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 207.151.38.178 (talk) at 23:59, 21 March 2014 (→We should full lock this page). 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The area in AMBER not WHITE is Ukraine; and minor corrections as these still need to be undertaken. WB2

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

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]
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)[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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.84.82 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140317
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]
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)[reply]

Please add that the Crimean referendum is illegal according to Title III, Article 71 and 72, of the Constitution of Ukraine [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantinchik (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter03.html

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 [1]. Art 10 [2] article 16 [3]Jimmydreads (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.cnbc.com/id/101500424
  2. ^ http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/193222.html
  3. ^ http://www.osce.org/fom/116312

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)

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: [1]
  2. Reuters: [2]
  3. The Wall Street Journal: [3]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [4]
  2. Fox News: [5]
  3. The Huffington Post: [6]
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: [7]
  2. Reuters: [8]
  3. The Wall Street Journal: [9]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [10]
  2. Fox News: [11]
  3. The Huffington Post: [12]
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 [13]: "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]
Crimea (disputed territory) would be fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 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]
I think it is too late for that, considering the present move proposal. You can try and be WP:BOLD, perhaps. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's too late, the move is just one possible means trouwered making the article at "Crimea" should be about Crimea in general, as explained in my 03:08, 19 March 2014 vote. I think My very best wishes's idea is better, this article is, with the partial excretion of the infobox and "Government and politics" section, already about the Crimea in general and not the Ukrainian government/political units specifically. Better to just to rework the infobox and Government section then to try to turn this article into something it isn't. As MVBW said, we can split off an Autonomous Republic of Crimea article from this one, if we even want "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and "Republic of Crimea" articles.
Frankly, tough this isn't essential to my proposal, I think we should just merge Republic of Crimea and Crimean peninsula into this article instead of spiting off a new "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot merge them. This is against the usual Wikipedia conventions, first of all, and second of all, it would be impossible to explain the separate governmental structures of each state entity in one article without making it unreadable or violating NPOV. Furthermore, we cannot merge them because they have separate geographical definitions. Both "Crimea" states do not include the Sebastopol region, which is part of the geographical Crimea. This article has always been about the Autonomous Republic. As early as 2004, it claimed to describe the place as such. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. That's the whole point of moving this article. We will move it to free up the "Crimea" name for a generic Crimea article. This present article is about the Autonomous Republic. Read it. That's what it is about. By moving it, we can then make a nice general article. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting off isn't the appropriate way to do it. This article is presently about the Autonomous Republic, and was before this crisis. The best way to deal with the situation is to move this article, and its edit history, which belong to the Autonomous Republic, to that new title, so that we can free up the name "Crimea" and then create a general article. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this article is already a general Crimea article, with the partial excretion of the infobox, lead, and "Government and politics" section. This article was about Crimea in general before the crisis, it just so happens that before the crisis Crimea was indisputably an Autonomous Republic of Ukraine. Assuming we should have a specialized article, it's be easier to turn this back into a general article and make a new specialized article for the Autonomous Republic; then to turn this into a specialized article. Look at the section titles: the Etymology, History (before 2014), Geography, Economy, Demographics, and Culture of the Republic and the Autonomous Republic are the same. Both the are Republic and the Autonomous Republic are Crimea, the only difference between the two is government. A specialized article would be mostly limited to government, not culture and geography, this is not that specialized article.
As for the two merges, that's not an essential part of my proposal, so I don't want to get hung up on that, but if you want precedent see Abkhazia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not about Crimea in general, as Crimea "in general", the "geographic Crimea", includes Sebastopol. This article never included Sebastopol, because it was about the Autonomous Republic, which does not include Sebastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 13:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A.R.O. Crimea and R.O. Crimea are the exact same peace of territory right (the peninsula minus Sebastopol)? That territory is the scope of this article, Sebastopol is irrelevant to my point (aside from the merge with Crimea peninsula, which is not an essential part of my proposal). I meant Crimea in general as opposed to A.R.O. Crimea and R.O. Crimea specifically, not Crimea including Sebastopol as opposed to Crimea excluding Sebastopol. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the two state entities are the same piece of territory. However, they do not cover the whole of Crimea. If this was a "general Crimea article", it would include Sebastopol, unlike an article on one of the states. RGloucester — ☎ 14:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant by "general Crimea article". By "general Crimea" I didn't mean "Crimea including Sebastopol". Sebastopol is irrelevant to my point. This article, before the Crimea crisis, covered Crimea (excluding Sebastopol) in general, and I think it should continue to do so. A.R.O. Crimea and R.O. Crimea specifically can be covered in their own specialized articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. The article previously covered the Autonomous Republic, because the common name for said state prior to the crisis was "Crimea". However, by nature, a general "Crimea" article cannot exclude Sebastopol. Now that common name considerations have been wiped aside, as neither state is more commonly "Crimea" at the moment, then we must revert to the geographical definition and include Sebastopol. That means that this article, as it stands, should be preserved as the Autonomous Republic article (with its edit history, which has always referred to the autonomous republic, as shown above with the link to the 2004 version), with general information being split off to a new Crimea article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those "states" you're talking about are just two competing governments of the exact same peace of land. Unless one of the parties wants to redraw Crimea's (political) border, the border remains the same as it was before the crisis. Why must we must revert to the geographical definition and include Sebastopol: the (political) boundaries of Crimea are clear, even if the question of what Crimea's legitimate government is isn't so clear. If America got into a civil war, would we be required to revert to the geographical definition of "America" and include the Americas? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point, though. As there are two competing governments, each which claims the same land, neither has a proper claim to the title "Crimea". We cannot refer to either of them as Crimea, as that would be giving undue legitimacy to one viewpoint, violating NPOV. That is to say, the only neutral definition of Crimea is the geographic one, which has nothing to do with politics at all. The only reason this article was titled "Crimea" was because "Crimea" commonly referred to the "Autonomous Republic". As this is no longer the case, we must revert to a neutral definition of the word Crimea. There is only one neutral definition, and that is geographic. This definition is being used even more frequently now, if one reads the news media, where one will see that Sebastopol is now commonly included in "Crimea", even more so then before. To create a "Crimea" article that referenced the boundaries of states, rather than that of geography, this would most likely violate both the common name and NPOV policies. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Crimea has a long history, and is suitable both in recognition and in reason at that name - these states have been and look to continue being transitory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this will ensure neutrality although I hasten to add that given the reality on the ground, and for anyone who has been reading about this, in the years ahead their will be a vote here to delete 'Republic of Crimea' and merge it with this.Olorin010 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal We should move this page to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. However we should move Crimea to being a disambiguation page to cover many possible articles including Crimean Khanate. Crimea has been a city, peninsula, independent Turkic nation that ruled far beyond the Peninsula, and the name of various entities covering part or all of the peninsula. At present there is no clear argument that any meaning is the primary one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However, isn't that the purpose of moving Crimean peninsula to Crimea? So that a general article can be created? RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For much of history Crimea has refered to areas far beyond he peninsula itself. For the entire 19th century, and actually over 120 years, Russia had an entity, the Taurida Governorate that made the social and political reality that the boundaries of modern Crimea did not have political consequences. Before that the Crimean Khanate also went far beyond the Peninsula itself. It is only starting in 1919 that the current situation really begans. There is no reason to ignore the broader meaning of the term, or to act like an article on just the Peninsula can adequately cover the full range of its meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since almost all of our articles on places in Isthmus of Perekop say they are in Crimea, but the Isthmus is clearly not part of the geographical entity called Crimean Peninsula, it should be obvious to anyone who has looked closely at this issue that we can not make the Peninsula the primary article and keep to the way the term is used even at present. The Peninsula is less than all of Crimea by most uses of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:SNOW could be applied to the matter of creating an article on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea - there is overwhelming support here for creating that article. The real issue of division is what this article should be - an article about the Crimean peninsula, a disambiguation page, etc. In the meantime discussion could then be focused on addressing the issues raised here on what to do with this article, this article should adhere to NPOV remove the infobox and the topic in the intro saying that this is about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea alone and acknowledge that there are two entities claiming the same territory.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split counter-proposal

I propose we leave the article at this title, covering Crimea neutrality, and simply split off an "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article, like our Republic of Crimea article.

If we were to move this article and finish making it's scope the Autonomous Republic specifically, we would need move the majority of the content out of the article and into a general Crimea article anyway sense most of the content is about Crimea in general rather then the Republic or Autonomous Republic specifically. Look at the section titles: the Etymology, History (before 2014), Geography, Economy, Demographics, and Culture of the Republic and the Autonomous Republic are the same; both the are Republic and the Autonomous Republic are Crimea, the only difference between the two is government. Covering all that non-government stuff like Culture in both the the Republic and the Autonomous Republic articles would be massively redundant, it belongs on a general Crimea article, and aside form the parts of this article that deal with government like the "Government and politics" section, this article is already that general Crimea article.

It'd be easier to turn this back into a general Crimea article (as it was before the Crimea crisis) and make a new specialized article for the Autonomous Republic; then to turn this into a specialized article. A specialized "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article would be mostly limited to government and the like, not culture and geography, this is not that specialized article.

I made a rough draft of an Autonomous Republic article, tough it certainly has some rough edges to smooth out. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for yet another article about Crimea. We already have four. What we need is to get the ones we have into the right places, not create even more confusion. CodeCat (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was never a "general Crimea article", as I already explained. The edit history of this article must be attached to history of the Autonomous Republic, because, as I showed in old versions of the page, this article has always been about the Autonomous Republic, and has never included Sebastopol, which is also in "Crimea", but not the "Autonomous Republic". RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is not to expand the scope of this page to include Sebastopol, this page would (presumably) continue to cover the territory is allays has, the Crimea crisis has not effected the political bounties of Crimea, which continue to exclude Sebastopol (the political boundaries of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the "Republic of Crimea" are identical). I know we've had this discussion already, and I don't expect you to agree with me (and that's OK), I'm just saying this for the record so my proposal isn't misunderstood. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal does not prejudge against merging Crimean peninsula into this article, if that's what you're talking about CodeCat. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it still complicates things by adding even more articles to the mix, even more discussions, mergers and so on. Can we focus on one thing at a time, instead of trying to solve the same problem in lots of different and incompatible ways? CodeCat (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the "one thing at the time" (moving the article) would IMO do more harm then good, so I've made a counter-proposal that addresses the issues raised in the RM. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It creates more problems then it solves. RGloucester — ☎ 13:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This counter-proposal is counter-productive.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:18, 21 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.[14] 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]

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)[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: [15][16]. - 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]

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.

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]


The statement "is recognized internationally, it's considered illegal" does not make any sense at all. "Illegal" means NOT RECOGNIZED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.181.113 (talk) 16:01, 21 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]

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)[reply]

International law is trumped by military might every time. --DJAMP4444 (talk) 16:07, 21 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]
I smell a rat, or rather weasel in this case. Unless the "few exceptions" can be named, the part should be removed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:10, 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)

This is pretty wrong. The UN Security Council is legally able to start war under certain conditions, but also to transfer region to another state. In the Security Council all voted to damn the so called "referendum", except one member, which unfortunatelly still has veto power.

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]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page made the news (ABC)

But not in a good way... [17]. There a way we can come to some kind of an agreement? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for posting this! Why do you say "not in a good way"? I think it's excellent. It shows that real discussion is taking place with some serious thought to both sides. Maybe the politicians should learn form Wikipedia editors? Even though the article is locked. lol USchick (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it funny how we are being "silenced" by "the oppressive admin government of Wikipedia" by keeping this article protected? I'd say we go invade the Ukrainian Wikipedia and take it for ourselves. Then, when they call us for invading their 'pedia we claim it's just "local self-defense forces". LOL. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea, but I think we should invade Russian Wikipedia instead. USchick (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.[a][2] 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?]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ 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."[1]
  1. ^ Englund, Will (18 March 2014). "Kremlin says Crimea is now officially part of Russia after treaty signing, Putin speech". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
  2. ^ "Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine". CNN. 18 March 2014. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose until the request for moving the article (above) has been concluded. CodeCat (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Making the lead neutral should be a priority. WP:NPOV is one of our core policies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • I would not call it consensus when both sides participating are equally divided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
  • Withdrawing my support until after the move. Great lead though! Love it. USchick (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I still think we should try to fast track the move, as an alternative solution. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is there a way we could get an administrator's immediate attention on this? CodeCat (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried multiple times on ANI, to no avail. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Under "Etymology", in the sentence "In English, Crimea has often been referred to with the definite article, as the Crimea, although its usage was more common before the late 20th century", please change "its usage" to "this usage". TIA! Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this go?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/crimea-war-words-wikipedia/story?id=22970582 should it be included in the article or somewhere else on wikipedia? It shows how the Crimea conflict has spilled over to the English wikipedia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Crimea" is now being referred to as "a disputed territory" by media

From the New York Post:

Ukraine made plans Wednesday to yank all its troops out of Crimea as Russian forces seized two more Ukrainian military bases in the disputed territory.

From The Wire:

Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council chief Andriy Parubiy announced the withdrawal plan Wednesday in the wake of the escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia over the disputed territory.

From Deutsche Welle:

Ukraine has announced plans to remove its military forces from the disputed Crimean territory.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Ukraine's interim leaders in Kiev said they were making plans to evacuate their outnumbered military personnel from Crimea and to seek United Nations support to turn the disputed region into a demilitarized zone.

The current state of this article now violates WP:NPOV indisputably.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A blog is not considered a reliable source. Crimea was around long before Russia was a dot on a map. The sources say that Crimea was invaded, [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] even Russian sources call it an invasion [24] so "disputed" is much more neutral. My preference would be to stick with the sources, and say it was invaded, but for the sake of neutrality, "disputed" is more than adequate. USchick (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We made it to The Washington Post

Congratulations to @Owl In The House, @USchick, @Knowledgekid87, and our new Internet celebrity with just 6 posts... @Cheesenibbles!!!

OH LAWDY~

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

New attempt for consensus

The page move will not happen for several days. In the meantime, can we get consensus on changing the lede? If the article gets moved, we can change it back. If it doesn't get moved, this is a very neutral lede for a general article about Crimea. USchick (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.[a][2] 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?]

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.

  1. ^ 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."[1]
  1. ^ Englund, Will (18 March 2014). "Kremlin says Crimea is now officially part of Russia after treaty signing, Putin speech". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
  2. ^ "Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine". CNN. 18 March 2014. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
  • Support. USchick (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (with the following conditions, which have been added) if the thing we are agreeing to includes, also, agreement to revert the change after the move. Otherwise we may have to go through the whole process again just to have it reverted back. We should make a consensus both on this change, and on reverting it back afterwards. (Since nobody else has voted yet, it's ok if you remove my post and redo the proposal) CodeCat (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The move may or may not happen. It may be "no consensus" which means not moved. Thank you for that clarification. I added it at the top and changed your comment to "Approve" with your permission. Thank you. USchick (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Making a statement that Crimea is disputed makes it seem as if Russia's claim is considered legitimate in the eyes of the international community. Only Russia appears to support its claim, while everyone else either does not recognize the annexation as legal, or has not said a word in any way. Its not neutral then to legitimize Russia's claim to Crimea by making it equal with the majority of the world. Yes we mention the events, but we do not make them equal because most of the world "considers this to be illegal". It violates WP:UNDUE.--JOJ Hutton 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary. It would go against WP:NPOV to completely ignore the dispute that currently exists (and is widely sourced). Giving no credence to the dispute at all would violate WP:UNDUE. CodeCat (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a discussion above about the word "disputed." Here's my response to that. The sources say that Crimea was invaded, [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] even Russian sources call it an invasion [30] so "disputed" is much more neutral. My preference would be to stick with the sources, and say it was invaded, but for the sake of neutrality, "disputed" is appropriate. What do you think? USchick (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it has already been told to you before in other discussions and as it has already been noted in this talk page, the following reliable sources state explicitly that Crimea is a disputed territory:
  1. New York Post: "Ukraine made plans Wednesday to yank all its troops out of Crimea as Russian forces seized two more Ukrainian military bases in the disputed territory."
  2. The Wire: "Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council chief Andriy Parubiy announced the withdrawal plan Wednesday in the wake of the escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia over the disputed territory."
  3. Deutsche Welle: "Ukraine has announced plans to remove its military forces from the disputed Crimean territory."
  4. Los Angeles Times: "Ukraine's interim leaders in Kiev said they were making plans to evacuate their outnumbered military personnel from Crimea and to seek United Nations support to turn the disputed region into a demilitarized zone."
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heres my response to that and I'll offer an analogy and I hope to keep it simple.
Imagine if Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple decided to send some of his armed security over to Microsoft and take over the building that houses the Microsoft Windows division. His claim would be that the code for "Windows" was stolen by Bill Gates from Apple and that the division and all its software was rightfully Apples now. He may even get some of the key people in the division to go along with it. Now Google, Samsung, and all the other key software companies say that they "consider this to be illegal." Now, would Microsoft Windows now be considered an Apple product or even be considered as "disputed"? Of course it wouldn't be. It would still be considered as part of Microsoft because what Apple did, even if they think that they are right, would be illegal in the eyes of everyone except them.
Its as simple as that. If nobody recognizes the claim, there's nothing to dispute.--JOJ Hutton 18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't go by what you believe or what your opinion is on the matter. That's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. There is something called WP:VERIFIABILITY on Wikipedia, one of our content core policies. This policy states explicitly that, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The statement, "Crimea is a disputed territory" is attributable to a reliable published source as shown to you above, as shown to you on another discussion, and as shown to the community in this talk page. Your attitude is becoming disruptive under WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT even after you have been shown and provided reliable sources, as well as being shown and provided with Wikipedia's policies. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not advocating for him to change his own personal opinion. That's his own life and he does whatever he wants with it. But this is Wikipedia, and our personal opinion is irrelevant and must be put it aside when a reliable source says the contrary. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He can oppose based on any reason he wants to, even if he wants to claim the aliens made him do it. If his reason has no merit it will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. USchick (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:CONSENSUS, editors "try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." Wikipedia is not a forum, we are not here to express our own personal opinion on a matter like this person is doing. We are here to build an encyclopedia and to discuss improvements to it through reason and reliable sources, not through personal opinions or perspectives. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to beat him into submission? Is there a policy about that? USchick (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose until the RM is finished - People are already confusing the content of this article in the RM above, thinking that it is a "general Crimea article", when it is not. We can't afford to change the scope of this article in the middle of an RM, confusing the situation further, and separating the topic of this article from its edit history. We have to wait, regardless of how bad the situation is in the interim. RGloucester — ☎ 19:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it in the interim will confuse people more. It will also screw up the edit history. This article is, and always has been about the Autonomous Republic. We cannot change that now. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This proposal didn't address what map will be shown in the infobox. It currently is showing Crimea as part of Ukraine, and of course this does not reflect reality. The map should be changed to a map of crimea region alone. Chaldean (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the Autonomous Republic, which is part of Ukraine. It is not an article about the Republic of Crimea, which is separate. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not be considered bypassing the RM process? RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be. However, if people can avoid intense edit war while editing Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea, I would expect admins do not care too much about this. If they can not, admins will protect Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea too. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone's got the guts to be bold and restore that article, I'll help get it in order. RGloucester — ☎ 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do with it when the move passes? Do we just delete it? CodeCat (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who closed the discussion would have to delete it, yes. That's why I'm weary. RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this move. Do we need a new discussion for that? Or should someone just do it? I can help later today, but not right now. USchick (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No discussions needed. Someone just needs to be bold and restore that old version of that page. RGloucester — ☎ 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the attempted Autonomous Republic of Crimea article (currently a redirect) was a WP:POV fork of this article, and would again be just that if somebody tried to recreate it now. Not legitimate. Besides, it will almost certainly be overwritten in a few days, once this page finally gets moved there, and that will create nasty technical problems of attribution (preserving edit histories for copyright attribution etc.) if at that stage it should turn out people had in the meantime added new and worthy-to-be-preserved material to it. Please don't start doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main page about Crimea should have general geographic information (eg Macedonia) about the peninsula with listed different historical, current, de-facto and de-jure political entities on the peninsula. Autonomous Republic of Crimea does not include whole territory of the peninsula, the city of Sevastopol is a separate administrative subject and is not part of the Autonomous Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predavatel (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why there is a proposal to move this page to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Unfortunately, that move is at least 4 days away, so this discussion here is about what we should do in the meantime. CodeCat (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be well less than four days (the seven-day period isn't set in stone after all); what matters is that it be done on the basis of a properly articulated mature and stable consensus. I really don't understand this feeling of haste. Just because some people out there thought they had to overthrow political systems and international boundaries within a matter of days, doesn't mean they can expect us to follow each and every turn of events on the same day, does it? It's only natural that a project like ours will take its time to react to things. What's so bad about taking whatever time it is we need to figure out what should be done? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This proposal is part of the reason for haste, in a sense. It's extremely difficult to get dozens of editors to agree that they need to be patient, especially when there are Ukrainians, Russians and Crimeans all coming here feeling offended one way or another, and posting on the talk page that they want it changed. So you have lots of different people all working in an uncoordinated way because nobody knows what's what and what's going on anymore. People create content forks, complain about NPOV, ask why nothing is being done, etc. etc. It becomes repetitive and frustrating to have to deal with it. CodeCat (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then remove the protection and let us fix the article the same way we fixed Supreme Council of Crimea without administrative intervention. Remember, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS not everything has to be solved through discussion. Consensus can also be achieved by editing. Just like @Yulia Romero and myself achieved consensus by editing Yatsenyuk Government incrementally without ever talking directly to each other. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is a difference of opinion. This article is a grave violation of NPOV, as it stands, and misleading. In a crisis such as this, it is our duty to provide accurate information, is it not? So that we do not provide more fodder for the flames? There is no doubt that what Wikipedia says impacts the world. People read it, and it may misinform them. That is the last thing we want, isn't it? Not only that, but it leads to the type of bad media coverage we've seen today. We merely have different approaches. You take the "wait and see approach", whereas I prefer to at least set-up a stopgap measure in meantime so that people are not mislead. RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no one expects this article to be edited because the entire world knows that the article is locked because it's been in the news. Twice. And no one complained about the content. USchick (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we should base our decision today on something that happened in 1500 and ended in 1917? At one time "Russia" was the entire Soviet Union, Kievan Rus, and probably other things, but today, it's limited to the Russian Federation and the article reflects what the country is today. Whatever Crimea was in 1917 can be covered in the history section. USchick (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 March 2014

add: {{current}} Mebeingyou (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used if many editors edit the article in one day. Not an issue in this case. USchick (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 March 2014

Add {{Split-apart|discuss=Talk:Crimea#Split_counter-proposal}} Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the page move discussion is finished. Anything else that would change the status of the page would only get in the way of that. CodeCat (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
The {{Split-apart}} template is simply to say that a split has been proposed, it does not change the status of the page. Per WP:Split you're supposed to add that template (or one like it) when someone proposes a split. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CodeCat, per WP:PROSPLIT "If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject. Additionally, adding one of the templates below will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split.". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm allowed to disagree even with adding that template, am I not? The reason I disagree is that under the current conditions (i.e. a pending move request) there is no way for us to assess a split. And if we aren't in a position to discuss it yet, then there's no point in adding a template for it either. CodeCat (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to oppose a split on the basis that there's no way for us to assess a split that's fine, but that doesn't change that I've proposed a split. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say is, it's your opinion that there is no way for us to assess a split, and that we aren't in a position to discuss it yet. You're entitled to have that opinion, and you're entitled to oppose a split on the bases of that opinion, but none of this changes that I have proposed a split. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 March 2014

I would like to add in reference and a hyperlink to Adam Mickiewicz's The Crimean Sonnets in this article.--Orestek (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested date for article rewrite re: Russia's de facto acquisition of the peninsula

As I think most can see, it appears most probable that Russia will ultimately succeed in this recent annexation of Crimea. Russia is now the "de facto" owner and military controller of the peninsula, and has been since approximately March 7, 2014. Since Wikipedia policy generally prefers to recognize de facto governments over merely theoretical ones, I propose that at the very latest, if this de facto arrangement does not change within 6 months, by Sept. 7, 2014, that this page be fully reedited to reflect Russia's de facto acquisition of the Crimea, and that wording about Ukraine's "theoretical" ownership be reworded to reflect the fact that it is a former status and no longer current. Please note that the page's "move protection" will expire on September 7. Scott P. (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Did you know that whenever Wikipedia recognizes the existence a de facto government, the rest of the world has no choice but to comply? So it is written! (Somewhere... I think?) :-) Scott P. (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request for Comment on Ukraine regarding Crimea

There is currently a discussion regarding maps on Ukraine and Russia changing Crimea to a different shade to reflect it as a disputed territory. Cross-posting here as it's related to this article. Discussion can be found here: Talk:Ukraine#Request_for_Comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 March 2014

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

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)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea&oldid=600669212"