Template talk:In Crimea

Ukraine Template‑class

	Ukraine portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This template is supported by the Crimea Task Force.

POV[edit]

This version is based on sources.

This version is just original research which tries to push the Russian nationalist POV that there is some legitimate "dispute" involved here. Which is bullshit, since Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Volunteer Marek 07:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to take a look from a different angle at that, but I’m struggling to locate any references to support the second version. Are there any at all? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael60634 - could you elaborate, what’s your rationale for placing this template? I’m lost a bit to be honest. (Original research? The info is sourced now..I’m seriously lost) - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is that writing "part of" and "occupied by" is true (depending on who you ask) but sounds like it could be politically biased in a pro-Ukrainian way. Following the longstanding consensus of "de facto" and "de jure" does convey the same message but sounds less like Wikipedia is trying to take a side in the conflict. It's important for Wikipedia to remain neutral in this conflict. And I want to note that I am not editing with a pro-Russia POV. If I were truly doing that, I would probably be removing any mention that Ukraine has a legitimate claim to the Crimean Peninsula. But I'm not doing that. Michael60634 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you write “it’s true” and “sounds biased” what you are really saying is that you think REALITY is “biased”. We stay “neutral in this conflict” by having text that “is true” (and verifiable with RS) rather than text that is POV and WP:WEASEL because some user thinks that truth “is biased”.

(and you are indeed removing any mention of the fact that Russia is occupying Crimea) Volunteer Marek 20:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek and @Michael60634 now the multiple issues notice has been placed that says - The neutrality of this article is disputed. (??) POV?

This is just a template.. 🤔. If anyone decides to remove that please go ahead.. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That template creates a huge problem for other article infoboxes. Just look at Sevastopol's infobox now. I have no issues with the fact that Crimea is occupied by Russia and that pretty much most of the world looks at it as Ukrainian territory illegally seized by Russia. Of course that is correct. But also the world was mostly ignoring the situation and periodicals, magazines, press, were calling the Crimea area as dejuer Ukraine but defacto Russian (defacto: in effect, whether by right or not). That's exactly what the infoboxes under Country should say after eight years. Not the current atrocities by Russia which I have helped keep that stuff out of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. What creates the problem is the spurious tag, not the current text of the template.

2. You say "you have no issues with the fact that Crimea is occupied by Russia" yet your actions suggest otherwise, as you are consistently trying to remove any mention of the said fact.

3. No, the "periodicals, magazines, press" were NOT calling it "defacto Russia" (sic). Some editors on Wikipedia decided to call it that, reflecting Russian nationalist POV. "Periodicals, magazines, press" were calling it "occupied by Russia" which is what we should be calling it if we take our policy of WP:RS seriously. Volunteer Marek 04:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3 you are incorrect and I have shown you are incorrect. You simply don't accept it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no you haven’t. An assertion is not an argument. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes I have. I gave sources and you simply DONTLIKEIT. Fyunck(click) (talk)

This is ridiculous[edit]

It’s ridiculous to have a template that’s actually “two templates in one” where the purported text that is displayed is NOT the text that gets placed into an article. Apparently because someone snuck in their own POV version and a bunch of “no include” tags. Volunteer Marek 23:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]