Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.17.84.82 (talk) at 20:57, 19 March 2014 (→‎Should we change the name to Republic of Crimea yet?: consistency). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Isn't the name Russian propaganda

The OFFICIAL name IS infact "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" since 1954. Maybe the "new Ukranian" regime changed the name in last weeks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC) The name added "Autonomous" even though that is widely contested, this page is currently extremely biased toward the Russian point of view. The article should at least point out that this point of view is strongly contested, by groups like the rest of the nations in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:3 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Autonomous Republic is from 1991. Before that it was a simple region. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Current Event Banner be applied?

Seems to me the {{Current related}} banner should be applied to this page. No?

I think under the current circumstances yes it should. So I'll do so and if someone feels that it shouldn't please discuss it here on this talk page first before making any changes. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support to apply the banner. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am perhaps too bold but after having checked the Web traffic on this page I am even more convinced. I apply the banner. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneIt has been previously removed, but I restored it as Crimea is prominently displayed on the current events portal today...--Truther2012 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is blank

I cannot open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea, it's completely blank. All other wiki pages are fine. 206.116.78.104 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution won't display either. Tested on latest Firefox & IE, Win8.1. 206.116.78.104 (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them work for me just fine, using Firefox on Windows XP. Savemonkeys0 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article works just fine for me (Iceweasel, Kali linux 1.06) and also with Android 4.12 and Firefox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean independence

Can't be illegal as much as lgbts in majority Muslim or Christians community which hates lgbts has no right to stop them. Any state can secede and or. Join a larger state. There are seceded countries like Singapore which are smaller that seceded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.168.103 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On March 11, the Crimean parliament declared itself the Republic of Crimea, independent of Ukraine. (RT)

~CalAvery (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a disputed declaration of independence, so let's wait a little before changing names in infoboxes. A.h. king • Talk to me! 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the article needs to change because the article is outdated, "Crimea" no longer automatically refers to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", it is now being used to refer to "Republic of Crimea". Republic of Kosovo is another example of a disputed declaration of independence. The Kosovo article provides an example of how to address the issue, have an infobox that makes no national claims about Crimea, while having an article on the Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (assuming that the Ukrainian government still claims that such an entity legally exists on paper).--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the disputes of recognition that are occurring, it may be best to have this article focus on the Crimean Peninsula with the Crimean Peninsula article redirecting to "Crimea". While separate articles exist for the Republic of Crimea and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: they have not declared themselves independent. They only adopted a bill where they show their intention to declare themselves independent if-and-only-if the people approve to do so through the upcoming referendum. Here are your sources: Al Jazeera, Euronews, Associated Press This is why RT should never EVER be considered a reliable source. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG. Wikipedia should not choose which media sources are "reliable" and which are not. If there are 2 sides in conflict, the biggest mistake would be to consider the media of one involved side "reliable", the media of of other involved side "invalid"... Your choosing of media sources (which is reliable and which not) clearly shows that you share the view of one side and want to inforce it to Wikipedia, which shoud remain neutral, reliable ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so personal - saying "Here are your sources" - and yelling in caps, all you needed to do was say it was incorrect and show the sources that demonstrate that it is incorrect.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This declaration is a so-called 'delayed status' (similar to Gagauzian independence in case Moldova lose it's independence) - it will only effect in independent state (which will thereafter apply for membership in Russia per art. 3 of the Declaration) only if the Crimean referendum, 2014 passes first (Russian federal subject) option as a result:
"1. В случае если в результате предстоящего 16 марта 2014 года прямого волеизъявления народов Крыма будет принято решение о вхождении Крыма, включая Автономную Республику Крым и город Севастополь, в состав России, Крым после референдума будет объявлен независимым и суверенным государством с республиканской формой правления.". Note bold words (and wait for a referendum). Seryo93 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea as a "gift".

This article states that Crimea was a "symbolic gift". In fact, when Ukraine was saddled with Crimea, it received a rock with no water or infrastructure, but arable habitable land were taken from Ukrainian territory on the east, and added to Russia. Russia received Ukrainian territory, thrice the size of Crimea. Ukrainian Wikipedia talks about it: [1] Yet, English Wikipedia is pending out that Crimea is some kind of a "gift". I find this racially offensive. I think that it's done on purpose to create tensions and racial hatred towards Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrancisici (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually correct and NPOV to state it was a "gift"? JDanek007Talk 03:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the tag for {{misleading}} be appended/applied? Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Misleading JDanek007Talk 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Afrancisici, as far as I can recall some parts of Sumy Oblast and Harkiv Oblast were transferred from Ukraine to Russia in 1954, but do you have any sources confirming that their surface area was comparable to that of Crimea or indeed "thrice the size of Crimea" as you claim? Apcbg (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This got me interested. Now, I don't have a reliable source explicitly comparing the territories transferred back and forth, but here is some original research (this is just to satisfy the curiosity of others; it obviously does not qualify for inclusion into any articles).
According to the 1947 reference book "Украïнська РСР. Адмiнiстративно-територiальний подiл", the area of Sumy Oblast was 24,400 km2 and the area of Kharkov Oblast was 51,300 km2. This is before the 1954 transfers, obviously. The 1979 reference book "Украинская ССР. Административно-территориальное деление" (after the transfers) gives the area of 23,800 km2 for Sumy Oblast and 31,400 km2 for Kharkov Oblast; the total decrease of (24,400-23,800)+(51,300-31,400)=20,500 km2. The same 1979 book gives the area of Crimean Oblast at 27,000 km2. Is this, in raw numbers, a comparable exchange? Pretty much. Was the territory taken from Ukraine "thrice the area of Crimea"? Hardly (but I'm assuming that Sumy and Kharkov Oblasts were the only ones in play, of course). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2014; 13:26 (UTC)
Dear Ëzhiki, many thanks for your thoughtful posting; it helps indeed. Best, Apcbg (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future of this article

Since the move of this article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea got rejected, I wonder what will be the future of this article? Because the Autonomous Republic of Crimea will soon cease to exist - it will join with Sevastopol and together become a federal subject of Russia. Without renaming, people who want to know something about Crimea will be directed to an article about a subdivision that de facto no longer exists.

Why not make it the same as in other Wikipedias? The article about "Crimea" should deal with the peninsula, not with a subdivision that was created only in 1991! Who cares if the media use it? It's factually absolutely incorrect and it isn't in accordance with contemporary English usage of the word either - when we talk about Crimea in the context of the Crimean war, we always mean the peninsula. That goes for most other contexts as well. -2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:29CE:978A:72E:36A2 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The move request was only rejected because the request was submitted before the poll on splitting the article had been closed. Now that the consensus to split the article has been reached, all that we are waiting for is someone's willingness to put time into making sure that the Crimean peninsula, the Republic of Crimea, and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (yet to be started) articles are properly organized and include appropriate sections from this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2014; 19:49 (UTC)
There's written that it was also rejected because there was a consensus against move.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:29CE:978A:72E:36A2 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should be about the Crimean peninsula and that the article titled "Crimean peninsula" be merged to here while content on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be in an article of its name.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Kosovo article shows a way to handle the competing claims - it is about the region of Kosovo while two articles exist for the two legal entities claiming it - the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (this entity now exists only in name but is still recognized by Serbia). Ukraine may not abandon claim to the existence of an Autonomous Republic of Crimea, but rather claim that its government was usurped by pro-Russian separatists. So legally-speaking that entity could exist for some years like the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military

Wouldn't it be better to just remove the "Military" section until and unless it gains some content? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the Crimean Republic has formed it's own military, it's just the topic is open to too much POV. BananaBandito (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage archiving

RESOLVED
 Fixed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We now have /Archive 1 and /Archives 1 - can someone who knows what they're doing get the two and the bot to a single naming system with all pages linked from here? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crimea declare to join with Russia Federation

Crimea is part of russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.129.40 (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.43.75 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Crima is now part of Russia so this article is completely unfactual this coming from an ubiased englishman. Why is it still shown as being part of Ukraine?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliehelyes (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, heed an advice of a "biased Russian" then. The answer to your question is because, a) Russia has not yet officially incorporated Crimea; b) the international community has recognized and accepted neither such an incorporation nor an intent to do so; c) same goes for Crimean independence. As soon as the first two items are satisfied, then the articles can be edited to replace "Ukraine" with "Russia". Until then, footnotes and additional sections dealing with the Russian situation will suffice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014; 14:55 (UTC)
Um, but hasn't a group of people on the Crimean peninsula declared independence from the Ukraine? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 1992 referendum

This article describes the scheduled August 1992 referendum with needlessly awkward and unclear language. I've raised the issue over at Talk:History of Crimea#August 2nd, 1992 referendum. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now outdated and needs urgent attention

The 16 March referendum accepted the secession from Ukraine of what is now titled the Republic of Crimea. There is no acting government in Crimea that currently represents the Autonomous Republic of Crimea because they recognize the new Republic of Crimea. Probably Ukraine and the Presidential Representative of AR Crimea still loyal to Ukraine, and international supporters recognize the Autonomous Republic's continued de jure existence. However it is de facto no longer existing.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid NPOV disputes over claims of legitimacy of control over Crimea given now that it is disputed territory, I strongly believe that this article should be about the Crimean peninsula as a region while an article on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be created. The article on the Crimean peninsula should be merged here, while content on the Autonomous Republic should be merged to an article titled: Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The article on Kosovo, a similarly disputed region, talks about the region and doesn't legitimize either claims by the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia to it - that is a good model for an article on Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest that. It seems no end to this territorial dispute is in sight, so it would be prudent to take this action now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it already, for god's sake. Anyone.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles?

Wouldn't it be wise to have two articles: one called the 'Republic of Crimea' about the now independent state and future Russian federal subject and an other with the title 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' (without Sevastopol) about the Ukrainian subject? That way we can assure neutrality. It is also done with Kosovo: Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija. --Wester (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There already is two articles. That's why this article needs to stay how it is, because it's about the officially recognized part of Ukraine. The other article is about the unrecognized republic. JOJ Hutton 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but then the title should be changed to 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' instead of just 'Crimea'..--Wester (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request of edit(fast)

After:
" The Republic of Crimea (Ukrainian: Республіка Крим, Respublika Krym; Russian: Республика Крым, Respublika Krym; Crimean Tatar: Qırım Muhtar Cumhuriyeti, Къырым Мухтар)[6] is a republic located on the Crimean Peninsula on the North shore of the Black Sea. Crimea includes nearly all of the North Black Sea peninsula of Crimea. " Please add:
"It is sovereign state recognized by one member of U.N.(Russia).[1]"
Reason: Wikipedia should have factual accuracy in NPOV. This is a fact, like in Kosovo state(where de facto there is no S. control currently), of course with lower number of recognizing countries, however it is bigger recognize than many countries, which doesn't have even one country backing. Source: Reuters.

This article is about the old Ukrainian republic, in the new article about Republic of Crimea there's correctly stated Russia recognized it.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fantasy

This article must have been written by Vladimir Putin- it is a Russianized version and is fallacious arguments and reasoning. Simply it is bunk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.132.171 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny because someone else just accused me of keeping the article "westernized". Simple fact is that WP:NPOV requires that all sides have an equal say in the article, based on WP:WEIGHT. Clearly no one is going to be happy until it's either all one way or the other. JOJ Hutton 20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please add that the Crimean referendum is illegal according to Title III, Article 71 and 72, of the Constitution of Ukraine [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantinchik (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3]. Art 10 [4] article 16 [5]Jimmydreads (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

– With the recent political instability in the Crimea, there are now multiple political units which take the name 'Crimea'. It is likely that its sovereignty will remain disputed over the immediate future. I suggest that the best move under such circumstances is to keep the name 'Crimea' for the geographical region, moving the current 'Crimea' article to a new home under its formal name. It should be pointed out that this would mirror the Russian/Independent state of 'Republic of Crimea'. This would mirror how we deal with Kosovo and Palestine. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I requested the same thing at the same time. ;) —Wester (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great minds and all. There's a lot of people being coming here expecting an article on one topic and finding it on another I think! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, it doesn't cover the same area as Sevastopol is part of the Republic of Crimea but not of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.--Wester (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" is wrong, concerning the long history in this article. --House1630 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That should be merged with 'Crimean peninsula'—Wester (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The overall history should be moved to the Crimean peninsula article. This article should detail the former state. The present state will be detailed in Republic of Crimea. This is standard practice, and mimics Ireland, Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I am very much in favour of this or simply go to a disambiguation page for the time being 77.97.151.145 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Its far too soon to come to a conclusion on naming rights to a region or national government. I suggset waiting it out until the dust settles before making title changes to articles based on incomplete and recent developments. If after a while the picture becomes clearer, then it would be easier to decide which is the most common name for each. Until then, lets all relax and see what happens.--JOJ Hutton 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or move history to 'Crimean peninsula' - see the short text there. --House1630 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can justify this article remaining at the title "Crimea", when functionally, the state it describes has ceased to exist. RGloucester — ☎ 21:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
exactly --House1630 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in principle, but its far too soon to decide what the common name is for these articles. Too much is happening far too quickly and I think that we should wait until the dust settles until finalizing these article titles. Its simply putting the cart before the horse.--JOJ Hutton 21:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of common name. It's a question of neutral name. If you name the 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' only Crimea it's as you recognise it to be the sole legitimate Crimean government.--Wester (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines say "Most Common Name". Now if there is a need for disambiguation because the same name is used for multiple hinges, like Football, but right now we just don't know. JOJ Hutton 21:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you want to merge all together ? --House1630 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was just highlighting the fact that there are three different articles out there.--Truther2012 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - The only consensus as to what "Crimea" refers to now is the geographic area. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Examples where the republic is called simply as "Crimea" by English media:
  1. CNN: [2]
  2. Reuters: [3]
  3. The Wall Street Journal: [4]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [5]
  2. Fox News: [6]
  3. The Huffington Post: [7]
I don't oppose renaming this article to Autonomous Republic but I do oppose "Crimea" being about the peninsula. If anything, the page "Crimea" should be a disambiguation page with links pointing to the Autonomous Republic, the Republic, and the peninsula.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose redirecting "Crimean Peninsula". This should refer to the geographic feature.
Support redirecting "Crimea" to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" (the internationally accepted entity). The self-proclaimed (and only Russian-recognized) entity should have its own article.
Also, someone needs to clarify this request. If "Crimean Peninsula" redirects to "Crimea", and "Crimea" redirects to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", then "Crimean Peninsula" would go to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea." --Nomadic Whitt (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Disagree. The history of the region should be at Crimean peninsula and remain there. "Crimea" refers either to the Autonomous Republic or the Republic in English-speaking media. The peninsula is always referred to as "Crimean peninsula". This is the English Wikipedia. We go by what English speakers refer to, not to what locals refers to. Right now what is best is to move Crimea (disambiguation) → Crimea. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "history of the region" presently isn't at Crimean peninsula. It is at this article, which is the problem. I wouldn't be so sure that "the peninsula" is always referred to as such. One could say "Crimea", and include Sebastopol, despite the fact that Sebastopol is not included in the "Autonomous Republic". This has been a common move by the media. That's because Sebastopol is in Crimea, it merely isn't in Autonomous Republic. Of course, now it is in the "Republic", so that is sorted in one respect. 138.16.97.166 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose there is simply no reason to hastily make these proposed moves, which might be mistaken as serving more of a propaganda purpose than any legitimate Wikipedia concern. Since Wikipedia does not need to be edited as if it was a news service, editors should proceed deliberately and dispassionately, without haste, and only after establishing clear consensus. It's clear that now is not the time to make such radical changes. JDanek007Talk 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've not provided any arguments against the move. It will be moved without haste within a standard voting period.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. The normal way, in this situation, on Wikipedia, is to have an article for the geographical entity, and separate ones for the states. Hence, Ireland, which deals with the island, and Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, which deal with the states. Hence, Kosovo, which deals with the geographic region, and Republic of Kosovo, which deals with the state. 138.16.97.166 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that in English-speaking media "Ireland" is always used to refer to the island and "Kosovo" is used to refer to the region. This is not the case for "Crimea". In English-speaking media they always refer to the peninsula as "the Crimean peninsula" not as Crimea. Crimea is always used to refer to the republic. We have already provided sources in this discussion that confirm this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. The island of Ireland is referred to as "the island of Ireland". Kosovo usually means the proclaimed state, and not the region.Link RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those opposing the proposed changes to have this article focus on the Crimean peninsula, what is your evidence that English speakers are exclusively referring to the political entities of Crimea (i.e. Republic of Crimea, Autonomous Republic of Crimea)?--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones I already provided above in this very same discussion.
Examples where the republic is called simply as "Crimea" by English media:
  1. CNN: [8]
  2. Reuters: [9]
  3. The Wall Street Journal: [10]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [11]
  2. Fox News: [12]
  3. The Huffington Post: [13]
HTH,
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ahnoneemoos: In each of the articles you listed as "solely the Autonomous Republic", they also refer to Sebastopol, which was not part of the Republic. Particularly, in the Reuters article, it says "The vice premier of Crimea, home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, said a referendum on the status would take place on March 16. All state property would be "nationalized", the Russian ruble adopted and Ukrainian troops treated as occupiers and forced to surrender or leave, he said". That is, it says that "Crimea is home to the Black Sea Fleet". In that case, it is clearly referring to the geographical Crimea, and not the Autonomous Republic. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, the WSJ does not [14]: "The pro-Russian regional Parliament in Crimea […]" which refers to the Autonomous Republic, hence why we should exercise care to distinct "Crimea" from the "Crimean peninsula" and the Autonomous Republic. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot access the WSJ, so I do not know about that. The quote you mentioned says "parliament in Crimea". It does not say parliament "OF Crimea". Clearly it is once again referencing the geographical definition. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the use of "in" does not imply that it refers to the region as the region as a whole doesn't have a parliament. Only the Autonomous Republic does. "in" in that case refers to "the parliament in [the Autonomous Republic of] Crimea". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If "Crimea" always referred to the "Autonomous Republic", then "of" would've been the correct word to use. "In" specifies geography. "Of" specifies possession by a state of an institution. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same with the Ukrainian and Russia Wikipedias, I believe. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But not with Aragonés (an:Peninsula de Crimea) and Estonian (et:Krimmi poolsaar). The Wikipedia community as a whole is divided even though a majority of articles about "Crimea" in different languages link to the peninsula. I'd guess that each language goes with whatever its speakers refer it to. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Crimean peninsula article is presently a summary page, which is why it is suggested that it be retitled "Crimea". RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is English Wikipedia, yes? And English-speaking media best, common practice is to refer to the peninsula as "the Crimean peninsula" not as Crimea, which refers to the republic (as another editor supported above with reliably-sourced citations). The status quo is sufficient at present, and as another editor said, "it's simply putting the cart before the horse" to make radical changes to article titles in response to fast-moving, highly-controversial, disputed political and military events. These efforts to rename articles may also be introducing instability into the Wikipedia seemingly for no justifiable reason. Perhaps there will eventually be a community-supported and endorsed need for disambiguation because (to quote editor above) "the same name is used for multiple hinges, like Football, but right now we just don't know". Azx2 23:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think people searching for "Crimea" should be sent to an article on a state unit, the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", that functionally no longer exists? RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I debunked those citations, as they included Sebastopol in "Crimea", which could've only referred to the geographic area, as the Autonomous Republic did not include it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - that region was officially called the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", not "Crimea". 'Crimea', by all means, should refer to the current geopolitical state. However, it is best to just refer it to the peninsula itself. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There are two entities claiming Crimea. To make the Crimea page about either one is to support one side as legitimate. Also Crimea includes Sevastopol unlike both entities. 98.232.221.163 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the usual solution in these cases. Acer (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the first move, oppose the second; Crimea should be a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Support The article at "Crimea" should be about Crimea in general, not about ether the Russian or Ukrainian governments/political units specifically. As for whether this should be accomplished be the proposed move or some other method, I have no opinion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for the Sevastopol thing, we can simply note the slightly different definitions of Crimea in the article, possibly the lead. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion might be clarified by considering whether the Isthmus of Perekop will be covered by one or more of the articles in question, and if so which one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both moves, of the political entity articles to fully specified titles, and of the geography article to plain Crimea as being the primary topic. That ought to have been done long ago, even before there were two competing entities, because the geography always was primary. Some people have claimed above that the peninsula is not normally called plain "Crimea" in English usage but preferably "Crimean peninsula". I believe this is wrong. There may be a tendency for this in some current sources, when journalists want to explicitly disambiguate the geographical unit from the political ones, but if you look into other attestations from unrelated contexts, e.g. searching for phrases like "on the Crimea" on Googlebooks, you will find that they are extremely numerous and usually refer to the peninsula in situations that are completely unrelated to any of the modern political units (e.g. historical contexts). +Fut.Perf. ☼
I don't think that the words "Crimean Peninsula" include the Isthmus of Perekop. However, the unadorned geographic entity "Crimea" may well include that isthmus. This is something that needs to be clarified before I support or oppose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, that strikes me as an exceedingly nitpicky point to make, and one that is unlikely to have any serious consequences for the way we divide up our article coverage. Natural features such as peninsulas will always have boundaries that are somewhat less precisely defined than those of political entities, and whether you consider a certain few square miles of borderline land part of a larger geographical unit or not is so much a matter of arbitrary definitions that I seriously doubt you will find any clearly definable, consistent usage pattern either way in common speech – certainly not one in which "X'ian peninsula" would be systematically and reliably understood to be different from "X" alone. And even if there were such a clear division, nothing stops us from adapting the coverage in our geography article accordingly once we have decided on the title, changing the wording of the few sentences that refer to the isthmus in that article in accordance with whether we want to treat it as part of it or not. So what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated below, I now oppose for reasons unrelated to the isthmus, but I don't agree it's nitpicky to wonder which term is geographically broader (Crimea versus Crimean Peninsula).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are two suggested moves here, and I oppose both for separate reasons. Regarding Crimea → Autonomous Republic of Crimea, it seems to me that we already have an article titled Republic of Crimea, so we don't need another one titled Autonomous Republic of Crimea, but I would support a merge of Crimea into Republic of Crimea. As for Crimean peninsula → Crimea, keeping it the way it is gives a better sense of geography. I have no opninion yet about whether Crimea should be a redirect or a disambiguation page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Autonomous Republic (part of Ukraine) and Republic (part of Russia) are entirely separate entities as part of a territorial dispute. They cannot be merged, as this would favour a POV. This is standard practice. See Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and Republic of Kosovo. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that the Kosovo articles are devoid of crap. For example, a hatnote says, "This article is about the autonomous province of Serbia on the territory of Kosovo." That is extremely confusing. AFAIK, a province of one country cannot simultaneously be on the territory of another.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can. That's the nature of a disputed territory. The Autonomous Republic exists in Ukrainian law, and will continue exist until it is abolished by Ukraine, just as the Autonomous Province does in Serbian law. Neither de facto exist anymore, but they still exist de jure. Hence, they have separate articles. It is very possible for two entities to claim a territory, and keep up the governmental structure for them in law to legitimise the claim. In Russian law, the new Republic is what it is. In Ukrainian law, only the Autonomous Republic exists. We cannot favour one or the other. RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An autonomous republic is a kind of republic, so I am not convinced that calling it a republic implies any rejection of Ukraine's claim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. A new Republic of Crimea has been proclaimed by the authorities in Crimea. This state is not recognised by Ukraine. It has now joined Russia as a federal subject. It is NOT related to the constitutionally defined Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which is a non-sovereign regional unit of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not regard the Wikipedia article title "Republic of Crimea" as necessarily being a name of any entity, and the "R" in Republic can be capitalized not because it is the first letter of a name, but rather because it is the first letter of an article title. My preference is to consolidate the dispute in one article about a political and governmental entity, instead of two of them. The dispute can be (and is) covered by lots of other Wikipedia articles too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Republic of Crimea" is a proper noun, officially declared by the authorities in Crimea during their Declaration of Independence. It is not a "lowercase republic". There are two separate political and governmental entities, not one. I do not understand why this is hard to comprehend. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess maybe I'm just stupid for thinking believe that "republic of Crimea" is not a proper noun, and for thinking that its first letter can sometimes be capitalized (e.g. if it's at the start of a sentence). Anyway, if people would like to rename "Republic of Crimea" as something like "Crimea (political unit)", then it's okay with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are TWO SEPARATE political units, so one can't be called "Crimea" solely without disambiguation, as that would violate NPOV. The Republic of Crimea is one unit. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is another unit. They are not the same. One is in Russia (Republic), and one is in Ukraine (Autonomous Republic). They are both proper nouns, official names in their respective laws. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The competing claims can be covered within a single Wikipedia article. Similar to how we handle the Falklands. Do we need separate articles for the respective proper political names given to those islands?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have both made your points adequately. I'd recommend you shouldn't continue to exchange repetitive arguments here, as it will inflate the whole process. This is the kind of situation where we can't really expect that everybody will convince everybody else with their arguments, so just agree to disagree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Falkland Islands comparison doesn't apply here because we don't have a name for the geographical area that the "Autonomous Republic" and the "Republic" cover (which is the same in both cases). The whole region where the republics are located is called "Crimean Peninsula" but the peninsula also includes Sevastopol which is an entity completely separate from both the "Autonomous Republic" and the "Republic". Do you now understand why we must be careful when using "Crimea" as an article title? Per WP:NPOV we cannot say, "Crimea is the Autonomous Republic" nor "Crimea is the Republic". Your proposed solution to merge would need to be hosted at Crimea (disputed territory) so that the article's title remains impartial and neutral. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Crimea does include Sebastopol. It is the Autonomous Republic which does not. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Crimea (the federal subject) does not include Sevastopol. Source: The Washington Post: "The city of Sevastopol also entered the Russian Federation, as a separate entity—a status it traditionally enjoyed as an important military center." —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, you are right. It seems the proclaimed Republic no longer includes Sebastopol, but used to do before it was properly annexed to Russia. Apparently, Sebastopol is now a federal city of Russia. Regardless, another example is Taiwan Province, PRC and Taiwan Province, ROC. We always have separate articles for separate governmental structures, even if one of the governments doesn't control the territory. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their are two articles: the Republic of Crimea (country) (the country that existed one day and included Sevastopol) and the Russian federal subject Republic of Crimea (which does not include Sevastopol).--Wester (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Republic" does not mean "independent state". I do not know where you get that conception. There are many federal subjects of Russia, and many of them are "republics". Republic of Crimea is no different. The "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" was the official name of the state entity as part of Ukraine, and remains so in the Constitution of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could not care less about Ukrainian and Russian constitutions. What we care about are WP:RS and WP:COMMON NAME. Here is the problem. Article Crimea describes Crimea as a political/territorial entity starting from antiquity. That's why modern day Ukrainian constitution is irrelevant. Should we have a separate page about this entity included in Russia? No, I think we do not (merge them), although we may have a separate page about territorial dispute.My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We care about WP:RS, and we also care about WP:NPOV. The present Crimea article does not do what you say it does. That would be Crimean peninsula. The present Crimea article is only about the Autonomous Republic, which was commonly referred to as "Crimea" prior to the 2014 Crimean crisis. If we were do what you said, we would be ignoring the state institutions of both the Autonomous Republic and the Republic, which would violate NPOV. Which state entity would the "Crimea" article describe? Would it describe the Russian federal subject, or the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic? It cannot feasibly describe both in the same article. It is no different then having separate articles for Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Irish Republic, Irish Free State, and finally, the Republic of Ireland. Each new state entity gets its own article, and yet, Ireland remains to describe the unambiguous geographical entity. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need two pages: one about Crimean Peninsula as geographic object, and another about Crimea as a historical, ethnographic and political entity during centuries - this page. Do we need several additional sub-articles, such as "Crimea in Imperial Russia", "Crimea in the Soviet Union", "Crimea in Ukraine", and "Crimea in Russian Federation"? I am not sure, but this might be something reasonable if improves readability. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have Crimean Khanate, for the pre-Empire period. We have Taurida Governorate, discussing the means by which Crimea was governed during the Empire. We have Crimean Socialist Soviet Republic and Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic for the two different state entities that existing on Crimea during the Soviet Union period. There is no reason we should not continue this, as it is standard with all Wikipedia articles. State entities get their own articles. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This means we still need one general article Crimea, which describes whole history of Crimea, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine) and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Russia) as subarticles. This is not renaming, but splitting the content. This can be easily done I think. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Russia)". The federal subject of Russia is called "Republic of Crimea". Regardless, that's exactly what these move requests are trying to do. They will move this article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as that is the state it presently describes. They will then move Crimean peninsula to Crimea, which can be expanded as a "whole history of Crimea" article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fundamental question

Encyclopedia or Newsroom? Why to change the text after every news in the world? --House1630 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because we want to give up-to-date information.--Wester (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every hour, every minute ? --House1630 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The world is changing every minute. ;)
and every second ... --House1630 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you care? As long as the editors adhere to WP standards and seek consensus, they can go as often as they please...--Truther2012 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there is danger of some being very cavalier and not respecting or not even understanding the fact that:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)

"As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
  2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews..." --------- Cheers, JDanek007Talk 05:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH ! --House1630 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flags

The infobox should not show a change in the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to an independent Crimea, as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea continues to exist under the Ukrainian Constitution and international law. A separate article now exists for the self-proclaimed independent state, which remains unrecognized by all but the country whose military has occupied it. --Nomadic Whitt (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. JDanek007Talk 05:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but as long this article is simply named 'Crimea' people will change it because they don't know their is an other article Republic of Crimea as well. It's time to move this article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea.--Wester (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus'

Explanation "Early Ukraine" for Kievan Rus' is incorrect. According to Wikipedia article Kievan Rus': "...was a loose federation of East Slavic tribes in Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century, under the reign of the Rurik dynasty. The modern peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural inheritance". Ukrainian, russian and belarusian people didn't exist back then. There were Ilmen Slavs, Krivichs, Polans, Severians, Vyatichi, Chud and other slavic and finnic tribes. Sentence "Kievan Rus' (early Ukraine)" is not more correct than "Ottoman Empire (early Turkey)", "Roman Empire (early Italy)" or "Goths (early Federal Republic of Germany)" M0d3M (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ve fixed this one. — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 12:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move page to Autonomous Republic of Crimea

CLOSED
(non-admin closure) There is an ongoing discussion about this very same matter at Talk:Crimea#Requested move. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crimea could either be redirected to Crimea (disambiguation) or Crimean peninsula (or Crimean peninsula could be moved to Crimea), in the interest of neutrality. --Stan2525 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd also like to note this is how it is done on BOTH the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias (Crimea redirects to Crimean Peninsula (Ukrainian Wikipedia), and Crimean Peninsula redirects to Crimea (Russian Wikipedia). --Stan2525 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is already being discussed above.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename now please

Would a moderator please rename the article ASAP to 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' to make clear that this article is about the Ukranian subject and not about Crimea as a whole. But lot's of edit conflicts are caused by this confusion.--Wester (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What facts exactly are in dispute?JOJ Hutton 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Autonomous Republic of Crimea count as a current country? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources to support your claims. What countries recognize the new Crimea? USchick (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia recognizes it, the country is no longer under Ukrainian control, Russia has signed the annex treaty.[15] 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)[reply]
Russia is the occupying force. Who recognizes it? Anyone? USchick (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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 
August 24, 1991 1991
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)[reply]

I have listed this article on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is under attack by vandals. USchick (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [16][17]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Map

I will remove the map from this article until an alternative map can be provided. Crimea is no longer under Ukrainian control and has formally become part of the Russian Federation. Regardless of anyone's personal position on the matter, it can no longer be stated as a fact that Crimea is part of Ukraine, as the reality on the ground and legal declarations from Crimea's autonomous Government state otherwise. The nearest thing to any reasonable rebuttal to this would be to categorise Crimea as a disputed territory and even then it has to be considered as part of one country or the other as it is not an independent state. Owl In The House (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be edit locked to even regular editors :/ Owl In The House (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fully protected because people keep making changes, although in good faith, to the article that violate NPOV. Ukraine considers the area to be under the control of a foreign invasion force. As well as the EU and the US and 16 of the 18 members of the UN Security Council. It's still considered part of Ukraine, regardless of which military is currently occupying the region. JOJ Hutton 13:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 15 members of the Security council... 129.234.37.53 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor mistake. Doesn't change the facts. JOJ Hutton 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Please from the country infobox, please remove "established_event12 = Referendum to re-join Russia" as it doesn't have to do anything legally with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as part of Ukraine. A.h. king • Talk to me! 12:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Until this referendum is recognized internationally, it's considered illegal. JOJ Hutton 13:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In criminal law contexts, Wikipedia does not usually assume illegality until a court of competent jurisdiction says so. On the other hand, if person X were to allege that he owns the house of person Y, that's probably not a good enough reason for Wikipedia to start referring to it as the house of person X. It's probably best to refer to it as a house subject to competing claims by X and Y. The Kosovo issue was ultimately resolved by a decision by an international court, and the same may perhaps happen here, in a legal (if not political or diplomatic) sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. If I understand Anythingyouwant's post, there is no consensus for this change at this time and it will require some more discussion. If I misunderstand, please feel free to reactivate this request and I apologize. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

First paragraph: "The legality of the vote has been rejected... with few exceptions"

The legitimacy and legality of the vote has been rejected by the government of Ukraine and the international community, with few exceptions.

What are these "few exceptions"? The cited NY Times article doesn't say anything of the sort...

I agree with you, the source doesn't mention anything like this.--Wrant (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International community

The phrase "international community" is widely used by politicians (and cited by the press) but there is no legal authority that can speak on behalf of "the international community". Further there are 193 states and only a fraction of the countries condemned the situation and said that the referendum is illegal. It's not an established term in this context and should not be used in the article.--Wrant (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A country does not have to explicitly express condemnation to continue recognizing the territory as a part of Ukraine. Only a few countries explicitly recognized the incorporation into Russia, which leaves the remaining countries in overwhelming majority (to refer to which as "international community" is more than appropriate, especially since that's the term sources use).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014; 15:35 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014

"On 3 March, it was reported that the head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet gave the Ukraine a deadline of dawn "

Should be "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine", when talking about independent nation, and not the soviet republic.

Haroski (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140317
  2. ^ http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter03.html
  3. ^ http://www.cnbc.com/id/101500424
  4. ^ http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/193222.html
  5. ^ http://www.osce.org/fom/116312
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea&oldid=600360077"