimea had a population of 1,934,630.[5]"

Putin as a sole source

Languages

• Official
  • Russian
  • Ukrainian
  • Crimean Tatar

The text quotes Putin's 2014 declaration as the only source, ignoring the real politics. Russia limits non-Russian education. If you love 'de facto', so Russian is 'de facto' main language. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The article has a sentence on how "the Republic of Crimea had the aim to "end the teaching of Ukrainian"", which is not sourced to Putin either solely or at all. CMD (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean the quoted part.

I have just added the phrase about teaching. Thank you for your prize. Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Undescribed edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=1132622305&oldid=1132531858 Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

@Rsk6400: If you cannot find what it is said in the source, ask for verification rather than incorrectly claiming it is not found in the sources (a quote was provided). The other issue is using the same source for a different statement not supported by the source, which is called WP:HIJACKING. "Russia's term"... "in abrogation of Russia's agreement" etc. are not mentioned in the source nor in the body and this all looks like WP:OR, this was basically an unsourced change. So as a result I have reverted this. See WP:V. Mellk (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

My edit summary was "The distinction de jure / de facto is not found in the source" - this was carefully worded, because I'm well aware that "de facto" is found there. But since the pair of those terms has a juridical meaning, we should be very careful when applying it. In this article the pair might refer to Russian law or to international law. In international law there is also such a thing as "de facto recognition", i.e. a state might tacitly accept that Russia claims Crimea as part of their territory, while officially taking a stance against it. That's why a neutral encyclopedia should avoid both terms. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The citation was for the first sentence ("de facto") but in this case "de jure" can also just be removed. The source says internationally recognized as part of Ukraine so I suppose "internationally unrecognized" is a bit clearer than "de facto". Mellk (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Section on Background

If this article is about the Russian administration of Crimea, I can’t imagine that any reliable source would start its history with a history of the Russian claim to Crimea. There are many possible backgrounds for Russia’s actions in 2014 (e.g. Russian imperialism, Russian interior politics, …) and to chose this one is clearly WP:OR. WP follows reliable sources, it does not lead. Feel free to restore the section if you have good reasons to do so. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Free economic zone

I just removed the section "Free economic zone" again for two problems: (1) Sources: The "Investment portal of the Republic of Crimea" is (judging from the title and the URL) a promotional site. Even if TASS can be used for "uncontroversial" topics, figures on economy are highly political and therefore highly controversial. (2) Encyclopedic content: Facts without context (what does a "Free eco. zone" mean under Russian law ?, do the figures show success or failure ?, ...) are not encyclopedical. (3) Notability: To demonstrate notability, we need at least some discussion in reliable sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability refers to standalone articles. Various facts mentioned in existing articles don't need to be notable on their own (if they were, they would merit a standalone article). Primarily, however, economy is always politicised and despite that, we always source economic information from government sources. Thus, when describing the economy of France, we rely on French government data. Same for all other countries. Your removal of a Russian government source for the description of Crimea economy feels like POV pushing; an attempt to discredit Russian government sources simply because Russia started an armed conflict. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No but they do have to be wp:v to wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri, Russian government sources are indeed among the least credible government sources worldwide. The reason is that there are virtually no free media left that might counter government-sponsored disinformation. World Press Freedom Index 2023 has Russia at position 164 (of 180 countries), while France is at 24. I read rt.com (controlled by the Russian government) on a near-daily basis and I can assure you that's disinformation at its very best. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the deletion. Panam2014 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Occupation

@Kashmiri: denying occupation is a violation of NPOV. And we have Russian occupation of Crimea so the word is neutral. I support @Mzajac: Panam2014 (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not occupation but annexation. Two, nobody denies it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Crimea was occupied in February 2014 and remains occupied, and in 2022 became part of an active war zone. It was annexed in March 2014, meaning the RF claims it as part of its territory. These are two different things, both ongoing. Nobody denies it.  —Michael Z. 14:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to read Annexation carefully. Lead section will suffice if you don't have time. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. The lead there describes exactly what I said: “forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory.” What’s your point?  —Michael Z. 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(It also says annexation is “a unilateral act where territory is seized and held,” which means the Russian “annexation” of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts is not even a real annexation.) —Michael Z. 20:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Occupation is always intended to be temporary while annexation means permanent incorporation of (conquered) territory into another country. For instance, the formerly German province of Alsace–Lorraine was annexed by France in 1918 and became its inalienable part henceforth (Germany later attempted to recapture it, ultimately unsuccessfully). In contrast, after losing WW2, Germany was occupied by the Allies during 1945–1949, its military occupation always intended to be a temporary solution before the German state is re-created there in some form.

Understandably, Ukraine keeps repeating that Crimea is only "temporarily occupied". However, mere military occupation is not what Russia ever intended, because it soon officially announced annexation of the territory. So, today Crimea remains de facto annexed; it is territory that Russia controls and rules as its own with no intent of ceding it. Sure, most other countries don't currently recognise Russia's jurisdiction over Crimea. Still, this is completely irrelevant to the occupation–vs–annexation discussion, as the only factor that matters for it is intention.

More information is there under Annexation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did you stop referring to the article you cited? Its lead does also say “Annexation can be legitimized if generally recognized by other states and international bodies.” But the United Nations has voted regularly to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine and condemn what it calls Russian “aggression against Ukraine,”[1] “attempted illegal annexation,”[2] and “temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine.”[3]

So, it doesn’t matter what the Kremlin intended. Wikipedia should not adopt the Kremlin’s intent over and above the internationally recognized situation.  —Michael Z. 21:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You're mixing things up, as usual. Nobody here (I hope) questions the illegality of Crimea's annexation. Still, it is annexation. Not "occupation", but (unrecognised as of now) annexation. Period. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And obviously Wikipedia should consider Kremlin's intent. It's the deciding factor here. We're not fighting Ukraine's great patriotic war here – we're presenting facts neutrally, just as they are defined by international law. Here, law explicitly wants us to consider intent. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri, RS use both terms, occupation and annexation. And please stop speculating about other editors' intentions ("fighting Ukraine's war", "advocacy"). Rsk6400 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

So-called RS's (like, CNN and others) are not expert sources as regards legal matters, and general journalists cannot be expected to understand nuances. We're an encyclopaedia, though, not daily press clippings. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

@Rsk6400 and Mzajac: The article is absolutely not neutral. It in no way refers to the occupation of the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. And he gives off-topic information that talks about Crimea and not the so-called Republic of Crimea. It reminds me of a leaflet from the Russian tourist office or it aims to legitimize the occupation. Text that is not sourced or that relates to Crimea in general should be deleted. And you need a paragraph on the occupation. For sports there is a lack of sources. Panam2014 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, we have separate articles on Crimea the peninsula, and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the internationally recognized subdivision of Ukraine. This article should be specific to the Russian occupation administration during the Russo-Ukrainian War, and not a general article about a “province of Russia,” its museums, natural wonders, and pre-occupation history. We should determine whether the subject of the “Republic of Crimea” as such even meets WP:GNG.  —Michael Z. 14:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: We must add a section on the occupation and refer for the moment to the detailed article. For the first sentence of the article it does not seem neutral enough to me Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, Panam2014: I totally agree. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, this article is notable. If the scope should be changed that is another issue. I can be in favor of that. Though I'd also be in favor in including some of the peninsula's history prior to the Russian occupation as background. Right now the only info that could pass as background is In February 2014, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution that ousted the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych,. Super Ψ Dro 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If it’s obviously notable, then it should be a breeze to demonstrate that by the standards of WP:GNG that “Republic of Crimea” is a notable subject separate from Crimea, annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and Russian occupation of Crimea, saving us a lot of discussion.

This article used to have something about an all-Soviet astronomy organization. IMO it didn’t belong here.  —Michael Z. 16:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It is Russian occupation of Crimea the one that should be demonstrated to be a notable subject separate from this article and from the other two examples you've listed. The relationship between these two articles is being treated very strangely in the RM above and in adjacent threads. This article exists since 2014 while the other since 2022, the latter one is the content fork and it should be merged here. Super Ψ Dro 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus and Mzajac: nope. Per WP:COMMONNAME it is Russian occupation of Crimea. Not Republic of Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Panam2014, you're giving me WP:COMPETENCE impressions. Common name has not even been discussed up until this point. It has much less been proven to be the most common name. "Russian occupation of Crimea" isn't even a proper name. Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: false. Commons name is Russian occupation. Republic of Crimea is used mainly by primary sources. Panam2014 (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles MUST be named in accordance with WP:NC and geographic articles specifically have to follow WP:NCGN: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always. (...) If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (...) should be used.

The administrative unit of Russia is commonly called in English "Republic of Crimea". Commonly doesn't refer solely to publications about politics. It includes publications about geography, biology, marine life, agriculture, linguistics, arts and culture, etc. etc. You will have hard time to convince others that, say, marine biologists have commonly stopped writing "Republic of Crimea" and started writing instead "Russian occupation of Crimea".

Most importantly, "Russian occupation of Crimea" is not a name for a place. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Russian occupation of Crimea is a name for the Russian administration, like Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. Reliable sources use Russian occupation of Crimea or Crimea, not Republic of Crimea, which clearly is not the common name. Panam2014 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Why are you trying to mislead? Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany is akin to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Republic of Crimea is akin to Reichsgau Wartheland. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the official name is documented by historians, not here. Panam2014 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What? Super Ψ Dro 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Do a search on the occurrences you will see that "russian occupation of Crimea" comes up more often than "republic of Crimea" Panam2014 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:HITS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The search engine is a preliminary tool. Subsequently, by sorting the sources, it is clear that the Republic of Crimea is very much in the minority. We have to deal with it. Panam2014 (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Pure speculation without any evidence.  —Michael Z. 01:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)