Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Is or was

After the referendum and Putin's signing that the autonomous republic now no longer isn't a part of Ukraine, the past tence must be used. The reason is that Ukraine has no territorial control over the republic. This is not taking side in the conflict, but common practice. And Wiki NPOV. To maintain "is Ukranian" has become incorrect, a simple fact. I suggested 48 hour time limit between event and edit, since Wikipedia isn't a news agency. But this has proven to be difficult. The territory will not become Ukranian again (everything points in the different direction), not even a third hydrogen-bomb World War would hardly change these current facts. Boeing720 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The status of the Crimea is now "disputed territory", and thus a NPOV description of the Crimea's status should probably say that it is "disputed between the Ukraine and Russia". — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 22:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia considers Crimea to be part of Russia. The rest if the world considers Crimea to be illegally occupied by a foreign military. Changing "is" to "was" favors a pro Russian POV and is not neutral for Wikipedia standards. JOJ ^Hutton 22:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the peninsula is disputed between Russia and the Ukraine, and one could just as easily call it part of Russia as well as part of Ukraine. Perhaps we should consider Arunachal Pradesh to be part of China? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at this logically. Arunachal Pradesh is pretty much Indian territory, as India controls it. East Jerusalem can be said to be Israeli, because Israel is in charge. Thus, shouldn't Crimea be considered Russian, for the same reason? Or should we consider all three "disputed territory"? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 22:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, so much is going on on Wikipedia over this crisis that there will be deliberate POV pushers coming from both sides. The article already mentions that there is a crisis and that there is a current Russian military occupation of the region, but to change is to was is against the Wikipedia core policy of WP:NPOV and it's not even debatable.JOJ ^Hutton 22:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, I wonder if occupied Japan would have counted as American territory, under my logic there... Whatever. I'm trying to be as NPOV as everyone else. The problem is: what is NPOV, when even the facts are in dispute? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 23:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What facts exactly are in dispute?JOJ ^Hutton 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Does the Autonomous Republic of Crimea count as a current country? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is borderline madness, Crimea is now part of Russia that is fact, this country should be labeled as historical, no use having full information on a country that is in limbo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody recognizes this as a fact. Do you have any other issues? Otherwise I'll remove the "tags" you added to the article. JOJ ^Hutton 23:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the tags do not belong in this article. Knowledgekid87, there's another article Republic of Crimea if you're interested. USchick (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How many countries need to recognize a country before the former is labeled as historical? Should we have the Republic of China include all of China on their map? The Republic of China claims mainland China as part of their country. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your claims. What countries recognize the new Crimea? USchick (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia recognizes it, the country is no longer under Ukrainian control, Russia has signed the annex treaty.[1] Yes the majority of countries do not recognize Crimea being part of Russia but to say it is still a part of Ukraine when it is not is misleading. It is part of Ukraine I suppose in name only but nothing more. The article should have a historical infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia is the occupying force. Who recognizes it? Anyone? USchick (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia is a country which answers your question. Also put forward are my other points that you did not address. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia hasn't occupied anything. There has already been more than enough evidence given that the US and UE started riling up the protesters with a confirmed 5 billion dollar check, by the CIA, given to the so-called "protesters" who performed a coup d'eta, the US's 17 democratic government they overthrew in the past 70 years the others being: Syria (1949 & 2012-present), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1956), Cuba (1959), DR Congo (1960-65), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), Phillipines (1965-1986), Chile (1970-73), Argentina (1976), Turkey (1980), Nicaragua (1981-1990), Venezuela (2002) and Haiti (2004).

It has also been confirmed that it was the protesters, not the police, who was killing civilinas.

And on top of that, who says anyone needs the permission of the US and EU to do anything? The only recognition that should matter is that of the people who live and work in said region and the people have spoken. That should be the only recognition that matters. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should just start a WP:RFC on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Objectivity obliges Wikipedia as being en encyclopedia not to assuming which country's law is right. On other pages at the Wikipedia about disputed areas the country which controlls it gets the label, for example: Arunachal Pradesh, Tawang District. It is also the most rational solution at any kind of encyclopedia not to comply with that what local or international law dictates, but the absolute physical characteristic. In this case maybe Ukraine, maybe Russia 'should' hold the label, but in reality it is the former for now. I understand it is quite a rare ocasion to see borders changing, so people don't have many opportunies to excercise their objectivism. So please consider keeping consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.154.186.151 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea's status

Should this article have a former country infobox with the terms "was" to describe the Autonomous Republic of Crimea? (Sample infobox to right)

Autonomous Republic of Crimea Автономная Республика Крым Автономна Республіка Крим Qırım Muhtar Cumhuriyeti
1991–2014
History
• Independence referendum	August 24, 1991 1991
• Independence referendum	March 18, 2014 2014
Preceded by Succeeded by Crimean Oblast Republic of Crimea (country) Sevastopol

Given the discussion in the above section, please state Oppose, Support or Neutral for your opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have listed this article on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is under attack by vandals. USchick (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism going on, just content dispute, I for one want to get a consensus, there have been points raised above which you have not replied to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors opinions are irrelevant. We go by reliable sources. So far, none have been provided for changing anything and the article should be restored to its original condition before the edit warring started. Only then can a discussion take place. USchick (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be restored but see that there are sources saying that Crimea was annexed by Russia. Even if other countries do not recognize it what kind of diplomatic relations are there? Crimea no longer exists as the world once knew it. I am not trying to sound pro-Russian here just speaking what the reliable sources have been saying on Crimea's status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What sources? How about listing one so we can discuss it? Also, please restore the article. You can revert your own edits with no penalty. Thanks. USchick (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Which edit would you like me to undo? As for sources I included one above for the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Here are some more sources: [2][3]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I can come to your house and claim that I own you. So what? Unless someone recognizes what I say, it's irrelevant. Who besides Putin recognizes that a new country now exists? USchick (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I will just drop the stick and see what happens, you provided a-lot of insight as well and thank you for that. I know Ukrainians must feel like a part of them was stolen but the sources I provided are insights on what is happening on the ground. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An article already exists Republic of Crimea about a recent event. If you want to add something new, please do it there. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. USchick (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: We do not usually use the former country infobox for disputed state entities, such as in the case of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. While the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has de facto ceased to exist, it stills exists in the law of Ukraine, and hence is not yet "former". It would only be "former" if it was abolished by Ukraine, which is unlikely. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not do that to the infobox. I agree with RGloucester. This proposal is assuming consensus that there has been a legal transfer, and there isn't, the territory is disputed. The article on the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija does not claim that it ended in 2008 when the Republic of Kosovo was created, Serbia and its supporters regard Kosovo as being legally an autonomous province of Serbia and that the RoK's secession was illegal. In this case, Ukraine does not regard the Republic of Crimea as a legal government. Therefore no successors should be placed there. Unless Ukraine says that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea no longer exists, it continues to exist in a de jure legal status by Ukraine.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the use of {{Infobox Former Country}} for the entity right now. As pointed out by RGloucester above, the Autonomous Republic still exists de jure, and it remains possible for new reliable sources referencing the entity to appear, not to mention the possible (even though unlikely) reversal of the recent change. — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 06:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The entry should clearly state the situation according to international law, in which Crimea ist still part of Ukraine. There is no UN Security Council or Urkrainian statement otherwise. This means Crimea is a part of Ukrain occupied by Russia.

Protected request: neutral lead for disputed territory

I need to make the following change to the lead:

'''Crimea''' is a [[territorial dispute|disputed territory]] covering almost all the [[Crimean Peninsula]] in the [[Black Sea]]. Ukraine claims the territory as one of its subdivisions within its contiguous national territory under the name of '''Autonomous Republic of Crimea'''. Russia, on the other hand, claims it as [[federal subjects of Russia|one of its federal subjects]] under the name of '''Republic of Crimea'''. The majority of the international community, however, considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory rather than a Russian federal subject.

Before the dispute, the territory considered itself an [[autonomous republic]] until it reunified with the city of [[Sevastopol]]. These two regions then declared their independence from Ukraine together [[Republic of Crimea (country)|as a single united nation]]. This nation then [[Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation|requested accession to Russia]] which [[Treaty on the Adoption of the Republic of Crimea to Russia|was granted separately]]: [[Republic of Crimea|one for the former Autonomous Republic of Crimea]] and another for Sevastopol.{{efn|Englund (2014) "The city of Sevastopol also entered the Russian Federation, as a separate entity—a status it traditionally enjoyed as an important military center."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russias-putin-prepares-to-annex-crimea/2014/03/18/933183b2-654e-45ce-920e-4d18c0ffec73_story.html |title=Kremlin says Crimea is now officially part of Russia after treaty signing, Putin speech |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |first=Will |last=Englund |date={{date|2014-03-18}} |accessdate={{date|2014-03-19}} }}</ref>}}<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/18/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/|agency=CNN|title=Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine|date=18 March 2014|accessdate=18 March 2014}}</ref> The Russian federal subject is virtually the same as the Ukrainian autonomous republic, save for being part of Russia as a federal subject rather than being part of Ukraine as an autonomous republic. The accession is temporarily being applied even though it has not been ratified yet.{{by whom|date=March 2014}}

However, the status of the republic is disputed as [[International recognition of the Republic of Crimea|only Russia]] recognized the independence declared by the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol, as well as being the only nation that recognized their subsequent incorporation into the Russian Federation. Most nations do not recognize these actions due to the [[2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine|Russian military intervention in Ukraine]] that occurred as these events unfolded. Russia, however, argues that the results of [[Crimean referendum, 2014|a referendum held in Crimea and Sevastopol]] justify the accession, claiming that its result reflected such desire. Internationally, Russia's actions have been [[International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis|widely condemned]] as a violation of sovereignty of Ukraine and as an act of aggression. Ukraine, for all intents and purposes, still considers the Autonomous Republic as one of its subdivisions under Ukrainian territory and subject to Ukrainian law.

which looks like:

Crimea is a disputed territory covering almost all the Crimean Peninsula in the Black Sea. Ukraine claims the territory as one of its subdivisions within its contiguous national territory under the name of Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Russia, on the other hand, claims it as one of its federal subjects under the name of Republic of Crimea. The majority of the international community, however, considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory rather than a Russian federal subject.

Before the dispute, the territory considered itself an autonomous republic until it reunified with the city of Sevastopol. These two regions then declared their independence from Ukraine together as a single united nation. This nation then requested accession to Russia which was granted separately: one for the former Autonomous Republic of Crimea and another for Sevastopol. The Russian federal subject is virtually the same as the Ukrainian autonomous republic, save for being part of Russia as a federal subject rather than being part of Ukraine as an autonomous republic. The accession is temporarily being applied even though it has not been ratified yet.

However, the status of the republic is disputed as only Russia recognized the independence declared by the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol, as well as being the only nation that recognized their subsequent incorporation into the Russian Federation. Most nations do not recognize these actions due to the Russian military intervention in Ukraine that occurred as these events unfolded. Russia, however, argues that the results of a referendum held in Crimea and Sevastopol justify the accession, claiming that its result reflected such desire. Internationally, Russia's actions have been widely condemned as a violation of sovereignty of Ukraine and as an act of aggression. Ukraine, for all intents and purposes, still considers the Autonomous Republic as one of its subdivisions under Ukrainian territory and subject to Ukrainian law.

This ensures that our visitors are presented with both views as established by WP:NPOV which states that, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." As of this moment, the article is highly biased towards the Ukrainian POV and we must ensure that our readers understand both sides so that we, as Wikipedians, remain impartial.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that this should be done and sooner rather than later, the damage is already being done through media towards Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose until the request for moving the article (above) has been concluded. CodeCat (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It might take days for that discussion to conclude. In the meantime this article will be shown in favor of the Ukrainian POV. This can't happen. As shown above, the media is already catching up to what's occurring in the Wikipedia-verse. One of our core policies is not being maintained by calling an article "Crimea" and implying that "Crimea is the Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Our job is to maintain WP:NPOV no matter what. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Making the lead neutral should be a priority. WP:NPOV is one of our core policies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • This has also been discussed at WP:ANI#Fast tracking RM for "Crimea" article. The current consensus there is to let the normal 7-day period pass before concluding it. CodeCat (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I would not call it consensus when both sides participating are equally divided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, either way, making this change to the article is not going to get us anywhere if we move the article. It's a conflicting change; we can't decide to both make changes to the article so that it's no longer about the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, and to move it to Autonomous Republic of Crimea at the same time. Since it looks like the move will pass, if we make this change in the meantime, we'll have to revert it again after the move. I'm not sure if that's really sensible... speeding up the move might be better. CodeCat (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
          • What? It will still be the same article after the move. Autonomous Republic of Crimea redirects to Crimea. What the move will accomplish, is free up the title "Crimea" so it can be used as a Disambiguation page. USchick (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
            • This article is currently about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as seen from the POV of Ukraine. The edit proposal above would change the topic of the article so that it's no longer about the Ukrainian AR, but about something else (I'm not sure about what exactly... we already have Republic of Crimea, Crimean peninsula and Crimea (disambiguation)). So to me, it makes more sense to keep this article about the Ukrainian AR, and move it instead. That would mean rejecting the edit proposal here, though. Unless we are ok with making the proposed change, then undoing it again within the next few days when the article gets moved. CodeCat (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
          • I understand your concern but you also need to understand mine: (i) your concern is speculative, (ii) the move has not happened yet, (iii) reverting back is not a problem we do that every day and (iv) the article in its current form is not adhering to WP:NPOV. So, I think this is a great solution. Whether it's temporary or not is irrelevant. The issue at hand right now is not the move, it's the current status of the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
            • But the move in itself is already one way to address POV concerns. Do we need to address it again here, a second time, separately? I think that addressing it once is enough, as long as what we do the first time (i.e. the move) is effective. CodeCat (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Withdrawing my support until after the move. Great lead though! Love it. USchick (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Heavily oppose any change until the RM is finished - I don't like doing this, but I think it is necessary to wait. We can't change the scope of the article until the move request is finished, as this would adversely impact the move discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I still think we should try to fast track the move, as an alternative solution. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It will still be the same article after the move. Right now Autonomous Republic of Crimea redirects to Crimea. What the move will accomplish, is free up the title "Crimea" so it can be used as a Disambiguation page. USchick (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It will be same the article, which is just what we need. If we change the article now, it won't be suited to be the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article. It will an article about Crimea as a whole, screwing up the move discussion, and requiring the creation of a new article on the autonomous republic. RGloucester — ☎ 00:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps I will be bold and start a new article at Autonomous Republic of Crimea, allowing you to restructure the lead? RGloucester — ☎ 00:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. You're right. Wait, don't be bold. It was already done and reverted. That's why we're here now. USchick (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The last thing we need is yet another content fork. If we're intending to move this article there, we might as well do it now. CodeCat (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It was already done and reverted several times. That's why a discussion was necessary. I have no idea why because it makes perfect sense to me. USchick (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but we can't seem to get any help from administrators, at the moment. The situation looks dire, especially if it is generating media coverage. RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way we could get an administrator's immediate attention on this? CodeCat (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tried multiple times on ANI, to no avail. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This requested move could drag on for days. If we change the lede now, it would solve an immediate problem. Then if the article gets moved, we can change it back. If it doesn't get moved, it can stay as is. What do you think about that? USchick (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We need an admin whether we move or make the edit... so they might as well just do the move? CodeCat (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Moving the article solves all of our problems. Changing the lead will be incredibly confusing, and leave the Autonomous Republic without an article, violating NPOV, since we have one on Republic of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Wow. Everyone is so logical today. Usually I'm the only one who makes any sense around here. lol USchick (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Various administrators think that the process should remain as it is, judging by their comments at WP:AN and WP:ANI. I guess that means we are stuck with what we have. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't help though that the fact is that the article is a WP:NPOV mess the way it is now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe people who like to edit war will think about that next time, before they get the article locked. USchick (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It literally is a total mess. I mentioned that in my response to administrators requesting that we let the article "evolve naturally" at WP:AN#Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This user needs to learn what WP:NPOV really means. Its not neutral to give the same weight to the Russian "claim" on the region, which has no international support or recognition, as the Ukrainian "claim" which has universal international support and recognition. Until there is a shift in the international response to this region, it should still be considered as Ukrainian. The dispute can and of course already is covered in the article, given its weight.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't get to decide whether it is Ukrainian or Russian, as that would be taking a side. We merely present what is happening on the ground, from a neutral perspective. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No we don't get to decide, the sources have done that for us and the sources confirm everything I just said. Russias claim has no support, therefore it should not be given the same weight in the article as the Ukrainian claim.—JOJ ^Hutton 02:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian sources say that they have a claim. They now de facto rule Crimea. We can't ignore the facts on the ground. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian Sources? Did you really just use Russian sources? You really went there? Of course they will say that. I also read an advertisement from Coke saying that they have the best tasting cola on Earth. Obviously not biased either. And still the Russian claim has no International support. I though that the international was implied, but I guess not.—JOJ ^Hutton 02:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the claim has "international support". If there are people, a good amount of them, at that, that believe that the claim is valid, then one can't minimise it. That would be taking the point of view that "Russia has no claim" which is not universally held, nor neutral. We have to present the spectrum of opinions in a neutral manner. By your logic, we should not use American or British sources either, and yet, we do. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources are not minimizing the claim, but most of the sources state that the international community considers Crimea to be under a foreign occupation force. That too cannot be ignored, especially since they are the majority of sources. So if the sources are stating that Crimea is still Ukrainian, but is under Russian occupation, why should the article give undue weight by adding Russian flags and calling the area disputed, especially in the lead and the infobox, when sources say that its not disputed, but under occupation?—JOJ ^Hutton 02:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It is disputed, between Ukraine and Russia. "Occupation" is loaded with implications that are not acceptable from a NPOV standpoint. Look at Transnistria or South Ossetia. These are disputes. RGloucester — ☎ 03:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• The very definition of a territorial dispute is the claim from one nation onto a territory and a different claim on that same territory by another nation. This is what is happening right now: Ukraine claims Crimea as its own while Russia claims it as its own as well. We are not here to take sides. There is a dispute, period. Whatever the reasoning behind that dispute is IRRELEVANT for us at Wikipedia. We have a whole nation claiming a territory vs. another whole nation claiming the same territory. Implying that "Crimea" is the Autonomous Republic is a contravention to our core policy of WP:NPOV. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please show us a policy that states that we go by what the international community supports or does not support. There is not one, not a single policy stating such. The only policy we have is WP:GEVAL, which, as has been explained to you already, states very clearly that, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented [...]" It doesn't mention anything about international support. From the policy, Russia's claim is neither a "minority" nor "extraordinary". As has been already explained to you before in another discussion, it's a pretty big freaking deal when one of the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council claims a territory for itself. Evenmoreso when that member has the second largest nuclear stockpile in the world [4], has the third largest military expenditure in the world, and also happens to be the 8th largest country in the world by GDP. Please show us under what argument based on facts and our policies do you base your claim that this is undue weight. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, this is not a disputed territory. Crimea existed for centuries as Crimean Khanate, Taurida Governorate, Crimean Socialist Soviet Republic and Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, etc.My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Not a disputed territory"? Ukraine claims Crimea as it's own. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to remind everyone that nationalistic attitudes like the ones we see here is why the article got locked to begin with. Maybe it needs to stay locked? USchick (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point I would support that idea, there are a large number of editors from Ukraine and from Russia that edit Wikipedia and given how personal things have become there is likely going to be some waves created, Some are able to stay neutral throughout editing while others may be editing in a NPOV way without even knowing it, not to say this is a bad thing but I feel this is why there is turmoil here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: It doesn't look like there is a consensus for this text at this point in time. As some have suggested, it may be a good idea to wait for the requested move to be closed and try again after that. Or you could split the requests up into smaller chunks and try and get consensus on each of the chunks individually. When you have a consensus for any given text to be added, please submit a new edit request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius. I agree, these discussions look to me as "no consensus" and possibly can be closed by now. All participants must agree stop moving articles. However, a lot could be improved by splitting and moving content in existing articles (e.g. as I suggested above). Perhaps one could remove protection and allow editing - this relates to current events, and I do not think this protection serves the purpose of improving content.My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the nationalistic hostilities of individual editors on this talk page, I continue to support the edit restrictions to admins. However, we now know several things that we didn't know yesterday and they may be worth discussing. The page move will take at least 7 days, maybe longer. So it may be in our best interest to reach consensus about the lede, since an admin will come by within 24 hours to check on the status of this article. Shall we try again? USchick (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A neutral way would be quite misleading. The only relevant thing here is the international law, and there has been no change. That means that Ukraine does not not need to "claim" anything since Crimea is Ukrainian teritory is a well established fact. What happend is, is that Crimea is now a Russian occupied part of Ukrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.181.113 (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

International law is not the only relevant thing. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia of international law and politics. Facts don't matter, because different people see facts differently. Russia sees Crimea being Russian as a fact. Ukraine sees Crimea being Ukrainian as a fact. But what good does that do? Are we supposed to pick sides and decide which of those claims is "right"? No! That would be a gross violation of Wikipedia's neutrality. So we should go with what the sources say and present each point of view neutrally. That Crimea is occupied by Russia is well established in sources. That Russia has made a territorial claim to Crimea, and some other parties have supported that claim, is also well sourced. That Ukraine and many other countries in Europe dispute that claim, and affirm that Crimea is Ukrainian, is also very clearly established. So what do you propose we do? Just ignoring part of the story violates WP:NPOV, so we must include all of these points for the sake of neutrality. CodeCat (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Crimea's government

Since this article, as of me writing this, is actually about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, within Ukraine, shouldn't the infobox be changed to note that there's basically no Ukrainian-recognized government in the area? According to the article on the Supreme Council, "During the 2014 Crimean crisis, while the Supreme Council building was under the control of unidentified pro-Russian gunmen, the Council bucked Kiev by appointing its own Prime Minister, Sergey Aksyonov. The Verkhovna Rada responded to this act, as well as collaboration by the Council with Russian troops in the region against Ukrainian authorities' wishes, by voting on 15 March 2014 to disband the Council." --Ismail (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article already discusses the fact that Crimea is currently under Russian occupation and that this occupation is "considered to be illegal" by several international entities. JOJ ^Hutton 14:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. The infobox has, for instance, Sergey Aksyonov listed as "(de facto)" Prime Minister of Crimea. The problem is that this article, as the very first sentence makes clear, is about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, not a general article about the peninsula. Furthermore the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic was apparently dissolved on March 15, which either means it was literally declared abolished or its present composition simply rendered null and void pending new elections. Clarification of the latter is important. --Ismail (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on neutrality in Crimea-related articles

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in Crimea-related articles

CodeCat (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2014

You should add russian Crimea annexation Date Mathsquare (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There are existing discussions on that matter on this page, please comment on one of those. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we change the name to Republic of Crimea yet?

The reunfication treaty is now signed and will go into immediate effect after it is ratified by the Russian parliament. That means this is not going anway and there will have to be changes to this article as well as others. Now as to what do we exactly write.. I think we should follow the administration's lead on this and try to distill as much as we can from what comes out of the Whitehouse and what they are feeding mainstream media. We really need the right kind of hasbara here. Maybe we should ask the George Soros people what they would like to see here, after all they're the ones who screwed it all up in the first place. Anyhow until we get some sort of official story together we need to keep the article locked. 54.224.234.229 (talk) BB — Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that Crimea is now going to declare independence from ukraine and join russia. The vote just passed. --Cheesenibbles (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC) And it is shame that Wikipedia suffers from proposers of propaganda from both sides. Wikipedia should remain the biggest free encyclopedia, not the fight-scene between different views and tensions. The biggest dissapointment would be to let this article use for propaganda purposes of involded sides, USA, EU and Russia... However, the residents of Crimea choosed to join Russia, so it should be mentioned. It should also be mentioned how many turned out to vote and the exact result of the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Such a designation has not been officially recognized yet by any major government or the United Nations. It is not in Wikipedia's charter to recognize the existence of nations. The views may be presented if they done so objectively, are relevant, and notable. Wikipedia should remain neutral. That is in Wikipedia's charter. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As of now it has been recognized by Russia. It is a free state and should be treated as such.--Cheesenibbles (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has, and by no one but Russia. So, no, international law leaves it under Ukraine. 71.171.89.90 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

International law doesn't care about recognition, recognition is merely a diplomatic phenomenon. International law is mainly concerned with who exercises effective control over an area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.134.179 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand how the modern system of international relations works. Thing is, there is nobody speaking from the face of "international law" that can recognize or not recognize states. There are courts that can address violations of it, but they do not get involved in recognizing countries.FeelSunny (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. IMO this article is/ should be about the geographical area considered the Crimea, not the political lines in the sand (in the same way that the article on Kosovo is separate to the article on the Republic of Kosovo. We should however change the map to reflect that political it's no longer part of Ukraine and update the description accordingly. --Richardeast (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to recognize until there is an official document or declaration, such as a constitution, declaring that Crimea is an independent nation, it is not in business of Wikipedia or it's propaganda-biased users to determine whether it is no longer a part of Ukraine. Crimea is officially a part of Ukraine until something can officially declare the opposite. I think the election of a president or prime minister, or the signing of a declaration of independence/constitution would be the time to change the status of the region. Until then, it should remain as is. 131.247.226.144 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, look at others articles at the Wikipedia about disputed areas: Tawang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The country who controlls the area gets the label... This is about consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.84.82 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, now it's been signed in as part of Russia. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d93e4c7c-ae6d-11e3-8e41-00144feab7de.html So, I reckon it's safe to alter the Name. Jimmydreads (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

They don't have the right to do so, so it stays in Ukraine HighVoltageLP (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I’d rather say that it’s not yet settled whether they do or don’t. Which is why it’s called a territorial dispute, after all. (And these things can take decades – and more – to settle. Check, e. g., Republic of China.) — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". This is the definition that I pulled from the wikipedia page definition. Wikipedia deals in what is real not what isn't. It would be ignorant to say that Crimea is part of the Ukraine as it isn't.BananaBandito (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Autonomous Republic. An article about the Republic of Crimea already exists. A name change is not necessary. USchick (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is Ukrainian

I don't care what people have to say about Crimea being russian or not, its still Ukrainian and it is annexed by Russia while being hardly connected to Russia. Obviously, if he wanted to have Crimea, then he would have to take eastern Ukraine too. What he is doing is a violation against international law and against a nation's right for sovereignty! Plus, Svoboda, the Neo-Nazi Party, is making the country, the US, and the EU look bad so I think they should be arrested, as they have no place in the post-Yanukovich Ukraine.--Crimsonhammer43 (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)User:Crimsonhammer43 7:59, 22 March, 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss that. CodeCat (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We should full lock this page

This is getting out of hand, if you read through the article its a mess of past tense, present tense, and incorrect facts (See official language)--Cheesenibbles (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation. After a referendum with the participation of over 75% that article still say that Crimea is Ukraine instead of was, and the use of two articles one for the non-existing ucranian Crimea and other for the actual Crimea (now a republic part of the Russian Federation) is stupid. Please, update the article, and use common sense. And if in the future the political status of Crimea changes (which it appears that it will not) it will return to the old version with one click. But hidding information and current status of this Republic is a nonsense. —Mikatey (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about the present Republic of Crimea. That article is not locked, and you can edit it at will. This article is about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. If you want to deal with the Republic, edit Republic of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 14:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If this article is only about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, then it should be named Autonomous Republic of Crimea. I think the best solution is to have no article named Crimea, but only a redirect to Crimea (disambiguation) Imagine&Engage (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of the page, and the move discussion further down that it links to. CodeCat (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

As per http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26621726 Russia now recognises Crimea as a Sovereign and independent state it is no longer a region within Ukraine, the lead needs changing to reflect this. As soon as another state recognises another this is meets the criteria of statehood 77.97.151.145 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Only Russia recognizes this. Ukraine and the rest of the world does not recognize this as legal. Therefore the article will continue to reflect that Crimea is part of Ukraine. For the unrecognized state, see Republic of Crimea, which is a separate article.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no (righteous) "rest of the world". Some of the world has one law, but there are also hundreds of different laws. Any encyclopedia should not follow any law, merely describe absolute, that is in this case physical facts. One fact is that physically Crimea is under Russian control. The completely other fact is that law of Ukraine and some other friendly states are pretending (against what is about to happen) that Crimea is theirs. Please, the Wikipedia should not be fouled by any politics, and not to predend anything. Does not "pretending" sound pathetic at the Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.236.44 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? CodeCat (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As soon as one state recognises another this meets the criteria of statehood regardless of the views of other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state#Recognition States "There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.[17] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czech states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government." Crimea defiantly falls into this criteria with Russia's recognition 77.97.151.145 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have seen on Russian Wikipedia and Ukrainian Wikipedia there are separate articles for the Republic of Crimea. This article is for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, a region in Ukraine. The situation is fluid. Only Russia, in instigators of the conflict and the party that invaded the peninsula, recognized the referendum. I don't believe that follows the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, to go with the minority on situations such as these.74.76.57.171 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Therefore the article will continue to reflect that Crimea is part of Ukraine. For the unrecognized state, see Republic of Crimea, which is a separate article." If you want to spilt the article in two then Crimea should lead to Republic of Crimea as this is the current state of the nation or a disambiguation page, but I feel one article would suffice with it's history with Ukraine listed in the history section of the article and it's current status as a sovereign state stated in the lead 77.97.151.145 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

" I don't believe that follows the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, to go with the minority on situations such as these.74.76.57.171" It's not about a minority/majority or POV issue, it's about what is required to attain statehood in Crimea meeting this requirement which it now does 77.97.151.145 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the article about the entity that you are trying to replace in this article is at Republic of Crimea. Wikipedia editors are not going to unilaterally agree to completely change an article based on the fact that a single nation recognizes it and the other 200+ nations do not. That would be against the policy of WP:NPOV. Read it.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The factual situation is more important. And the Republic of Crimea as an independent state is at this moment more the truth than Crimea as an Ukranian subject.--Wester (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

only one nation recognizes this so called "truth". It's also true that Ukraine does not recognize this, nor dies the UN, EU, US, or any other nation on earth. JOJ ^Hutton 21:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no point to argue about what does anyone THINK about the fact. There is NO Ukaraine according to revolution fact and no legitimate government, that represents the will of the people of the territory. And wiki should reflect the fact, that Crimea secession is performed just the same way the Kosovo was.

It only requires one nation to recognise another for it to attain statehood, it matters not if other nations do not recognise it. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please add that the Crimean referendum is illegal according to Title III, Article 71 and 72, of the Constitution of Ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantinchik (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Debatable if the constitution still stands, as the current Prime Minister who under Title V article 112 is assuming duty of President has potentially already broken numerous constitutional rules. To list a few..Title V article 2, by speaking on news he addresses Public . Art 10 article 16 Jimmydreads (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

On 28 February 2014, Russian Ground Forces occupied airports and other strategic locations in Crimea.[57]

This text does NOT represent the video material content, which it is recalls. Original about military base in Sevastopol. Wiki says it is about Crimea, that is not correct.

On 28 February 2014, Russian Ground Forces occupied airports and other strategic locations in Simferopol.[57]

But new text is a obvious statement due to the fact that Simferopol is a Russian military base.

Please delete the text. (21 03 2014 Vladimir)

Offical language

Even if Russia annexed it, which it cant legally, has there been a deceleration of change in the national language? Why is it listed as Russian.

• Not Legal according to whom? Have they, by force, declared the region to be theirs? Then it is. Is Ukraine fighting to take it back? No? Then they have lost it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.238.126 (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not legal according to the Ukrainian constitution, which Crimea is subordinate to, as well as the entire international community, which would have to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. It's illegal according to both national law, as well as international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.162.0 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The ukrainian constitution is only binding in Crimea as long as Crimea is a part of Ukraine. If Crimea ceases to be a part of the Ukraine, the consitution will cease to have effect in the Crimea, just as Czech constitutional law is not binding on Slovakia. So as long as Crimea has validly seperated from the Ukraine, ukrainian national law won't be a problem. For the same reason, russian national law isn't likely to be a problem. When it comes to international law, the law is more focused on who actually exercises control of an area. International recognition is not a requirement for a new state to be formed, and the extent to which regions of a state can legally declare independence is not exactly clear-cut in current international law (see the ICJ decision about Kosovos declaration of independence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.134.179 (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Then Kosovo is illegal too, they didn't even had a referendum. We Russians have all the same human rights as others, so the accession is legal. If you believe we don't, I'll give you my adress, come here and say it to my face. Viktor Š 16:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)
      • No one is saying Russians have less human rights than others. On the contrary, at the moment it seems you have a whole lot more rights than others. Superhuman rights, one could say. A power to change world borders according to your own understanding and needs. 195.62.140.213 (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• The Crimea is a Russian land. This is the return of territory. History in brief:

The battle for the land of the Khazars. Crimea. History of 20th century http://russ-history.blogspot.ru/2014/03/the-battle-for-land-of-khazars-crimea.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton Kol (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

the separation from Ukraine is entirely legal by international law. "On 22 July 2010, the court ruled that the declaration of independence was not in violation of international law.[119][120][121] The President of the ICJ Justice Hisashi Owada said that international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence." The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one.[122]" that is from the wikipedia page on Kosovo, so as you can see international law contains "NO PROHIBITION ON DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrantzis (talk • contribs) 09:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for neutral, geographic article about Crimea

Crimea is the name of a peninsula in Europe, it is not a state nor a single administrative unit of any state. My proposal is to make Crimea an article with no flags but with geography, climate, nature, history and demographics sections. This edit can send the politic discussions to the relevant pages: Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea etc. Predavatel (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely part of the move request that's already being discussed, further up on this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, when is a mod finally going to execute the request?--Wester (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This should have happened some time ago, even before the current crisis, as already Sevastopol is clearly in Crimea but not in the Autonomous Republic. Precedents: China, Ireland, Korea. It's our common practice to make these pages about the geographical regions, except only if a political entity is unambiguously identical with the name for its territory, as in Italy vs. Italian peninsula. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea now part of Russia – not Ukraine

Whether people on here like it or not, Crimea has been annexed by the Russian Federation. It doesn't really matter if it is legal or illegal because Ukraine has not defended it. This wikipedia article should reflect this. 129.234.37.53 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an lexicon and should show the real situation on the ground. There is no need to state things which aren't true, for instance the official language. Even if the world doesn't recognize Crimea as a part of Russia, in reality it is de facto a part of the Russian federation. For instance a person wants to travel to Crimea, the person opens Wikipedia and Wiki shows that the person needs to travel to Ukraine, but that's simply not true. The person would need a visa for Russia.

As a subject of Russian Federation, Crimea now has an entirely separate article. There is a current discussion on whether this article should be renamed into Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which would continue to describe the territory from the point of Ukrainian law and government (until the dispute is settled.) — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 19:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the requested move is about. USchick (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

According to international law, Crimea might be occudied, but is in no way now part of the Russian Federation. This is until the UN Security Council or Ukrain decide otherwise. Please read about international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.181.113 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

International law is trumped by military might every time. --DJAMP4444 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia insist in calling Israeli lands attained after 67 as occupied territories apply the same standards to Russia.204.14.66.194 (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

editprotected

replace the word "ferry" (single hit) with link to new page Kerch Strait ferry line. - Altenmann >t 19:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Q6637p (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)