Ukraine was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
Currently, 19-Feb-2014, the section, Euromaidan is vague in the use of English.
Second sentence:
"Demonstrations were caused by refusal to sign an association agreement with the EU, Yanukovych described it for Ukraine yet disadvantageous."
"described it for" has too many meanings. Perhaps, this was meant: "Demonstrations were caused by Yanukovych's refusal to sign an economic agreement with the EU which protesters supported but the President considered disadvantageous."
Fourth sentence:
"Violence escalated after 16 January 2014 when the government accepted Bondarenko-Oliynyk laws, also known as Anti-Protest Laws."
The word "accepted" is probably intending, "enacted."
I would make the changes if I knew enough of the subject to be certain my interpretation is correct.
Obviously, the situation in Ukraine right now is both somewhat unclear and in rapid flux. We should monitor the situation and be ready to update the infobox when it becomes appropriate to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Violent Coup by Hard-right Extremist Thugs
But the general situation in Ukraine is now reasonably clear. Far from rhetoric about freedom-loving protesters, as presented on the main news outlets, these are nothing more than violent thugs that have been trained and funded by the outside interests. For when do 'peaceful' protesters use fire-bombs and firearms or beat up/shoot at the police? And despite their fantasy about non-violent protesters, how would the US government react if this happened in Washington? Instead of the term "Government", should not a heading reflect on the violent nature of yet another staged Color Revolt? 84.13.14.26 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Severe POV Issues -- current events.
Please read the orange revolution and euromaiden section carefully. There seem to be some POV issues. I already removed this paragraph: "While the above almost sounds like a natural hand-over of power - what really happened was far more brutal. Due to the violent nature of the 'protests', the elected Ukrainian President was forced out-of-power by a group of fascist thugs and bullies." There is more which should be fixed but I am treading lightly since I am editing with an IP. 68.202.71.233 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to change anything that is unmistakeably POV, 68.202.71.233, as it would have been added by a POV contributor... which is the antithesis of what Wikipedia stands for. Cheers for the observation! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am very pleased to see someone actively applying Wikipedia's version of sanity when a dull pleasant place becomes a focus of horrible, hopeful, interesting political news. My own reaction at such times is to run and hide. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate thinking about the longer-term outcome. I guess this is what happens when people are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The world's economic system is not a nice place. And then, of course, there are agenda-driven editors (see comment below) who are so blinded by their black and white rendering of the social order that they're incapable of reading a comment correctly and abuse someone who has made a rational edit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you some of Russians and Soviet lovers want from the world? Stop this! Your time has expired. What do you want?! Another round of Communism-like system shove down the throat of the world?! Aren't you satisfied with the misery you brought to the world during 70 years?! If you didn't know already, you yourself are full of POV. Please come to your senses. Your Russian nationalism and Sochi Olympics is no use to the world. You proved yourselves already. As much as as you try, you are still backward, at least 70 years old. End! end of your time!-Raayen (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to making it non POV and neutral. IMHO the pro West version is far more insidious i.e. is funding Right wing thugs and is to be taken out. SaintAviator (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Im presuming you also mean the anti Russian pro West rant (which prompted my stick to non POV reply) above my post is cherrypicking please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Which it most surely is. Otherwise should you not warn Raayen of this users transgression you must then support that sort of rant. Looking forward to your clarification. SaintAviator talk04:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pro-west. Just the west is less of a hell and the POV of it is much less than some others. That is why the west can create Wikipedia and the others cannot. Go figure! instead of invading Ukraine, we better learn.-Raayen (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SaintAviator made a forum like argument and simultaneously made this section WP:SOAP. Dear SaintAviator, how can the west have more thinkers without having some elements of democracy and freedom?! I advise you to leave the west. Please go back or go to to Russia, Syria, China, North Korea (this is where you fit the most), Cuba, Venezuela , etc, your beloved regions, some of these have oils and gas as you know and can cover many of their problems and miseries that democracy and freedom in the free world must have a long way time to overcome, so you will be safe for some decades at least, and live as you wish as what I contemplated from your comments. Leave the west with its miseries! You can help those regions with your expertise more than what you do here commenting WP:SOAP. Don't be a hypocrite. If you do as I advised, you save a lot of futile discussion in Wikipedia. I propose Wikipedia create a forum for every article, so we could have our personal comments there.-Raayen (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
! You shouldn't have answered my new comment, you should have just made this section SOAP, but you failed yourself again. Also please go make the following, WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, in here: "This is blatant Ukrainian propaganda. There is no-way this is an invasion. Troops already stationed in The Crimea didn't invade anything. To be completely unbiased, they are occupying certain areas. Russia did not authorise an invasion, they authorised deployment of troops to protect Ethnic Russians.-Raayen (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Violence and Terror: The Ukrainian and Colombian Road to Empire Building
Large-scale, long-term subversion and organization in the Ukraine, has "enabled Washington to:
(1) construct strategic allies,
(2) build ties to oligarchs, malleable politicians and paramilitary thugs and
(3) apply political terrorism for their seizure of state power.
The imperial planners have thus created “model states” – devoid of consequential opponents and ‘open’ to sham elections among rival vassal politicians. Coups and juntas, orchestrated by longstanding political proxies, and highly militarized states run by ‘Death Squad Executives’ are all legitimized by electoral systems designed to expand and strengthen imperial power. By rendering democratic processes and peaceful popular reforms impossible and by overthrowing independent, democratically elected governments, Washington is making wars and violent upheavals inevitable.” Global Research 2.96.125.239 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Size of Military
The article says:
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine continues to maintain the second-largest military in Europe, after that of Russia.
Second-largest by what measure? Various lists rank the Ukraine behind European states like the UK, France, and Germany in number of active personnel or military spending. If this "second-largest" is true at all, it needs clarification. —Naddy (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you include the 1 million reserves, and other 'paramilitary' personnel, then it does have a larger number of personnel than all the other European states aside from Russia. Gabhala (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem either way, it boils down to whether we decide to include reserves etc. or not - but we should in mind that political events within Ukraine will effect this information on a daily basis - e.g. the disbanding of the Berkut, just yesterday will affect this number (if they were counted, in the first place). I merely tried to provide context and a source for the statement in the article, but we should/need to be very careful when editing around something that is currently evolving. Thank you. Gabhala (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. What you say is true. Yes. There will be a need to be careful here as this evolves since some POV edits will be politically motivated. SaintAviator talk04:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What will happen in March, 2014 ?
As history evolves, this article can also record what happens (sooner or later) as Russia moves to take over the Crimean peninsula.
Headlines: "Leader Asks for Help" & "Prime Minister: Ukraine on Brink of Disaster"
"Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that Ukraine was "on the brink of disaster" and blamed Russia's Putin for bringing the two nations to the verge of war. He called on the international community to rein in Putin." — "Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Sunday that his country was "on the brink of disaster" and personally blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for bringing the two nations to the verge of war. Speaking to reporters at the Ukrainian parliament, Mr. Yatsenyuk called on the international community to rein in Mr. Putin and pressure him to remove troops from the Crimean peninsula, where a majority of residents are ethnic Russians but have Ukrainian passports."
— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Charles, this is neither the place not time for such posts. It is not a carefully considered fact but a politically based post. Please read the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." For that reason, I would ask you to remove it along with my post. 80.1.50.88 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed in the history that File:Simplified historical map of Ukrainian borders 1654-2014.jpg keeps being removed and re-added. This slow moving edit war isn't productive. The map was uploaded and added to the article by someone I know well in good faith. However, the map is clearly controversial and it will probably just keep being removed. I therefore think the best course of action is to create a consensus on the talk page to either include or not include this map. I don't have a strong view, but I find it a little hard to see where the text is pointing to in places – the colours of the text and the colours of the land don't match. I also think using the term "gift" on a blanket basis is potentially misleading, even with the note on in the image description. CT Cooper ·talk18:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map reflects historical facst and is based on IRSs. It should be recreated with more scholarly style, and then no one will argue against it I believe. Elijah.B (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map is not only controversial, it's POVish as hell. Using the term "gifts" is over-simplistic, one-sided, and not even attempting to take into account the complexities of the political situation throughout the Ukrainian history. I'm all for this image to be removed permanently. This same information can and should be conveyed in a neutral manner, not in giant letters pointing to a tiny section within the country. And the sources used in creation of the map should be made very clear.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2014; 18:58 (UTC)
The map is an original creation by a Wikimedia Commons editor. It is an advertisement for his/her non-notable POV. It should have no place on Wikipedia. If you find published notable cartoons of the same extreme anti-Ukrainian POV, they might be admissible, under fair-use.
The idea of recreating it in a more scholarly style misses the point - it's a hate-cartoon, just like the ones in propaganda newspapers and magazines.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose to re-create this exact map in a scholarly manner. What I meant is that the territorial development of Ukraine since 1654 (or whenever) can and should be depicted in a neutral manner. One does not have to introduce judgement and POV when showing how a country's borders changed over time, and the reasons for those changes are best explained in the article, not with simplistic biased labels on the map itself.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2014; 19:42 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. I'm sure there are maps of the territorial evolution of Ukraine on the Commons.. I've seen them before. But this map is a complete violation of NPOV and should never be placed in any articles. DDima19:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know the user well and I can tell you now that she does not have an "extreme anti-Ukrainian POV"; not even close. I know that this is a topic that people have strong views and if I had known before hand that she was planning to upload this map I would have warned her that she was walking into a hornets nest, but regardless, it is not appropriate to jump to conclusions about people based on one map, particularly when the creator has openly stated that it was heavily simplified. What I wanted here was a consensus that inclusion of the map was appropriate or inappropriate. It looks like we now have the latter. CT Cooper ·talk20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't known a thing about the reverts! I am not doing any more reverts! I have to sleep too! Thank you!
I have created a new image and uploaded it. I have relatives and friends who are Ukrainians, since I am a teacher I want people to understand more about the history of Ukraine and Russia. Sorry for hurting your feelings, I have no personal opinion about it. I found out that people know too little about it from explaining it to my husband. Many people find it too difficult to read complex maps. I have posted the discussion about the image on my Facebook profile - https://www.facebook.com/russian.natasha.brown Russia started its existence as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27 ... One of the people who took part in the discussions is Michael Millard. He is a Tutor in History and Politics at Abacus College - http://www.abacuscollege.co.uk/academic/academic-staff/ He reads about Russian History. He doesn't find the map incorrect. Thought the map is simplistic it's still an educational map. If it's good for a Tutor in History in Oxford, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thus 1) the sources must be clearly mentioned 2) the map must be made in neutral style without cartoon elements. As for its core idea, I believe it is not POV. It really reflects facts and is informative. Elijah.B (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the map one more time following the suggestions above. I truly believe that this map can be useful for different people. I saw that the last deletion of the map was done 19:23, 7 March 2014 by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) (Undid revision 598580909 by Natkabrown (talk) hate-cartoons expressing your non-notable POV not wanted on WIkipedia) - Toddy, Sorry to hurt your feelings. I can see that you are in Dnepropetrovsk now. I am in London and I know that the map will help someone who knows nothing of Ukraine to learn more about it. I am not pro-Russian either, since I left Russia myself in 1989. Natkabrown (talk • contribs)
Given that I was only one of many editors who objected to this map, I do not think that it is a fair representation to claim that it is a dispute between myself and the posting-editor.
That's true, there were some other people involved, Toddy1 revert was the last one, the others were unanimous users. I don't know how best to resolve the issue. Should I post to all the people who commented under this thread to their pages? - I have made the changes to the image, so I very much hope that people will change their mind! [[Natkabrown|Natasha Brown]] 13:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC) - When I add ~~~~ it doesn't work! It's some bug in the software! If I add ~~~~ at any other wiki it works, but not on English Wikipedia! It looks like I am not welcome here :(
It's not a "hate-cartoon" with an "extreme anti-Ukrainian POV". It reflects the facts and it makes someone who doesn't know a thing about complexity of the problem in Ukraine think. Why it can't be included in the article? I had a look at the other maps as suggested but I couldn't find any other map that reflects the changes of Ukrainian borders up to 2014. There is a good video on the matter but it's not on Commons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b7QCc0B_pc
Above is a comparison of a man of the Cossack Hetmanate of 1649–1654 with Natkabrown's claims. Note that image file of the former cites reliable published sources for the information, whereas Natkabrown's image cites sources for images of communist leader's etc. used in his/her earlier versions of the images. The difference in between the 1654 area in one map and the other map is striking.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Map of the Novorossiya region of the late 18th Century Russian Empire.
Here is another map comparison. This one shows the Novorossiya region of the late 18th Century Russian Empire on the left. The cities of this region were founded in the late 18th and the 19th Centuries and settled in by a mix of people from various parts of Europe - north Russians, Jews, little Russians, Poles, Germans - and in the case of Donetsk English and Welsh. They were cosmopolitan cities. Notice again, the failure to match up with Natkabrown's claims.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Natasha Brown's map is a POV Original Research. There were no oblast administrative divisions in Ukraine in 17th century or even at the beginning of 20th, so the historical borders Ukraine's territories can not coincide with the modern administrative. Geohem (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bogdan Chmelnitskiy's letter to Alexis I of Russia, 8 June 1648, RGADA
The map that you are suggesting is the "Map of the Cossack Hetmanate of 1649–1654". I suggest a map after 1654 till now, it explains the present complexity of the situation. My daughter is half Cossack or half Don Cossacks more precisely (I'm not anti-Cossack). The other map shows the Novorossiya region of the late 18th Century Russian Empire. It's only proves that in that time it was "New Russia (a translation of Novorossiya)". As for the oblast administrative divisions in Ukraine in 17th century the map has the administrative divisions of 2014, since it's written on the map 1654-2014.
"The Pereyaslav treaty of 1654 led to the outbreak of the Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) and in 1667 to the Truce of Andrusovo, in which eastern Ukraine was ceded by Poland to Russia (in practice it meant a limited recovery of western Ukraine by the Commonwealth). The Cossack Hetmanate, the autonomous Ukrainian state established by Khmelnytsky, was later restricted to left-bank Ukraine and existed under the Russian Empire until it was destroyed by Russia in 1764-1775...
For Russia, the treaty eventually led to the acquisition of Ukraine, providing a justification for the ambitious title of Russian tsars and emperors, The Ruler of All Rus’. Russia, being at that time the only part of the former Kievan Rus' which was not dominated by a foreign power, considered itself the successor of Kievan Rus' and the reunificator of all Rus' lands.
Perhaps, in the interests of educational purposes, you should produce similar examples for Poland, China, Russia and Germany (et al). Let's see how quickly such maps would be snapped up on those articles. Along with the euphemism 'Added', the euphemisms 'Subtracted' and 'Appended' would serve as a useful tool for enlightening readers as to the current form of each nation-state over hundreds of years. Naturally, that would also eliminate the need for going into any detail as to the complexities of history. It really isn't appropriate for editors/contributors to overwhelm readers with referenced information. I would suggest that, although you may want to introduce this simplified linear version of history in good faith, you haven't thought it through properly, Natasha Brown.
The map is also notably lacking a legend. Out of interest, what would you propose 'Added' means exactly? Considering that your original map uses 'Gifted' (by Russian Tsars, Lenin, etc.), I think it only fair, for the sake of the reader, to see a few corresponding maps visually 'describing' how they were 'acquired' by the previous 'owners' to 'gift' in the first instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Iryna! I laughed when I read the words "snapped up" :) I know, it's not very precise. This is the reason why I called it simplified. I'm persuaded by you that I am not a very good map-maker! When I was explaining the history of Ukraine to my husband I started with Kievan Rus' and he only started to understand the complexity of the problem with the map and therefore I thought that the map could help other people. --Natasha Brown00:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Nataka. Good faith doesn't always translate as good outcome. It might be workable if we could send you out to personally tutor everyone who uses this page as a resource. Unfortunately, it's logistically impossible. Besides, what would happen to those of us who contribute to Wikipedia if it ceased to be of any relevance. I have visions of very sad, redundant Wikipedians lurking around YouTube asking for citations. What a grizzly vision of the future! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnolinguistic map
I decided to be bold and replace the simplified "Ethnolinguistic map" (in reality, just a map of majority language preference,
The advantages of the original map are that it shows a much more informative level of complexity, including minorities, and clarifying that in some areas ethnic Ukrainians are predominately Russian-speaking. The simplified map just spoke of Ukrainian and Russian "zones" whatever that meant.
Thank you, Frimmin. Yes, I agree that it is more informative... but it does beg the question of whether it is a contemporary map or an historical map.
In light of this article's current high profile due to recent events, maps based on the 2001 census are rickety visual references at best.
In fact, a few of the 'at a glance' maps have bothered me for some time. If you check the ethno-linguistic map's sources, it's based on a Soviet map from 1989 and has had census findings from 2001 overlayed 'after a fashion'. Considering that quite a few things have happened since 2001 (oh, just little things like Ukrainian having become the official language as an example), and the fact that it is sitting in a subsection with far more contemporary information on regional differences, I'd suggest that it is possibly misleading (please see the research from this ratings group for 2012). The same applies to the language section maps.
While it is understood that these maps were created in good faith, and have been retained in one form or another (also in good faith), even the use of a note in the caption suggesting that they're dated strikes me as being antithetical to WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Time sensitive content needs to be updated within a reasonable period of time. 13 years seems to exceed the statute of logical limitations.
For the sake of the content, they are problematic and I believe they should be removed for the moment until they can be updated sourcing WP:RS stats at a future point in time. Updating information is time consuming and it is unreasonable that readers make demands on contributors to get economic, political and other info up to date. Fortunately, removing obsolete information isn't difficult.
If this map is supposed to be of ethnolinguistic groups, not just linguistic majorities, where are the Crimean Tatars? --Taivo (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Astute observation, Taivo. Whatever the outcome is to be regarding the Crimean 'schism', Crimean Tartars (in fact, other non-Slavic indigenous languages aren't represented in the map). All the more reason for eliminating it. The hatnotes point to more detailed information for those interested. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Result of the Crimean "vote"
I wanted to add to this article the result of the vote on Crimea. The vote was allegedly "won" by Russians, but of course it was considered to be illegal by Ukraine, the USA, and the European Union.
However my post was reverted by User:Iryna Harpy. Is there a policy not to talk about this current issue on this page?
In my humble opinion, this is not vandalism.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Cmoibenlepro. I was busy with other articles and reverting vandalism on other pages while you were making changes. As you'd started out by changing the format to 'dmy' to 'mdy' without an edit summary, and with the second edit (again, without an edit summary), when I scrolled down I only saw what appeared to be the removal of the text, "A Crimean status referendum was held on 16 March 2014, but only national referendums are legal under the Ukrainian Constitution." without seeing that you'd moved it into a new paragraph and was expanding on the outcome. I admit that I am guilty of not checking as thoroughly as I should have and mistook your good faith edit for blanking.
I've reverted my own revert, but please take note that, while use of talk pages is good practice, the use of edit summaries should be considered to be just as important... particularly on high traffic, high profile articles prone to POV abuse and vandalism. I'm not going to make too much noise about civility as you appear to be a newbie. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The referendum was taken and Crimea is now part of Russia. Whether the rest of the world considers it legal or not at this point is irrelevant. You need a Russian passport to get into Crimea and Ukranian passports are no longer valid there. The currency is being switched to the Ruble. Effectively, Crimea is part of Russia and that's probably not going to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipper3 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not quite as gung-ho about it, I think we probably should start adjusting maps to shade Crimea in a different color than the rest of Ukraine - like the maps on the pages for Georgia and Azerbaijan. Kiralexis (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to equivocate. Crimea is de-facto part of Russia. Abhkazia and South Ossetia are two regions of Georgia are protected by Russian troops under an OSCE sanctioned mission. Crimea is part of Russia and Abhkazia and South Ossetia are not. The Wikipedia community isn't entitled to their own facts. Crimea is de-facto part of Russia. If you want to feel better about yourself then you can mention that it is claimed by Ukraine based on an off-hand remark that Khrushchev made 50 years ago.
Can you provide proof that Russian troops protect Abkhazia and South Ossetia under OSCE mandate? Last time I checked, their presence there was considered as military occupation by Europeans. --UA Victory (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, which Europeans do you ask? The Russians are Europeans. According to OSCE: http://www.osce.org/georgia-closed/44630, " The Mission's main priority was to contribute to the peaceful resolution of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Applying OSCE's comprehensive approach, the Mission worked in the politico-military, economic and environmental, and human areas of security. The Mission participated actively in meetings of the Joint Control Commission (JCC), the negotiation mechanism co-chaired by the Georgian, South Ossetian, North Ossetian and Russian sides." The JCC kept the peace for 20 years from the fall of the USSR. Then Saaskavilli (sp) was elected and unilaterally withdrew from the JCC and started bombarding South Ossetia with artillery. In this case, the Russians were obligating, under existing agreements, to protect the South Ossetians from the Georgians. They do not claim sovereignty over South Ossetia (though they have recognized their independence since the 2008 war). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OSCE mission in South Ossetia was terminated by Russians. According to: http://eurodialogue.org/OSCE-RIP-in-Georgia "Russia forced the OSCE to close the Mission by vetoing the prolongation of its mandate in the OSCE's Permanent Council. Also on June 30 the U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), which had for 15 years monitored the situation in and around Abkhazia, began evacuating its personnel, following Russia's veto against that Mission's mandate in the U.N.". Before Georgia attacked South Ossetia, there was South Ossetian attacks on Georgians. But Russians didn't stop Ossetian attacks so Georgians retaliated. Currently, Russia doesn't allow EUMM monitors to visit South Ossetia. Here is the resolution of European Parliament where Europeans called upon Russians to leave Abkhazia and South Ossetia. [4] --UA Victory (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk dates. Georgia withdrew from the JCC in March 2008. Russia decided not to renew the JCC mandate in June 2008 but the OSCE remained through the end of the year. Georgia attacked South Ossetia in August 2008 according to OSCE monitors. I will quote directly from the Dr. Ryan Gris,t head of the OSCE mission in Georgia: "It was clear to me that the Georgian attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” Grist said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Grist was fired from OSCE. It has been suggested that he may have been bribed by Russians. I will quote from Ryan Grist - "Grist acknowledged he crossed through Russian lines without authorization on his own initiative to determine the facts, which ultimately cost him his OSCE job. He resigned from the OSCE immediately after the war. WSJ adds Grist remains "scathing" about Georgian actions before and during the war, but says that some of his comments have been overinterpreted and quotes Grist saying "I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians."" Even EU investigation acknowledged that there was Ossetian attacks before Georgia responded militarily. It seems weird that you are protecting Russian support of Ossetian separatists against Georgia while at the same time Chechen struggle for independent Chechen republic was crushed. --UA Victory (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an ad hominem attack on Ryan Grist. Nowhere do you dispute his claims; You only attack his character. Not only was he the "Head of Mission" for OSCE but he was corroborated by other OSCE officials. For example, Senior OSCE official, and former Royal Air Force Commander, Stephen Young corroborates the statements made by Ryan Grist. Are you going to attack his credibility as well? I am merely pointing out that Russia had an OSCE-sanctioned, Georgian approved, peace keeping mandate which required them to intervene when Georgia unilaterally attacked South Ossetia.173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not see a conflict with these two statements: Grist: "I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians." Grist: "It was clear to me that the Georgian attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation.” Just because Grist does not presume that there was a provocation does not mean that he denies that there was a provocation. His point is that, even if there was a provocation, the response was indiscriminate and disproportionate. One statement does not contradict the other. It would take bad logic to jump from "if indeed there had been any [provocation]" to "there was no provocation".173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't attack on Ryan Grist personally. I simply quoted the fact that his objectivity was questioned by Western officials and journalists. Everybody calls Georgian attack on Tskhinvali disproportionate, but they don't give suggestions how should Georgia have responded to provocations. For comparison, Russia didn't forgive Chechens for self-proclaimed independence. After Chechen invasion of Dagestan Russians attacked and totally destroyed Grozny. --UA Victory (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To say that Crimea is part of Ukraine is comparable to say the Falklands (Malvinas) are part of Argentina.
To say that the situation in the Crimea is comparable to the the Falkland islands is not accurate. For the Falklands this is the question of an outside power (Argentina) claiming to own the islands even if the majority of it's inhabitants want to stay with the U.K. In the Crimea however this isn't a question of whether or not Russia invaded the Ukraine but a question of whether or not the referendum is real and that they are part of Russia. The idea of de jure or de facto is what's at stake here. Either Crimea is de jure part of the Ukraine or de facto part of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.129.232 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it different? Both are questions of an outside power (Argentina/Ukraine) claiming an area where the majority of the inhabitants want to be with another country (UK/Russia). There is no difference.
The difference is that Argentina simply has a claim on the Islands. The U.K. have owned the Falklands for a very long time. In the Falklands war it was Argentina vs The U.K. but here there's no war, only a referendum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaBandito (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it any less real then the referendum in the Falklands where the vote was 96.5% in favor? Or how about Kosovo? Or how about the laws currently being passed in Kiev? There is no difference, they all occur under armed occupation.
People seem to willing to forget that the current Parliament in Kiev usurped power from the legitimate President through use of force, in violation of the Constitution of Ukraine. There is no legitimate government in Ukraine.
The Republic of Crimea has officially announced it's independence and secession from Ukraine. Therefore it is an independent country and can not be included on maps as part of Ukraine. Norum02:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ukraine, the UN, the EU, the US, and just about every other nation on the planet doesn't recognize the secession, the maps are still correct. JOJHutton02:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't much matter if it's recognized. Wikipedia is about facts, not countries' positions on things. It's movement from Ukraine to Crimea the same as moving about within Ukraine, or is it not? I think not; thus Crimea at the very least cannot be considered an integral part of Ukraine any longer. --99.24.170.188 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yulia Romero is correct. Being reactionary based on a fluid situation that is only a month old and certainly not settled law in the international mind is not encyclopedic. Better to wait until the dust clears and some sort of actual de facto situation emerges than to jump the gun. Editing the maps at this point in time can actually be considered a violation of WP:NPOV as only Russia and Russian sympathizers consider this to be a done-deal. --Taivo (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Yulia Romero and Taivo. Assuming that it is a done deal is actually antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Our position is to be behind the ball, not kicking it. Aside from the fact that we don't know where to from here, I've yet to find secondary sources in agreement as to what the situation actually is. Any speculation is, of course, WP:OR, and the only consistency in the reading of secondary sources attests to the secondary sources being WP:POV. Choosing one set of sources over and above the others would be WP:CHERRYPICKING: and that is what would "... smack of politics." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So National Geographic is not a reliable, published source? Or do we need US State Department approval? This sums it up pretty nicely: "The U.S. and other Western governments may doggedly refuse to recognize Crimea’s annexation by Russia, but one prominent American mapmaker will. “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be,” Juan José Valdés, the National Geographic’s geographer and director of editorial and research for National Geographic Maps, tells U.S. News. “As you can only surmise, sometimes our maps are not received in a positive light by some individuals who want to see the world in a different light,” Valdés says." http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/18/national-geographic-plans-to-show-crimea-as-part-of-russia-on-maps
As I have already replied on Commons, because file:Europe-Ukraine.svg has been protected due to recent upload-war, re-upload the older version by a different file name or simply use the untouched PNG version are the only ways to restore the map. But that would also mean bringing back the edit war from Commons to Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crimea should be shown as a disputed claimed territory in light green as prescribed by Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps, shown here: the conventions. Having it in dark green is akin to pretending that nothing has happened in Crimea for the past month. Ukraine has lost de facto control over the region but still claims it just as Serbia has lost de facto control over Kosovo but still claims it.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giving weight to the story that Crimea is disputed within the article is fine, as long as its covered by reliable sources and is neutral in nature. But changing the maps is not neutral because it is not neutral based on the fact that no outside entity has yet to recognize Crimea as being part of Russia. --JOJHutton17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
National Geographic is a reliable source correct? Or does the US State Department have to approve it?: "The U.S. and other Western governments may doggedly refuse to recognize Crimea’s annexation by Russia, but one prominent American mapmaker will. “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be,” Juan José Valdés, the National Geographic’s geographer and director of editorial and research for National Geographic Maps, tells U.S. News. “As you can only surmise, sometimes our maps are not received in a positive light by some individuals who want to see the world in a different light,” Valdés says." http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/18/national-geographic-plans-to-show-crimea-as-part-of-russia-on-maps
Map of Serbia, shows disputed territory of Kosovo in light green.
The article on Serbia shows an orthographic map that adheres to Wikipedia's orthographic standards that shows the disputed territory of Kosovo claimed by Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo in light green. This map of Serbia's depiction of disputed territory in light green should be what is used in the case of Ukraine.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
173.79.251.253 and 74.12.195.248,if you care to take a look at the Kosovo map details, you may notice that the original map wasn't uploaded until 14 June 2009. Every article pertaining to changes in political situations is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It actually flies in the face of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to charge forward when secondary resources are still hammering it out themselves. More to the point, this specific article is not dedicated to current affairs. If you want to debate what should be done, go to the appropriate articles specifically dedicated to the current affair and put your 2 cents worth in the talk page there. As has already been pointed out to you, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies, as does WP:OR.
Why is it crystal ball or OR? Crimea is currently under de facto Russian control and there is a sovereignty dispute between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea following the referendum, multiple sources can attest to that.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
74.12.195.248 173.79.251.253, EDIT --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC) the fact that you are invoking National Geographic in the context of a news blog defining NG's proposed depiction of the map next month to be controversial fairly much sums up the ludicrous nature of your push for new maps. Even more indicting is the fact that the blog refers to the short-lived 'unveiling' of the new Russian map on Wikipedia on Tuesday (before it was put under wraps again). We are under no obligation to change content other than in a timely fashion, and certainly not in an uncertain and controversial fashion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put in the material on National Geographic, that is by some user who is not signing their posts. It makes it look like it is part of a longer post. I sigh my posts.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for pulling me up on my error, 74.12.195.248. I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies on this matter. In checking the history, I've ascertained that it was IP 173.79.251.253 who had referenced National Geographic. It was very difficult to keep track of the threads on this talk page due to 173.79.251.253's constant and numerous re-tweaks of every comment they'd made, and his/her failure to sign any of them. I did leave a courtesy comment on their talk page the previous day asking that they follow talk page protocols regarding this matter, but this user has continued to re-tweak (particularly inappropriate when someone else has already responded to the comment!) and fail to sign. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ad hominems do not suit you. I cite that article as a source for the quote from National Geographic's Jose Valdes. Attacking any other aspect of the article is a red herring. Do you dispute the quote? Do you dispute the authority of National Geographic in the realm of Cartography? My argument is simple, I will quote Jose Valdes again: “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be." What is ludicrous about that? I am not taking the position that Crimea should be depicted as part of Russia... I take the position that all political maps on Wikipedia should reflect political reality. The Falklands are de facto part of the UK, the Kuril Islands are de facto part of Russia, the Paracels are de facto part of China, and Crimea is de facto part of Russia. These are realities and, I argue, Wikipedia should reflect the facts. Any talk about 'too soon' or 'case-by-case basis' is just equivocation and excuses in order to avoid dealing with facts. Either Crimea is de facto part of Russia or it is not. Either Wikipedia reflects facts or it does not. If Crimea is de facto part of Russia and Wikipedia reflects facts then the map should be updated.173.79.251.253 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re this statement: "But changing the maps is not neutral because it is not neutral based on the fact that no outside entity has yet to recognize Crimea as being part of Russia." Hold on. Transnistria isn't recognised by any one but still gets shadded differently on the map of Moldova. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frenchmalawi, please take some time out to read the Moldova talk page (and archives). This is still an area of dispute and, if you take a look at all other articles which could potentially contain maps depicting Transnistria, you'll find they aren't used because Transnistria is not recognised as anything other than a breakaway region. There are POV pushers who keep trying to reintroduce it... but it doesn't fly. This decision was made by means of community consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Community Consensus is abused by Wikipedia editors to shut down dissent. Transnistria is, de facto, independent of Moldova. Moldova exercises no authority over Transnistria. No community consensus will change that fact. Only tanks will change that fact. Until then, Trannistria is, de facto, independent of Moldova. I do not see anyone disputed the de facto state, only coming up with de jure arguments about which countries 'officially' recognizes the de facto state. Wikipedia should reflect FACTS not the position of the US STATE DEPARTMENT. Wikipedia editors abuse the community consensus to shut down minority dissent. Please explain how it is "POV" to say that Transnistria is independent when, de facto, they are? How does a community consensus magically change this fact into "POV"? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harp - You acknowledge that on the Moldova map, Transnistria is shaded differently. You haven't given any reason why Crimea should be treated differently. Would you like to offer reasons? How is Crimea on the Ukrain map any different to Abkhazia on Georgia map, Taiwan on China map etc. etc. Reasons would be great and happy to consider. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frenchmalawi, as with all the other 'Aha!' moments citing maps of controversial states depicted in some areas of Wikipedia, please take a look at the date when the map depicting Transnistria was uploaded - being December 25, 2009. Take a look at the dates for the Kosovo map, South Ossetia or any other you might want to pull out of a hat for me to deliberate over and 'explain' the existence of to you: they were created and used long, long, long, long after the relevant events and ongoing issues, whereas not even a week has elapsed since this 'event' and you're demanding that a current map be made before we've had more than a whiff of the political fallout and complexities of the issue/s have really even begun?
Iryna Harpy...how long it took to take a decision on other articles is hardly a persuasive reason. Some issues are not complicated. Russian now claims Crimea as part of its territory. And so does Ukraine....You don't seem to have any good reasons for your stance. Let's just be consistent and take the same approach on all articles. Either that or follow some objective stance like a UN map...but Wikipedia does not do that. For better or worse. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frenchmalawi, while I can appreciate that you may yearn for consistency, decisions regarding mapping and every other subject tackled in English Wikipedia is made on a case-by-case basis, and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We cannot take our cue from UN maps or any single source as some form of Wikipedia bible. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's objectives and how the Wikipedia's community works.
In as much as is humanly possible, I cannot, and do not, approach any subject being disputed with a POV agenda, and constantly self-scrutinise (fully prepared to change my position) should I consider that I could be allowing my my pride, arrogance or subjectivity to interfere. As per our discussion on my talk page, I am changing my 'oppose' position to 'undecided' in the RfC. I will further elaborate on why I am temporarily withholding in that section. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is your intent to quiz me at length about the details, I would like to know what your interest is. A little transparency would be appreciated. I'm having difficulties understanding how neutral contributors aren't still scratching their heads about how the world community is going to interpret the situation. Also, if you haven't looked at it already, perhaps you should take a look at these articles - 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, both of which are using a map which reflects the ongoing events. There is yet another article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine using a different map. These are the articles dealing with current affairs. This article is not a current affairs article. Creating such a map is speculative in this context (read as WP:OR). I don't know how many more times I need to point this out to those who are preaching 'facts'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep trying to equivocate. The length of time after an event is irrelevant. The even itself is relevant. Crimea has become, de facto, part of Russia. You can disagree with that fact only. The length of time is irrelevant, it is a red herring, it is equivocation. Do you dispute the fact or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna, seems like you are just opposing with a lack of neutrality in this matter. The article says front and centre: 'This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.' Please apply the neutrality that you are making your arguments with. Transnistria happened in 1990, I'd be surprised if there's a wiki upload at that time. People come to Wikipedia for real-time information. It's the reason it's superior than traditional book and paper. Ukraine has already declared to pull their men out. Nothing is going to change the fact it's disputed. If you think that in the next month Putin is going to say 'Ha guys, jokes! We didn't want Crimea! Early April Fool's' and hand Crimea back and denouncing any claims, you are out of touch with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Iryna, Ukraine is not a current event and the temporary tag doesn't make the entire country a current event. In fact, on the news where I live, this non-event is not even being reported. In addition, The Washington Post disputes that National Geographic is a credible source for maps [5] and praises Wikipedia editors instead for being accurate and timely. Let's live up to their expectations please by not being petty and biased. USchick (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your local news not reporting the event is the definition of 'current event'. Further, I am not arguing whether National Geographic is a credible source for maps, but the fact that the region is in fact 'in dispute' and therefore needs to be updated as such. How in the world is it being 'biased' by saying that the region is disputed? We are not asking the map changed to reflect Ukraine losing the region, but to have the region shaded to reflect its disputed status as per wikipedia standards. Washington Post also cannot be credited as 'neutral' source, either. Would like to add...did you even read the article? Further down in the article it even pointed out that the Ukraine page has neglected to add that disputed status to its map. Courtesy of people here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you have been busy, USchick, even featured on Washington Post. What consensus? Didn't realize Wikipedia is actually ran by an oligarchy. How about try consistency for a measure of good publishing practice? The Russian map has listed Crimea as disputed, which is a fact unless you are giving me references to articles that say otherwise. The amount of bias on here is sickening. Are people that close-minded to even admit that Crimea is disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer me on citing a source that says otherwise that the region is not disputed. But nevermind that, one look at your profile tells me everything I need to know. Just a heads up, many of the other language pages have shuffled to the new map showing the disputed status. It's time that English one do the same.
Invasion=disputed. I hope you understand that fact. Ukraine claims the area since it is de jure theirs, Russia claims the area because de facto DUE TO THE INVASION. Dual claims = disputed. They cannot agree on who owns the area = disputed. Disputed claims on wikipedia is shaded light green. Thank you for clarifying and finding references for my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus as a more concrete example on wikipedia of what I am referring to. 'The Republic of Cyprus has de jure sovereignty over the island of Cyprus and its surrounding waters, except for the British Overseas Territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, administered as Sovereign Base Areas. However, the Republic of Cyprus is de facto partitioned into two main parts; the area under the effective control of the Republic, comprising about 59% of the island's area, and the Turkish-controlled area in the north, calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and recognised only by Turkey, covering about 36% of the island's area. The international community considers the northern part of the island as territory of the Republic of Cyprus occupied by Turkish forces.' Exact same situation here with only Russia recognizing Crimea as theirs. Note the map shade. There are already other examples people have brought up previously. Let's try to report this with less of our personal bias, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have an opinion: That the Ukrainian map should reflect the de jure situation (Crimea is part of Ukraine per the US State Department). I have an opinion: That the map should reflect the de facto situation (Crimea is de facto part of Russia). The difference is that I am arguing for my case with facts. You are demanding consensus but the only consensus you'll accept is recognition by the US State Department. This is a talk page... noone needs your permission to make a point or have a discussion on the merits.173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Like it or not, the Russian parliament has voted to annex Crimea. Crimea is now de facto under the control of the Russian Federation. Therefore, I am one to believe that Crimea should now be shaded light green, since the Russian sovereignty of Crimea is disputed by Ukraine, and light green is the color of disputed land. If you don't believe me, look at the pages for India, Serbia, Cyprus, any nation with disputed territory. You'll see what I mean. -A Wikipedia User
Sources state that the international community considers the occupation of Crimea to be illegal. If its considered illegal, then the map should not be changed. If an armed intruder came into your house and took over your bathroom and refused to leave, we wouldn't consider the bathroom to be his now would we? When the sources change to confirm that Crimea's status has been legally transfered to Russia, then we can change the maps. The simple fact that Russia is in military control of Crimea does not mean that the international community has accepted the legality of that control.--JOJHutton20:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The acceptance of the US State Department is irrelevant. If the 'international community' refuses to accept that the Earth orbits the Sun does that make the fact any less true? The approval or acceptance of the international community does not change the fact that Crimea is, currently, a de facto part of Russia. Official recognition from the US State Department is a biased standard. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JOjhutton, I will again refer you to the page of Cyprus. No one in the international community except Turkey has recognized the occupation. And yet the fact remains that it is a disputed territory. Therefore it should be coloured light green, as per wikipedia convention. Referring to your bathroom argument: if the intruder is in your house, it's illegal occupation, to be sure. But until you call the cops and have the force to kick him out, you have the bathroom DE JURE, he has the bathroom DE FACTO. Therefore you are in dispute of the bathroom until it is resolved one way or another.205.207.78.4 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since unregistered users like to argue and claim they don't need consensus to do anything, why haven't you done it already? When the English speaking Wikipedia community determines it's time to change the maps, you will see new maps in the articles. I promise. USchick (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem! Registering with Wikipedia does not make you an authority. You are contributing nothing to this discussion; you are just trolling/flaming in order to derail the conversation. Your goal is not to contribute, but to disrupt. I see that you are Ukrainian from your talk page. I do not attack you for this bias because it does not make your opinion less valid. However, your continued disruption of this thread with insults and flippant responses does speak to the validity of your argument (or lack thereof). 173.79.251.253 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JOJhutton, please present your argument for Crimea not being a disputed territory before edit war. I don't see a relevant discussion here provided by you explaining why Crimea is not consider 'disputed'. Your argument that Russia has illegally taken the territory does not refute the fact it is disputed. The map being uploaded does not reflect Russia annexation as you are trying to argue here.JNC2 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I will happily remind you of the map colour policy if it need be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps. Others have explained why the area is considered disputed. Cyprus is provided as an example as to why the same convention applies despite the invasion and 'illegality' of Russian action and the lack of international recognition (For that matter, Northern Cyprus is recognized by 1 nation and Crimea is recognized by 4). You have asked me to explain in discussion and so I have. Pages from other major languages (Japanese, Spanish, Chinese to name a few) have already done the same to provide consistency. Care to explain yourself?JNC2 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved editor here. Recent edits by JNC2 seem to be constructive and NPOV. Crimea is a disputed territory and denoting such in the map would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to seriously self revert. There is no consensus for this map and your edits violate WP:NPOV I WILL make a report to ANI if you don't self revert immediately. Just because you were previously uninvolved is no reason for you to start reverting editors simply because you think it was constructive. This conversation is very long and is still ongoing. Your edit is deemed very contentious.--JOJHutton22:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JOJhutton, please stick to the argument rather than attacking the person. What are you referring to here in your accusation of WP:NPOV? I dare say that the majority on here is starting to lean towards the territory being disputed and you have not suggested any source that claims otherwise. As USchick pointed out earlier, I believe this is the process towards consensus.JNC2 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh trust me, you'll be part of the ANI thread too. Your edits violate WP:BRD and WP:DISPUTE. You do not continue making reverts after you have been reverted. This article is about the country Ukraine. To call the are disputed, when the entire international commmunity doesn't see it that way, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Only Russia disputes the region, everyone else considers it still part of Ukraine. Its violates WP:WEIGHT to give so much weight to the map.--JOJHutton23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noone has presented an argument that does not acknowledge the occupation of Crimea by Russia as a fact. Your own argument concedes it... you say that the occupation is disputed... therefore conceding that there is an occupation. The legality may be disputed but the fact of the occupation is not. There is consensus that Crimea is, de facto, occupied by Russia. I have not seen one person in this thread, not one, argue that this Crimea is not under the jurisdiction of Russia.173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is not acknowledging the fact that Crimea is occupied by Russia. Not me. But since the EU, US, NATO, and 13 members of the UN security council "consider this occupation to be illegal", not to mention Ukraine, its a violation of WP:NPOV to give the occupation this much weight. The map should not be shaded because nobody recognizes that this regain is anything but Ukrainian, except the occupying force.--JOJHutton23:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You call on WP:BRD, and yet you have not provided any sort of constructive comments here to support the fact it's 'not disputed'. Yourself violate WP:NPOV when you have only provided your own opinion and nothing substantial to back it up. 'Only Russia disputes the region' - You can't be serious. You have just provided the argument that the region is disputed. It doesn't take the entire world to dispute a region. If Ukraine doesn't dispute it then they wouldn't be denouncing Russian claims.
Can we have a page protect from the admin? There is a few individuals on here who are just being argumentative and not informed about the meaning of the term 'dispute' or bother to look at examples people have presented as arguments. The arguments on here are becoming tunnel visioned with lack of any source to back their claims. UN considers occupation illegal does not refute the fact it is a dispute and if anything, backs it up.JNC2 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I think you need a long block for disruption and as a special purpose account. You are obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedias editing process and dispute resolution. You continue to dismiss any opinion that doesn't agree with you and start reading the guidelines and policies that the more experienced and knowledgeable editors. Your problem is that you think you know more than people who have been doing this for a very long time. --JOJHutton23:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir, you reverted my reversion to the 'new' map invoking WP:3O and noted that 'it seems useful' (AKA WP:ITSINTERESTING) in your edit summary. You also told me to go to the talk page. Considering that I have been 'going to the talk page' for the last couple of days, and you have made one comment as a 'neutral' editor, I would not consider that it falls on your shoulders to make an executive decision as did JNC2 who was edit warring on the article without following WP:BRD and has only just showed up because of pressure put on him/her on their talk page (which I was about to leave a missive on).
Considering that it doesn't appear that there is going to be consensus on this page, and that it has escalated to edit warring, I think the only rational thing to do is to call for an WP:RfC where genuinely uninvolved parties can voice their opinion. This isn't a small detail to be decided between a few contributors and their dogs. This isn't even the current affairs pages which are dealing with the current affairs (please look at the SEE ALSO list in the corresponding article).
I'm going to replace the 'current affairs' tag with a hatnote pointing readers to the actual current affairs pages. At the moment, this article doesn't seem to know what it's trying to deal with and is suffering multiple personality disorder... which is confusing and unedifying for readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna, discuss the point, not to attack the people please. I came here first before the admin left the msg on the talk page after one undo by JOJ. I would like to remind both of you that you have not backed the claim that the said region is not in dispute and/or should not follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps as other language pages have started to. If anything I am starting to question your WP:NPOV. Please, leave me a missive that you were about to and let me know how I am wrong in this matter. I do agree on WP:RfC although I argue that the lack of concensus, as others have pointed out, is coming from lack of WP:NPOV that certain individuals have been unable to remove from their own personal bias. I have provided a comprehensive explanation with examples from other articles as to why the edit should be made. The only one I see from you is the 'lack of time stamp'. Welcome to the modern age, where Encyclopedia does not require 4 year between revisions.JNC2 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jojhutton:DISENGAGE. Don't make threats and assume good faith. You are taking this way too far.
@Iryna Harpy: Useful is a lot different than interesting. I am an uninvolved editor here, only editing for article review. A RfC would be great and I'll be happy to comment on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop equivocating. The fact that the occupation is recent does not change the fact that the occupation exists. The area is disputed. You have not disagreed... you're just equivocating.
Should be the map that shows the really existing disputed situation! The territory of Crimea on the map should be marked/painted by separate different color - different from the color of the domestic territory of Ukraine! Such practices already exists on Wiki for similar disputed territorial situations! Ignoring of the fact (that there was detach of Crimean Peninsula territory from the main territory of Ukraine, that Crimea was transfer/taken under full control of Russia and that was created the territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine) - is wrong and and foolishly! Wiki - Encyclopedia of current and confirmed facts occurring in / up to this moment and not arena of political disputes! --109.67.134.154 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution process needs to be done on the issue of the maps of Russia and Ukraine
It is obvious that this issue is not going to be easily discussed between users, especially users who have a connection with the issues at hand. I suggest that a dispute resolution process begin with addressing the issue of the maps to administrators who would examining the arguments for what should be in the map, and then they would arbitrate a resolution.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the reason of the orgins if Slavic people coming from Ukraine not listed.
Why is the reason of the origins if Slavic people coming from Ukraine not listed. This is what the Czechs believe and is a common theory. A quote from A History Of The Czech Lands written by Jarolav Panek and Oldrich Tuma, Et Ali. They are archaeologist's and professors not some American book writers who have never left there own lands. I will now quote a passage on page 58 written by Dusan Tredtik.
Far beyond these German tribes, somewhere in the expansive regions of the central Dnieper ( Ukraine) a new Slavic- speaking people emerged at some stage during the 2nd to 4th centuries. The Romans new nothing of them neither does modern research have any clear idea about there origins. All that can be said is that archaeologists are researching the existence of the oldest Slavic settlements from the end of the 5Th century in the Ukraine and confirm that about in the year 530AD masses of Slavic trans migration had begun at the boarder of the Byzantium on the lower Danube. Also google Proto Slavic and do some research, about Slavic pottery and graves.
You in my opinion are very wrong about the deaths in World War II. The Ukraine’s welcomed the Nazi's at first because of the Holodomor forced famine by Stalin in 1933 (10 million died). but then the Nazi's started the superior race theory which lead to mass murder. Germans had more Slavic tribes than anyone else, Obotrites, Sorbs, Wends, Polabians,Polan ,Pomerania, Veleti , Sorbs under Prince Dervan in 600ad settled in Saxony. Bavaria Slavic two tribes settled in Bavaria one located in Bamberg (Google: Bamberg Slavic graves). There are many more I could name as I have 200+ links. Also remember East Germany was part of the Soviet Empire. Anyway I believe the Nazi's and then the later return of Russians during and after in World war II. Resulted in the death of 7-8 million Ukrainian Peoples. Please do your own research and this is not good enough what is written here.
Casurgis out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.243.21 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying it's not important that so many Ukrainians died?. You must be American and believe only Jews died in WW2. Quote me go on ancestry.com and you will find out that most fair Jews have mostly if not all European ancestry!. What I wrote is true. And one more thing you forgot that Genghis Khan went through Ukraina around 1241, up the Vistula river into Poland and invaded Krakow. I do read a little. Google the links as previously written above and learn something. Casurgis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.227.176 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should those old Population, Area, Density, etc. figures in the Box and in the text now be changed to reflect the loss of Crimea? Is it too soon, although Russia has now formally annexed Crimea, regardless of what many other countries want to believe? The same goes for adding the Crimea numbers to Russia's totals. Thanks for any help. --Katydidit (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO we should really wait before feeding in any real or apparent border changes in the aftermath of the developments in March 2014 in Ukraine and Crimea. There seem to have been no changes yet in Russian Wikipedia, even thought what happens in any other Wikipedia language is of no real concern to what editors do in English Wikipedia. Of course the fact of these events need to be included in the article Ukraine. Politis (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any time frame or event that would logically be a trigger for doing the updated numbers on the countries' (Ukraine/Russia) demographics? What historically has Wiki done (on time waiting) when other countries' geography has changed due to political/military actions? I agree the Russian Wiki has no bearing on the English Wiki, and that applies to the other language Wikis, so that is no concern. --Katydidit (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there is a precedent for this here on English Wikipedia. What we're actually addressing is a unique situation where the only country officially 'recognising' the annexation is Russia, with outright condemnation coming from the EU, the US, etc. I'd say that, as with Wikipedia in the past, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
The general consensus currently appears to be an expression of, "I'm not sure, so it's best to leave things as they are until the situation becomes clearer." Considering that this is the article about "Ukraine", not the Crimean situation or Euromaidan (i.e., not specifically dedicated to what is happening in current affairs), I'd suggest that we can afford to leave it for a few days. We are meant to be a couple of steps behind the news, not kicking the ball. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should reflect facts. "I'm not sure, so it's best to leave things" is equivocation. Either Crimea is de facto part of Russia or it is not. Either Wikipedia reflects facts or it does not. Right now Wikipedia does not reflect facts and it should be updated appropriately. I can accept an argument along the lines of "Crimea isn't de facto part of Russia" but I do not accept an argument that is "I'm not sure, so it's best to leave things". Is anyone arguing that Crimea is not de facto part of Russia despite the countless sources that would say otherwise?173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflect what reliable sources say, not "facts" as you imagine them to be. Since Russia is an occupying force, would it be possible that Russian state owned sources might be just a little biased? USchick (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What source are you talking about? Noone cited any sources in this conversation thread. We seem to agree that Wikipedia should reflect facts as they are, not as one wants to be. What are the facts on the ground in Crimea? Is it de facto part of Ukraine or de facto part of Russia? I am open to that discussion. Any other discussion is equivocation in order to avoid this critical question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep coming back to asking what you consider the big question, being whether it is a 'de facto part of Ukraine or de facto part of Russia' and keeping missing the point that it isn't simply down to your opinion or my opinion. It hasn't actually been recognised as having any legal status as part of Russia by any country than Russia. It's too early to make a decision. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether Crimea is legally (de jure) part of Russia is an opinion that may be disputed. The question of whether Crimea is actually (de facto) under Russian control is not disputed. Do you disagree? If not we have consensus.173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update for everyone on this issue. It is being discussed at admin level by experienced, neutral Wikipedians and, at this point, the camps are divided. I think an decision is about to be made, so we just need to hold onto our hats (or stats) a little longer. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Separation or Independence from the Soviet Union?
There is a bit of a disagreement on whether or not Ukraine declared independence or it was simply dissolved from the Soviet Union. I would say that it was dissolved, but what do the sources say?JOJHutton22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the Soviet Union dissolved, all the republics declared their independence as separate countries. The Soviet Union released them first, and then they became independent. Otherwise there would have been a war. And no one was going to war with the Soviet Union. USchick (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The factual history is that Russia declared independence, mainly because Yeltsin wanted to be president instead of Gorbachev. The other republics were left stranded. No one ever asked the people if they wanted to be independent. ...or, in fact the people were asked, in the 1991 referendum. Most said they wanted to be part of the Soviet Union. (Some still do.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But do the sources say that Ukraine declared independence or do they simply say that Ukraine became independent when the Soviet Union dissolved?JOJHutton12:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment
I hope that no-one will object to me closing this because I closed the same discussion on the Russia page but I do think it makes sense to have the same admin close both discussions. We do have a very clear majority in favour of the change. Given this I can only close this against the numbers if there is a clear well-founded policy-based reason to do so. Having looked at the oppose arguments carefully I do not see this policy-based reason. In particular I am not persuaded that it is original research to update our map before anyone else when we know that NATGEO will be updating their map idc and the change is simply a graphical representation of what is a widely documented situation. On that basis, I think the numerical advantage carries the day and the consensus is to adopt a map with crimea lightly shaded. Note that this should not be implemented until the issue with Kosovo on the draft has been fixed. SpartazHumbug!21:19, 30 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.
Adopt proposed map - I came here as an article reviewer and consider myself uninvolved. Given the recent vote in Crimea and the votes in Russia to annex it, while Ukraine still claims it as its own and much of the international community does not recognize the votes as legal, Crimea's status is clearly disputed. Per WP:NPOV, the proposed map accurately reflects the current dispute in a neutral, clear way and would be a useful addition to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Can you please address the fact that it's being disputed only by the nation that is also the occupying force. No one else is disputing it. Does the occupying force not seem biased? And therefore not neutral. USchick (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crimea itself voted for independence. It is not up to us to determine if that vote was legitimate, only to report on it per WP:OR. Given that Crimea itself voted for independence (even if persuaded, coerced, etc.), it's clear that the governmental bodies in Crimea and the Crimean people consider themselves not part of the Ukraine. It would be the epitome of POV to tell them that they are not independent of Ukraine after they voted on the issue. As such, to be NPOV we must factually report on the current political realities, not insert our own or our government's interpretation of them. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Include Crimea - I have been involved in the discussion. My argument is consistent and unbiased: Wikipedia should represent the de facto situation regardless of which countries 'officially' recognize the situation. Noone has been willing to argue that Crimea is not, de facto, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Therefore it should be depicted as part of Russia and not as part of Ukraine. I concede that this position is inconsistent with the current policy on disputed territories being shaded. However, I would argue that there is no measurable way to determine what does or does not rise to the level of a dispute. I would also point to cases, like Korea, where this convention is not enforced and the de facto borders are displayed without shading.173.79.251.253 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to sources, "The National Geographic Society, one of the only nongovernmental map policy bodies in the world, said Wednesday it had made no formal decision on Crimea, despite erroneous reports claiming it had remade its maps to depict Crimea as part of Russia." [12] This particular question is about a map. There are no reliable mapping sources that support a change. USchick (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote of the PR missed the other important stand of NatGeo: 'According to National Geographic's long-standing cartographic policy, while a map "strives to be apolitical," the Society's policy "is one of portraying the world from a de facto point of view; that is, to portray to the best of our judgment the current reality."' That means the shade of the Crimean Peninsula will be given special treatment on the map that is gonna be differing from Ukraine mainland. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - a standard practice when a part of a territory is not controlled by the country but the territory is universally or almost universally recognized as the part of the country. See Azerbaijan or Cyprus as examples. Do not see why Ukraine is different Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source that "universally" recognized Crimea as part of Russia. A map perhaps? (Russian Wikipedia is not a source)USchick (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing I agree is that there is no deadline unless the content is vandalized or unsourced. But given the circumstances, it is only a matter of time that NATGEO will update the map to reflect the Crimean separatist crisis. The Ukrainian nationalists don't cry vigorously in the NATGEO comment section for no reason. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing what he is saying here. Almost all countries 'universally' recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. But the fact they don't actually control it means that the region is disputed (Meaning of dispute here being multiple countries claims control of the same region). We are not saying Ukraine lost the region, but the fact remains that it is disputed.209.20.29.65 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm confused at all. In an article about a disputed region, it's perfectly fine to show a map of the disputed region because it helps to understand the area being discussed. Like this 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. However, to create a map that has never existed before anywhere on Earth and then impose it on an entire country is original research and against policy. First a reliable source would have to create the map and publish it, and we would follow reliable sources and create our own version that doesn't infringe on their copyright. THEN we would include it in an article. No such map exists right now. USchick (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, many maps on Wikimedia are created based on editorial judgment (don't ask me for examples, this is purely common sense). That is, when the map doesn't attract editorial dispute. I do mean that the change of the "separatist" map (sorry for the bad terminology) can be slightly postponed, but my reason is mostly because it doesn't take long to have a reliable source (NATGEO) to justify it. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the second NATGEO comes out with one, it can be already set on autopilot to go live on Wikipedia. At that very second. USchick (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map I think that the source of most of the controversy on this page is focussed around the difference between the de facto and de jure ownership of Crimea. I don't think anyone at this stage rejects that Russia is the de facto owner of Crimea at this present moment in time. With regard to the situation de jure, things get a lot more complicated. Ukraine, and most countries except for Russia, say that recent events are illegal, Russia and Crimea say that the move is, in fact, legal. To show that there is conflict and no consensus in International Relations, Wikipedia should show Crimea as being a disputed region of Ukraine by colouring it in a different colour. DJAMP4444 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnotes to the relevant current affairs articles have been added to the top of this article, DJAMP4444. Both the 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine articles carry a map depicting the area under dispute, and the two countries (Ukraine and Russia) which are involved. These maps use colours which aren't per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Orthographic_maps as they exclusively deal with the controversy. To use this article or the Russia article as current affairs articles runs contrary to the subject of the article. These articles deal with the history, culture, demographics, economy and matter of that ilk regarding the countries. To start using them for current controversies before anything is settled will only encourage high traffic POV editors and, ultimately, the trashing of the articles. I don't recall the USA article, or any others, being overtaken by intervention in Iraq, etc. They're Wikipedia articles following the norms of Wikipedia's policies and guideline, not extraordinary current affairs articles (which still have to be balanced and approached with extreme care). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - As Alex Bakharev had mentioned, it adheres to other Wikipedia standards. The very fact that both Ukraine and Russia claims the same region constitutes dispute. Nobody is trying to say it belongs to one or another here. Should be shaded in a different colour.209.20.29.65 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting observation about looking through personal histories, 209.20.29.65. Looking at your personal history, your only activity on Wikipedia appears to be 3 edits to this talk page over the period of less than half an hour. Perhaps you've just forgotten to log in. As a matter of courtesy, I think you should claim these 3 comments under your user name. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a work, shared computer station abroad for a brief period and prefer no to do such things. But you can cut it with the irrelevant, personal attacks to discredit others. I can similarly draw to the fact you are a Zaporozhian Cosscks descent and question your neutrality in the matter and disregard your opinion. But I can also see that you have been an active member that seem to have contributed a great many things. My two cents on this matter is that Wikipedia has always reported things as is real time for current events. Not showing the region as disputed in my mind distorts the reality. A very simple example of why I am here in the first place: My co-worker, who doesn't follow news closely, was oblivious to the whole situation until he was on Wikipedia this yesterday and noticed the colour-change on the map of Ukraine (English not the primary language here) and proceeded to ask us about it. The map is one of the foremost things that people see and draws them to investigate current issues with the related subject...similar to a flag change would also alert casual readers to deeper issues at hand.209.20.29.65 (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find WP:OI to be relevant here because its purpose is to protect free image created and contributed by Wikimedian from being replaced by non-free material for the reason that the user-generated image isn't "official". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can't find it relevant, Sameboat - 同舟, for the very reasons you've just outlined. Being replaced by non-free material implies that such a map already exists. By the same token, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Creating such an image would mean that, in order to be balanced, we would need to create various convolutions of the map according to the non-recognition by the EU, the USA etc. as opposed to the Russian Federation's POV, as well as expressing it it as a de jour region or de facto, ad nauseum. These would all need to be displayed together rather than one map, because the one map would be WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not adopt proposed map(EDIT)Temporarily withholding vote --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC) So far all of those pro-adoption have not actually discussed what the map is actually depicting. In discussions prior this RfC, the entire argument for this map was that it should follow protocols of mapping citing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Orthographic_maps. In the first instance, in the context it does not represent the situation. Whose de facto state is it purported to be? Ukraine's de facto state or Russia's de jour or de facto state? Is it a breakaway state or has it been illegally annexed (or acceded) by the Russian Federation? Depicting it in this manner doesn't take into account that, other than Russia, the global consensus is definitively that of not recognising it as a Russian de facto state. If in doubt, check the majority of international news services and current affairs WP:V and WP:RS sites for their assessment.[reply]
In the second instance, this article is about Ukraine (the country), not Ukraine (the current affair). POV pushers who have attempted to get a look-in to current affairs articles dealing with the Crimea situation without success have now appeared here in order to usurp this article in order to it into a de facto current affairs article. Others supporting the adoption appear to be single-purpose accounts.
The whole area is a hot spot and the situation is not even a week old yet. Ultimately, my 2c worth is that to add a map here immediately because it is some form of 'fact' (there seem to be a bad case of 'facts' going around at the moment) is premature and producing such maps constitutes WP:OR... or, perhaps, someone could point me in the direction of accepted secondary source maps. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)(EDIT - Please see new section below direct RfC votes where I have clarified my primary concerns. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support adopting the same map - While (per Sameboat - 同舟's observation), the new National Geographic map still depicts Crimea as being part of Ukraine, but distinctly not part of Russia, it has been changed to 'Republic' status. Unfortunately, this has proven to be more problematic than a clarification. For the sake of parity between the Ukraine and Russia articles, decisions now need to be made about dividing up statistics (population, area, regions, etc.) without them being WP:OR. Note, also, that I have retained the second observation in my original vote as I see the problem as a valid one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you call me a POV pusher! I looked at the person who called that. I have been actively OPPOSING both pro-Kiev and pro-Moscow POVs here - and it has been difficult, and this is the respect I get with some absurd ignorant allegation! Think, before you speak.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - Talked to a guy in Simferopol. I asked him what country he was calling from? He said Russia. That makes, to say the least, the status clearly disputed! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned earlier that this is an inherit problem with the current practice of shading 'disputed' regions rather than displaying the de facto situation. There is no measurable way to determine what is a dispute. If one person on this site 'disputes' then is that enough? If the US State Department 'disputes' is that the definition (as it is for Rand McNally for example). Common sense tells us that Crimea is disputed... but if I call a guy in the US South and he says he lives in the Confederate States of America does that make this territory disputed? I believe the existing policy can not be enforced; the only consistent approach is to show political maps de facto. Wikipedia does not show that Tibet is 'disputed' or that North/South Korea are 'disputed'. It certainly does not indicate that the US South is 'disputed' by the Confederacy. So why should it indicate that Crimea is 'disputed'? It does seem like the standard for a dispute to exist is the US State Department... there is no unbiased source for disputed territories. I reiterate that the only consistent approach is to depict all maps as de facto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide an acceptable rationale per Wikipedia guidelines and policies, Petri Krohn. Using pseudo-anecdotal and misplaced attempts at humour (AKA being 'in your face') is offensive and demonstrates a lack of good faith in being constructive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - The proposed map will more realistically reflect the geopolitical situation in Ukraine to readers. This is what are all about as an encyclopedia. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that National Geographic has said they will now be displaying Crimea as a disputed region on all their maps. Wikipedia should do the same. [13] --Kuzwa (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - I'm sorry, but I do think that Wiki should display the real state of things. Considering the fact that Ukraine doesnt control Crimea, and also Crimean refferendum about its status, recognition of the RF, and approvement by Russian pasrliament, Crimea should be shown as a part of the RF. (But honestly it has nothing in common with Ukraine anymore)
Oppose. Per WP:OI, a policy, "editors are encouraged to create original images so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". The illustration of Crimea outside of Ukraine is not an "unpublished idea" nor an "unpublished argument" as Crimea has been referred to as "annexed" by several reliable sources (such as the CBC). However, as Wikipedians we must strive to remain impartial and must, therefore, consider Crimea a disputed territory and do not include it either in a map of Russia nor in a map of Ukraine. The proposed map, by coloring Crimea, implies that the territory belongs in some way to Ukraine when the de facto status is that it does not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A different colorization for a particular area in a map by its nature makes it stand out. Why should people looking for information about Ukraine find a map where Crimea stands out? Crimea represents only about 5% of Ukraine's population. Why should it stand out? Because it's disputed? That diverts the attention of our readers and seems like we are the ones pushing such matter. I oppose to the inclusion of Crimea in any map of Russia and any map of Ukraine. The territory is in dispute: Wikipedia cannot imply that it belongs to one or the other, nor are we supposed to make that stand out in an article whose subject is something else. If this were an article about "the disputed territory of Crimea within Ukraine" I would support the inclusion of this map. But it is not. This article is about Ukraine, we can't make Crimea stand out on a map hosted on an article about Ukraine. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crimea should stand out because Crimea does stand out. Crimea is not like the rest of Ukraine (or like the rest of Russia). Depicting disputed territories mirrors the conventions of cartographic organizations, such as National Geographic. (National Geographic, for its part, recognizes Crimea's "special" status.) Keeping Crimea the same shade as the rest of the country pushes a certain POV. Not including Crimea is much worse: not only does it violate NPOV, but it ignores standard cartographic practice and would have the unintended effect of suggesting that Crimea doesn't belong to either Russia or Ukraine. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Crimea is clearly a disputed territory and should be so shown on a map. Same goes for the map of Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 21, 2014; 16:38 (UTC)
Adopt proposed map: Crimea is clearly a disputed territory, as documented in many reliable sources. In my opinion, to retain neutrality, it should not be definitively ascribed to either Russia, which is taking it over controversially, or Ukraine, which is no longer in control. To do so would at the present time imply that WP supports a particular outcome to the crisis. BethNaught (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does Wikipedia have a recognised and unified general convention? Referring to the pages of India, China, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Israel, Pakistan, Argentina, Serbia and Japan, light green is only used if there is a claim, however there is zero de facto administrative control. China has no control over Taiwan or Aruchanal Pradesh despite claiming them as territory, hence the light green. If there isn't a universal standard on Wikipedia, this would probably give mixed and confusing ideas to readers. --benlisquareT•C•E19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. It seems we don't have something set in stone. For example, the map used on the United Kingdom article does not include the Falkland Islands. Interestingly too, the map used in the United States article does not include Puerto Rico, Guam, the Mariana Islands, nor the U.S. Virgin Islands even though all territories are under U.S. control and nobody (not even the territories themselves) dispute that. Evenmoreso, United States Code establishes explicitly that "the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States."[14] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference, in my view, is whether or not the disputed territory itself recognizes itself as belonging to another country, or is independent. What makes Crimea unique here is that votes in Crimea were for annexation, but the rest of the world does not recognize it. Most other countries do not recognize their annexation (Taiwan, Nepal, etc.). Because the region is disputed, it deserves designation as such until it's resolved. This is a temporary solution to inform readers of the developing nature of the geopolitics. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, EvergreenFir and Ahnoneemoos, I'm not certain that 'disputed territory' can be proscribed according to whatever parameters we choose to interpret them as being for the sake of our own convenience, or without being US-centric, EU-centric, or any other form of bias against one set of perspectives over and above other perspectives. English Wikipedia uses sources other than English so long as they are WP:V and WP:RS, and as long as it doesn't involve WP:OR by us, the contributors). That being the case, shouldn't all of Ukraine be in bright green to designate it a 'disputed territory'? After all, according to the Russian Federation (and it's allies and media sources), Yushchenko is still the legal president and the current government is illegal. It wasn't elected. The fact that Western powers are supporting it are only indicative of where their economic and political interests lie... therefore it can legitimately be considered to be 'disputed'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, both Russia and Ukraine recognize the core of Ukrainian territory and Ukraine's sovereignty over that territory. The only disputed territory is Crimea. The legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government is not relevant to this issue. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map: There seems to be no real question of whether there is currently a dispute. The main question is whether the map should reflect the dispute. And on all the other articles mentioned by previous editors, there is an indication of dispute as needed. I think the standard we need to go by is consensus, but a larger consensus than just the editors here, a consensus of the editors on Wikipedia as a whole. Is every single contested territory on the globe depicted as such in the encyclopedia? No, clearly not. But I think there are enough depicted in other articles to show a clear consensus among all editors that displaying disputed territories is acceptable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 21:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose new Russia maps - Kosovo being snuck in. Looking carefully at the 2 maps: Current map shows a united Serbia. New map shows a separate Kosovo. I think this is a separate controversial matter and should be discussed separately. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support new Ukraine maps - Kosovo position properly reflected. Unlike the proposed new Russian maps, the Ukranian maps show Kosovo but not in the same way as other countries thereby reflecting that it is a disputed territory which I think is the correct approach generally to disputed territories. Not just for Kosovo. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt both proposed maps: Not only is there no question there is an active dispute over Crimea, but there are precedents—the PRC and Japan, among them, to highlight the disputed territory in a colour different from that of the rest of the state's territory. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 06:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
adopt proposed map. I am about as pro-Ukrainian as they come in my personal life. I have lived and worked in western Ukraine and am married to a Ukrainian. But the de facto situation is that Russia controls Crimea and has unilaterally "annexed" it. This is well-documented in the media so is not WP:OR. Ukraine's objections to this as well as the objections of virtually every other country in the world are also well-documented in the media. None of this is WP:OR. So marking Crimea as "disputed" on the maps of bothUkraine and Russia makes perfect Wikipedia sense. It is the WP:NPOV position. --Taivo (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose new map The map does not reflect the current world wide recognition of Crimea as being solely and totally part of Ukraine. To add a "questionable map" would reflect a non neutral position because it is giving equal weight to the unrecognized status of Crimea with the overwhelmingly recognized status. The world view is that Crimea is currently "illegally" occupied by Russian forces and the maps should reflect that. nIts the only neutral way of showing it.--JOJHutton16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
World wide recognition has no bearing on whether a territory is disputed or not. Turkey is the only country that recognizes Northern Cyprus, however we still color the map of Cyprus on its page a light green as opposed to a dark green. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about reliable sources? Google, Apple, and just about every online mapping service that I have seen still have Crimea as fully within Ukraine. And yes, world wide recognition DOES have bearing on the maps. The fact that Crimea is in dispute can be discussed at length, but the fact that nobody recognizes Crimea as part of Russia does infer a strong influence on the maps. And as far as your example is concerned, read WP:OTHERSTUFF.--JOJHutton22:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - Clearly, everybody has their own personal feelings on this dispute, but that should never preclude Wikipedia from striving to be objective and fact-based. Right now, the clear and present fact of the matter is that Crimea is a disputed territory, and Wikipedia has a pretty clear convention for infobox maps to display disputed territory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As far as I have seen, map colors are meant for location of the region in a bigger scope. Therefore, these changes are not suitable for Ukraine nor for Russia maps. They could be for Crimea, that already shows the location related to Ukraine.
As a side note, if what I read about the Crimean referendum is true, I do not know why are we discussing if there is a disputed territory in the first place. A referendum without a "No" answer is obviously illegitimate. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to a Wikipedia policy that states this? I've not see anything like this. Moreover, we are reporting what others say, not our interpretation of things. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding disputed territories, media say "disputed" and there is a dispute indeed. But being disputed has nothing to do with being part of one country or the other. I see no reason to change a map to reflect "Crimea is less part of Ukraine", less reason to imply "Crimea is more part of Russia". According to the National Geographic statement, the map would change "if it is formally annexed by Russia". This is not the case yet. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like formal annexation has completed.[15] Whether this situation is legitimate or not, the political bodies have decided. I have to withdraw my opposition. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt Proposed Map Per EvergreenFir below, various reliable sources are describing Crimea as disputed. Appears similar to other cases. Captainpanda23:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - From a NPOV standpoint, we should treat this the same way as we do every other country which is internationally recognized as owning a territory but does not control it (and Crimea and Sevastopol are currently controlled by Russia). We use the light-green paradigm in our locator maps for Azerbaijan, Moldova, China, Cyprus, Morocco, and Georgia; why not Ukraine? — TORTOISEWRATH00:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - same as the maps for Georgia, Serbia and Moldova. Those cases are all analogous - referendums for independence, military presence, unresolved international situation. I understand that some people strongly believe in WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but do you think that the people of (the remainder of) Georgia, Serbia or Moldova feel any different? Esn (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: National Geographic's online map now says "Respublika Krym" for Crimea and shows a thin border between it and Ukraine. This is the new term for the Republic of Crimea, instead of the old Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Iryna Harpy and USchick, is this what you were waiting/looking for? For note, to view maps on NatGeo, it wants you to create an account, but if you click "sign" and then X out of the prompt, you can see the map. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, that border is more like a state/oblast border than national border (the similar border used to divide other oblasts of Ukraine). Also the national border of Crimean Peninsula shares the same color with Ukraine mainland (above 20 km scale). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - Should be the map that shows the really existing disputed situation! The territory of Crimea on the map should be marked/painted by separate different color - different from the color of the domestic territory of Ukraine! Such practices already exists on Wiki for similar disputed territorial situations! Ignoring of the fact (that there was detach of Crimean Peninsula territory from the main territory of Ukraine, that Crimea was transfer/taken under full control of Russia and that was created the territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine) - is wrong and and foolishly! Wiki - Encyclopedia of current and confirmed facts occurring in / up to this moment and not arena of political disputes! --109.67.134.154 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment & query from Iryna Harpy
I did spend last night pondering the whether I might have been allowing the irritation I felt over one particular IP to provoke me into becoming POV over this issue (and even having to scrutinise the rationale behind my decision strikes me as being something of a self-indictment), I certainly haven't argued that Crimea isn't a disputed region for one moment: of course it is! That has not been the real issue at stake here, however.
While I've seen support for the map by experienced editors whose judgement I trust (EvergreenFir, Ëzhiki and Alex Bakharev), I'm still convinced that, other than minor quibbles, my concerns remain as neutral as they had been. I'm still not entirely convinced that we're not on shaky ground with regards to WP:OR at this point in time. Yes, a fact may be a fact (therefore 'self-evident'), but it's the nature of the 'fact' in question, as well as the methodology for establishing how it translates into a map in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines that concerns me.
I'd really be grateful for some further feedback from two other editors who have responded here - being Sameboat and Ahnoneemoos - whose experience and judgement I trust on the issue of WP:OI. I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable with supporting the map if those niggling doubts were put to rest. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My view on WP:OI remains the same. In addition the said policy also protects user-generated image from being nominated for deletion in the name of WP:NOR. (And Commons doesn't have NOR policy at all and will never follow suit). In short, I support using "Crimean Peninsula highlighted version" (which I do in zh.wp) to reflect the de facto state of the area, which is supported by NatGeo policy on map illustration.[16] But I don't think using the "de jure version" breaks any rule at current point, considering the event is still "ongoing". If the Crimean Peninsula is still out of Ukrainian control for more than 6 months, there will be absolutely no reason to keep using the de jure version. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider these maps to be a violation of WP:OI. They are very well documented with reliable sources. So they can be used on Wikipedia. My opposition is based on WP:NPOV rather, since, in my opinion, making the area stand out makes it seem as if we are the ones pushing the issue in an article whose general subject is unrelated to the dispute. So my opposition is against using it in the article about Ukraine. I don't oppose using the map in other articles whose main subject is the dispute itself. But then when we look at precedents we notice that we have some articles in which we do this and some in which we don't. So, in cases like this, the lack of policies lead us to a case-by-case consensus from the community. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should wait until reliable sources have done this. Wikipedia should not act to drive policy, and we should avoid making major changes too soon or too quickly. Deliberation should be our course in this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Proposed Map - I'm sorry (not really,) but, an illegal anexation is just that and no other independent country recognizes (the 3 Russian satellites that also don't exist within sovereign Georgia and Moldova probably will though) this aggression. --FourthLineGoon (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - Well, I was the uploader of the alternate map and got into a heated debate with some other editors on here. Since they voted I will vote my own opinion here too. I already outlined my arguments in the above discussion and I feel there's no need to rehash anything. Just my feeling that this has dragged on for way too long and much ado about nothing. Honestly, it feels like a small handful of individuals voicing their own personal opinion and using consensus to trump common sense. This is not a forum - one is never going to achieve absolute consensus so long personal opinions are involved. It was just very, very unprofessional some of the personal attacks and accusations that goes on in here. JNC2 — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map. This is a question of modes of representation. The material being represented (that Crimea is disputed) is well sourced. If we represent this in a different format - by moving from text to a map - we are not conducting original research or syntehsis. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - Should be the map that shows the really existing disputed situation! The territory of Crimea on the map should be marked/painted by separate different color - different from the color of the domestic territory of Ukraine! Such practices already exists on Wiki for similar disputed territorial situations! Ignoring of the fact (that there was detach of Crimean Peninsula territory from the main territory of Ukraine, that Crimea was transfer/taken under full control of Russia and that was created the territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine) - is wrong and and foolishly! Wiki - Encyclopedia of current and confirmed facts occurring in / up to this moment and not arena of political disputes! All provided links from Iryna Harpy - they owned to Western (U.S. and EU) and in this disputable situation, these sites not neutral sites! --109.67.134.154 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, 109.67.134.154, could you please clarify which links provided by me are owned by Western sources and why Western sources are unacceptable to you, personally? I haven't actually provided any links to sources, only to Wikipedia policy and call outs to other long term editors/contributors regarding points of policy. You've 'voted' 3 times on this page ([17] x 1 and [18] x2, although one contributor = one vote) without invoking a single policy. That's not how an RfC works. In effect, all you've accomplished is stating your personal opinion and breaching policy by pointed your finger at me (a personal attack). If I'd actually created links to (what you believe to be) non-neutral sources, I might have some idea of what you're on about. As it stands, I'm just bewildered and am trying to understand why you've directed your anger at me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for consensus closure
Since the RfC began, more information has come to light. There are plenty of WP:RS now calling Crimea "disputed". An authoritative organization on map, National Geographic has issued a statement of intent to shade Crimea dark gray to reflect its disputed status. Below I have copy-pasted quotes provided by User:Ahnoneemoos on Talk:Crimea#"Crimea" is now being referred to as "a disputed territory" by media in addition to others I have found. WP:RS has been met. WP:OR and WP:OI are no longer an issue. WP:NPOV is met by virtue of the term's use in other neutral, reliable sources. I am requesting that this be RfC be closed by consensus. Cheers!
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.
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.
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.
Petro Poroshenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian who has been charged with leading negotiations with the new government of Crimea -- a disputed region thought to be threatened by a Russian takeover...
For the Lib Dems, former leader Sir Menzies Campbell said the EU and the US must work together to exert as much pressure as possible on Russia but only a diplomatic solution could settle the territorial dispute.
National Geographic Society’s cartographic policy is to portray to the best of our ability current reality. Most political boundaries depicted in our maps and atlases are stable and uncontested. Those that are disputed receive special treatment and are shaded gray as “Areas of Special Status,” with accompanying explanatory text.
In the case of Crimea, if it is formally annexed by Russia, it would be shaded gray and its administrative center, Simferopol’, would be designated by a special symbol. When a region is contested, it is our policy to reflect that status in our maps. This does not suggest recognition of the legitimacy of the situation.
The fact that there is a territorial dispute between two sovereign nations—Ukraine and Russia—is not contentious. What is contentious is whether our maps should display this territorial dispute. Wikipedia policy states that articles "should be based on reliable, published sources." In this case, the relevant reliable sources are cartographic organizations. There are dozens of such organizations (e.g., see Category:Cartography organizations). It is not our job to determine whether there is a consensus among these organizations with regards to Crimea. Unlike scientific consensus, "cartographic consensus" does not exist and is not the kind of information that is routinely summarized in the literature.
Now that I've made a case for what we should not do, let me make a case for what we should do. Our job is to reflect the position of reliable, published sources. There are many reliable sources, but for maps we should use the most reliable independent source. Oxford Cartographers, for example, is reliable but not independent. Oxford Cartographers' policy is to do "whatever the UN says." I suggest we use National Geographic as our source. According to Juan José Valdés, the organization's cartography editorial and research director, National Geographic illustrates the world de facto, "as it is, not as people would like it to be." We should favor National Geographic for three reasons: (1) National Geographic maps are reliable, published, independent, and influential; (2) National Geographic's policy has been explicitly stated in the media and can be quoted by Wikipedia's editors; (3) National Geographic's policy is internally consistent—it is not left to the whims of politicians or political correctness. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should wait for the National Geographic to publish a map. We should not anticipate what they "may" do and actually wait for the map. The report above is dated March 18. On March 20, National Geographic said, they "had made no formal decision on Crimea, despite erroneous reports claiming it had remade its maps to depict Crimea as part of Russia." [19]. USchick (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About reaching consensus, National Geographic stated they would change their map. As soon as they do, the proposed map in this RfC goes into the article. Is this acceptable to everyone? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC, open for three days, with 25 opinions expressed. Of those, four were unexpected variations (such as leave Crimea off both maps???), but 19 supported the new maps, and 2 opposed them. I am not formally "finding consensus;" I don't know how to, and don't need to. Consensus is obvious.
The two editors who opposed the new maps have continued reverting in the article. I ask them to stop, and I ask USchick to self-revert her last reversion. Jd2718 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is about Original Research, not consensus. Until a reliable source like National Geographic comes out with a new map, Wikipedia does not create brand new maps that never existed before in the history of mankind and assign them to countries. Wikipedia goes by what the sources say. I request User:Aleksa Lukic to stop edit warring on both articles and self revert on the Russian article. USchick (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Policy is derived from consensus. I suggest taking a look at WP:Consensus. Editing against consensus is a fairly serious problem. In this specific case, there was dispute as to whether creating a new map that matches what Reliable Sources say is in itself Original Research. You argued that it is, but you failed to convince anyone. Both arguments may be policy-compliant, but the one you don't like is clearly consensus. Again, I urge you to read the Consensus policy. Jd2718 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are mistaken. Editing against policy is also a serious problem. The policy of Original Research has not been changed, so the consensus to ignore policy because editors feel like it on this one particular issue, is unacceptable. USchick (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were two interpretations of policy. They were discussed here. Both sides claimed they were adhering to policy. And the arguments were fair, and based on policy, on both sides, yours and theirs. Unfortunately, the other interpretation was accepted. I know you think you are right, and I know you think that your interpretation was better. And I'd suggest you bring in uninvolved editors to discuss the merits of the two, and which fits policy better, but that already happened, right? Jd2718 (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point out where "the other interpretation was accepted?" I'm reading the summary posted by 50.46.245.232 saying that the consensus is to let National Geographic be the official reliable source in this case, which means waiting on an official map. I request editors to respect this decision on both articles, Russia and Ukraine. USchick (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of comments above that are not policy-based, and can be ignored, but the majority accept that if the fact is reliably sourced, an original image is not original research. They are interpreting policy differently from how you did, they are not ignoring policy. And yes, you did convince one editor, 50.46.245.232, but no one else. That was the right idea, but you were not successful. Jd2718 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying. How does an RfC close? Does an admin need to come and close it? That hasn't happened, which means consensus has not been determined. I wasn't trying to convince anyone, I was simply pointing out that wanting to do something in violation of policy is still a violation of policy. USchick (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct - this RfC has not been closed. But both of us can read the comments, discard the arguments not based on policy, and know where consensus will be found. As I wrote above: "I am not formally "finding consensus;" I don't know how to, and don't need to. Consensus is obvious. " Jd2718 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that page says what you think it does. And did you reply to my first comment here without actually reading it? Slowing down is often a good thing. Good luck. Jd2718 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to push the de facto map, but there is no policy or guideline whatsoever which requires the user-generated image used in the article must be based on another existing image from the reliable source (NatGeo). As long as the area is internationally recognized as having "immediate territorial dispute", Wikipedians have the right to use their judgment to modify the map to reflect the current status. (NatGeo's map would be the final nail in the coffin, but it is not the absolute prerequisite.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from Wikipedia:No original research, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The bold is in the policy. In this case, a directly related source would be an independent map source, since the discussion is specifically about a map. USchick (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bit disappointed that you said we're here advancing Russian position like we are throwing all the reliable sources out the windows to forge our own fact. If that's the case, NatGeo is commiting/gonna commit the same crime as well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. As per my suggestion below, I don't even know whether either can be considered to be anything other than an error due to pressure being brought to bear on more experienced Wikipedians (whether by well-intentioned newbies or Wikipedians who aren't aware of the fact that it will impact severely on the article as it isn't just the map that's being impacted on).
I'm all for taking it to a higher level and holding an RfC there. I'd rather have a few administrators/editors overseeing this than try to guesstimate our way through it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are people just like regular editors, with their own biased opinions. It would be interesting to see how an admin would close the RfC here or the RfC on the Russian article. So far, i don't see anyone brave enough to take on that challenge. Until then, I see no reason to start yet another RfC process in a third place. USchick (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are meant for administrative tasks, to keep Wikipedia running. They have extra powers and they must be extra careful. Editors are the ones responsible to reach consensus. The participants of this RfC are the ones responsible for this RfC.
Repeating Jd2718's conclusion, the majority supports the proposed maps, both for Russia and Ukraine. We wait until National Geographic makes the change, then the proposed maps go into both articles. Who does find this solution unacceptable and why? Let us settle this before talking about future actions. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@84.127.80.114:, you're missing the point. Could it be that you're a little concerned as to whether your 'vote' will count when it comes to active and experienced contributors having their say with regards to actual policy? Incidentally, I think you need to acquaint yourself with policy and guidelines. You'll find that a localised RfC does not override Wikipedia's fundamental principles. The problem was that this is the wrong RfC. Try reading my proposal below and you might get a sense of the bigger picture.
@USchick: I'm not interested in using either this or the Russian RfC as some form of leverage or stalling game. I'm actually trying to work this out adhering to the spirit of Wikipedia. Again, as per my suggestion to IP 84.127.80.114, please read my proposal below. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear users, it is astonishing how a discussion about sources evolved into a forum. Do we have reputable sources were Crimea is presented as Russian territory? If the answer is not, things must stay like that. And when I mean reputable sources I mean books of geography and not of politics (and even less link to newspapers). When it comes to geography the most valid source is a geography book. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another proposal: Closing this RfC & opening a different RfC in an appropriate venue
Current RfC - I'm quite happy to go with the flow and, personally, am not concerned as to whether this article features a map of Crimea in light green, dark green or fuchsia... so long as experienced Wikipedians are confident that it meets policy guidelines (erhem, although a number have 'voted' without actually any allusion as to policy).
The RfC was opened by EvergreenFir in good faith (although I'm not sure as to whether it's appropriate to have an RfC held here while running a second RfC on precisely the same question on Talk:Russia#Request for comment, as it could easily have had two very different outcomes which would both have ended up as being more controversial than useful by merit of introducing further inconsistency to Wikipedia articles; nor do I believe it appropriate to preface an RfC with, "For parity's sake, cross-posting at Talk:Russia#Request for comment as Russia appears to have adopted the proposed map." doesn't quite meet with,
Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template.
Just as a closer on the current RfC, and the validity of the voting on this RfC, I'd like to remind everyone that
The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. See WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS for details.
A different RfC - Back on track. Now that the dust has settled a little, I'm taking the opportunity to bring the broader issue highlighted by the Crimea issue up for discussion, being that the Crimea issue has highlighted is a broader issue (which I questioned on this talk page well before any RfC on whether the controversy over 'to depict the map or not to depict the map, that is the question' was interpreted as being the pertinent issue). I removed the current affairs template from the top of the article and added hatnotes directing readers to the existing current affairs articles as I am concerned over whether it's appropriate to use any article on the subject of any given country as a current affairs article. The subject of the article is 'Ukraine' and, as such, covers a diverse number of topics from history to culture to sports, as do all other articles about nation-states. The article on Russia is still tagged as "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." "Russia" is a current affair? If so, I can't think of too many countries that shouldn't also be tagged as 'documenting a current affair'.
Additional comments have been made on the "Russia" talk page about developing the accession of Crimea at length in that article citing WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. They're astute observations. I don't believe that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is the correct process for determining whether articles on countries should be used as extensions of current affairs pages already in existence. I genuinely believe that this is a broader community question which should be put before the broader Wikipedia community (WP:CD, for example). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, the dual RfC was a mistake. Alas this was the first RfC I've created. But I do agree there's a lot of recentism that needs to be addressed. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, EvergreenFir, I know it was done in good faith. I don't have any real objections to the map featuring Crimea as being a disputed region, but (aside from the WP:UNDUE) we're now faced with a very messy infobox with some of the stats reflecting the change and others not reflecting the change, ad infinitum. I really think we need to refer this to admin level for something more than IP and newbie opinions on how it should be handled. Unless we have informed consensus and interpretations of policy regarding reflecting changes and can implement consistency in the changes, we're facing some serious edit warring over the details. I'm willing to accept one presentation or the other, not a bizarre mixture of pre-Crimean accession and post-Crimean accession. I'm not exactly over-the-moon about the hit-and-run changes coming thick and fast.
I wouldn't concern myself about miscalculating. If you and I were to compare notes on trout-slap whoopsies, I'm willing to bet I'd be way ahead of you on that score! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That could have been a solution had the wording of the proposal been neutral. Slapping the two together (also meaning redacting the double-up of votes by a few contributors and editors) and re-phrasing the RfC after the fact is not workable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question may be withdrawn by the poster, see RfC. Was consensus against the proposal? In case of doubt, the poster may always ask in the talk page. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir, I'm not certain that the clause is applicable in this situation. You actually posted the same proposal on two different pages concurrently. WP:SNOW doesn't apply to this 'branch' of the discussion, so withdrawing on the other page (after having attracted attention to this page via the other talk page on the same matter) looks a lot like WP:FORUMSHOP. Actually, it looks worse. Let's try for WP:Gaming! Again, I know that it was a well intentioned quick fix on your behalf, and I think 84.127.80.114's advice might have been good if you'd acted on it properly, but this really doesn't look like good faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: I think it may be better to restore it and take it to the Village Pump (miscellaneous) and ask for help. I can't think of another solution without getting further entangled. Wah! Oh, and ping me from wherever you take it so I can help out in explaining the pressure situation in trying to avert edit wars with the maps being changed back and forth at a furious pace, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, 84.127.80.114. If you had opened the RfC, you would be welcome to close it as you choose as any flack would be down to you. At this stage, EvergreenFir is aware of the fact that the prudent method to would be under advisement from an administrator. If I'd opened the RfC, I'd certainly want to err on the side of caution considering that Eastern Europe is the subject of Discretionary Sanctions. Why are you so anxious to push ahead with the map? To my mind, the greater concern is that both this article and the Russia article are being besieged by thinly disguised POV pushes. We're up to our eyeballs in nationalist propaganda and there's no way to stop it without edit warring... unless some form of consensus regarding using articles about countries for anything more than very, very brief summaries about current events which have dedicated pages can be reached. Yes, one can be bold and revert, then take it before an ANI every day. Personally, I don't have the energy to pursue that course of action. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - Whether or not the original nation (Ukraine) disputes it, it doesn't matter. According to the opposing logic, if a country were to be invaded or a part of it secedes, throwing a big enough temper tantrum will somehow reverse what happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_states Nobody will dispute the fact that the Confederate states were, for a time, not part of the U.S., the same logic applies here. There is nothing to argue about, Crimea is a part of Russia. BananaBandito (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
84.127.80.114, I'm about to enter a 'support new map' based on the new National Geographic map as presented by EvergreenFir (talk about much ado about nothing! It has to count as the least bold 'radical' non-governmental remapping in history). The RfC needs to be closed by an admin as valid policy issues have been brought up by both Ahnoneemoos and John Pack Lambert. In terms of RfC's, what we have here is a shemozzle resulting from what should have been on one talk page, not two talk pages. Amalgamating them now would quite simply look like gaming the system.
I'll change my vote to 'weak support for changing the map' as the National Geographic map has actually made the issue even more convoluted. It doesn't acknowledge any relationship between the Russian Federation and you need a microscope to establish the lines separating it from Ukraine. More on that in my change in vote. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, user:USchick (a Ukrainian) is having the similar problem of stating the change of map (by both NatGeo and Wikipedians) has negative effect on the reality which is not helpful to maintain our editorial neutrality and turning this discussion into another political forum. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I wasn't stating my personal opinion, I was quoting sources. Cherry picking sources that only support one side and saying "Crimea is Russia now" is POV. USchick (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're planing to add a "cartographic dispute" section in the Crimean crisis article, that Slate article could be a helpful source. As for the usage of the infobox image, there is no point the criticism of some press should sway our judgment or policy, not to mention its conclusion is false at all: "If history is any lesson, then as the conflict in Crimea plays out in the coming weeks and months, the [NatGeo] maps made of the region may not only reflect the reality on the ground, but also help create it." -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion about creating a section about the cartographic dispute. If I have time, I may do that. Unless you have a reason to claim that Slate magazine is not a reliable source, see WP:IDL. USchick (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crimea is Russia now. Maps should reflect that reality, like Kosovo does. A big majority in a large voter turnout spoke. Stop the nonsense now please SaintAviator talk04:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone could please stop and take a look at the Wikipedia article on Russia. If you look closely, the Crimean peninsula is light green on the map of Russia. The map of Russia is already prepared, let's do the same with the Ukrainian one. The Ukrainians no longer have control over Crimean affairs. -A Wikipedia User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.52.79 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
85.65.52.79, your opinion is appreciated, however please check the Russian talk page. The RfC was split between two pages. It's a policy problem that we're trying to sort out, so it isn't as straight forward as it might appear. Cheers for your concern, all the same. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopt proposed map - Should be the map that shows the really existing disputed situation! The territory of Crimea on the map should be marked/painted by separate different color - different from the color of the domestic territory of Ukraine! Such practices already exists on Wiki for similar disputed territorial situations! Ignoring of the fact (that there was detach of Crimean Peninsula territory from the main territory of Ukraine, that Crimea was transfer/taken under full control of Russia and that was created the territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine) - is wrong and and foolishly! Wiki - Encyclopedia of current and confirmed facts occurring in / up to this moment and not arena of political disputes! --109.67.134.154 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article says that. Either way, it's speculation about the future. WP:BALL I posted the update to show that if we're waiting for a map, we may be waiting for a while. USchick (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have seen [25] this statement EvergreenFir posted from NatGeo. Now Russia has formally annexed Crimea we can expect them to change the map. BethNaught (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The National Geographic Society in Washington identifies it as an area in dispute." As EvergreenFir knows, the user may end this RfC. Of course, delay is not a problem. It would let opponents realize and admit the situation. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their online map isn't shaded differently yet either. But honestly I feel like we're nitpicking here. I understand the need to reflect the state of RS, but (1) the map is already on Russia and (2) we have an official press release stating NatGeo's intent. It feels like a bit of WP:SNOW that we haven't changed it yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is mixed consensus. You are pushing for "wait" and I think most people are willing to humor you, but consensus appears to be for "change map". I am not going to close the RfC myself. An uninvolved party can do that if they like. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is "mixed consensus?" I'm not pushing for anything. To meet policy, there should be at least one RS, preferably more than one. Right now, there are exactly none. The fact that there may be one in some distant future is like saying, "one day pigs will fly." USchick (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I advise to be careful. If users are unable to find the changed map from National Geographic, it means that the article USchick provided is not reliable. First make sure the map has changed. Then let the other users acknowledge. Lastly, end the RfC. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience Break
I hope that no-one objects to me adding a break into this discussion. I'd like to argue that this entire debate is based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of maps and representation. Maps and text are both ways of representing the world. One uses letters, arranged according to standards of spelling and grammar to form meaning via words and sentences. The other uses lines, symbols and colours, using the relation between these to establish meaning.
Indeed, if we go to the original research policy on Wikipedia, we find the following illuminating line: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy". If we accept (as most editors do) that the fact that Crimea is a disputed territory is well sourced and established, the representation of this in a map - even if this is an original image - is not a new idea or argument: it is a move from one mode of representation to another, and nothing more. The only legitimate objection to this map is that what is represented is original research, not the representation itself. Reading above, many of the arguments which talk about requiring a previously published map are spurious. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have either misunderstood my post, or the policy. 'WP:SYNTH' is part of the No original research policy (the link you provided goes to a section of the page WP:OR). These are not completely different policies. Indeed, the subsection that you link to only states that you should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Representing Crimea as a disputed territory on a map does not reach or imply a conclusion which is different from a text source stating that Crimea is disputed (of which we have several). Again - moving form one mode to representation is explicitly allowed under WP:OR policy, and is not disallowed under the section of that to which you have linked. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you misunderstand the point. There is no need to provide a map. Stating a fact via a text and stating a fact via a map are only different in the manner of representation. There are multiple sources that Crimea is disputed ([26])([27]), . We could chose to represent this via a map, a Venn diagram, or via interpretative dance if we so chose. None of these would be original research under any Wikipedia policy. Challenge the fact if you want; challenging the mode makes no sense. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that Super Nintendo Chalmers has brought up an excellent point regarding NOR. We can argue until we're blue in the face regarding WP:NPOV, but NPOV in this instance requires contributors to side with one position (i.e., US, EU opinion vs RF opinion) over another. To my mind, this neutralises arguments about 'not recognised by' and is far more politicised than genuinely neutral. This leaves the onus of the arguments on whether it is OR to produce and display such maps. Given that there are a plethora of WP:V and WP:RS on which to base a disputed region map, it certainly can't be argued that there isn't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where to display such maps is highly relevant. In an article about disputed territory, yes, it helps to explain the dispute. In an article about an entire country, it only adds to the Russian POV. According to the rest of the world, the territory is not disputed, it's Ukrainian territory occupied by foreign military. This new country has no map, because it has never existed before in the history of mankind. To claim otherwise is OR and SYNTH and not supported by sources, not even one source, like a map. USchick (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry USchick but you misunderstand both OR and SYNTH. Representing textual information graphically and vice versa is common practice and does not violate either policy. We do it all the time in economy related articles for example. Wiki-made original graphics representing variation in an economic indicator, such as GDP, are often cited to tables or textual reports. Likewise, text in the body of an article can and frequently is sourced to graphical sources. It's not OR or SYNTH to state that country X's GDP grew 5% last year and source that statement to a graphic that demonstrates precisely that. In the Crimean case under discussion here, we have multiple reliable sources who now claim the territory is disputed. Representing that information is not OR or SYNTH whether we do it textually or by means of visual representation. Acer (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're describing information that can be supported by reliable sources. Of course, original maps are used all the time on Wikipedia in articles that are relevant to those illustrations and can be supported by other sources. I'm saying that this particular map about a country that doesn't exist as defined on this map, is OR and not supported by any visual sources anywhere. Only recently, it has been supported by news sources. However, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and to make such serious claims, it takes some equally serious sources. Which don't exist at the moment. USchick (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less concerned about the map due to its reflecting WP:SIGCOV, but I am still concerned about this article and the corresponding Russia articles (which I understand to be WP:BROADCONCEPT) being used as de facto current affairs articles where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC articles already exist in the form of 2014 Crimean crisis, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and others. From what I've understood of DeCausa's argument, WP:RECENTISM is not a concern to this article or the Russia article, and stats in the infobox (as well as the body of the article) can easily be addressed per WP:CALC. I'm still not convinced that recentism doesn't override changing statistics. Given the nature of these articles, I'm still predisposed to considering those changes as being WP:UNDUE.
The existence of the primary topic article(s) is not an excuse of retaining the "outdated" information in the master article. Regarding undue weight issue, I think the territory of a country naturally has a very high significance to the country topic itself, so any immediate territorial crisis/dispute should be properly addressed in the country article lede. And I believe NOTNEWS requires careful case-by-case editorial judgment that is why Orange Revolution is not included in the Ukraine's lede because the event only has limited time of effect on the subject. The Crimean secession, however, has an irreversible effect on the whole country (Obama only warns Russia not to invade further, but no longer orders Russia to hand over its control for Ukraine). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<reduce indent> I think that Sameboat summarizes this nicely. Changing of national borders, either de facto or de jure, either legally or illegally, is of very high significance in relation to the topic of a nation (see Sovereign state: the geogrpahical territory is central to the definition of state). Furthermore, this is a change which is singular and straight-forward to depict. If we were changing the map every day during a war to reflect slowly shifting fronts or changes of territory, this would be RECENTISM and from 'news reporting'. But we're not talking about that. There has undoubtedly been recentism in the editing of this event (eg the creation of a separate page for the 'nation' which lasted for one day as a legal fiction for Russia was foolish. There was no consensus for this change, and it was rejected). What Wikipedia's recentism and 'not news' policies are not intended to do is to stop Wikipedia keeping up with major, well sourced international events.
But I see all this as a distraction. There is a clear consensus for depicting this event in some form on this page. If we are willing to represent this textually, then we have accepted that this is a significant event which has impacted and will continue to impact on Ukraine for a long time. I struggle to see how it is possible to maintain an argument that you can say something in the body of a text (in the intro!) but that you cannot depict this in an associated illustrative map. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yandex has published updated map: [28]. I can't comment on their neutrality, it's Russian company (but they claimed that for Ukranian users old map will stay). But as reliable source it's pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.253.8.197 (talk) 13:44, 30 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/Falklands
Someone out there say that the cases are the same, and puts both referendums as an example.
Cases are clearly not equal. Crimea would be similar if the result would have been reversed, ie they had chosen to be Ukrainians after removed the entire russian population...The Falkland referendum is invalid because the total population is implanted and thus the question of the Falklands/Malvinas is treated in the Special Committee on Decolonization of UN...like the cases of Guam, New Caledonia, Western Sahara, etc--186.62.206.114 (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historically Crimea is Russian, and the overwhelming majority of inhabitants there are of Russian origin, ethnicity and, ultimately, allegiance. The circumstances of the referendum, however controversial as they may be, are of no relevance in this discussion. The result of the referendum, the de facto control of Crimea by Russia, and the overwhelming support for annexation to Russia by the majority (100% does not happen) of the residents call for a redesign of the maps. Even if these territories are more "taken back by force" than simply annexed.
Before Crimea became Russian, it belonged to Crimean Tatars/Ottomans and the majority of population were Tatars. After the conquest, Russians were planted there in 19th century and Crimean Tatars were deported to Central Asia in 20th century. So then Turkey should have claimed it in the first place? --UA Victory (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Falklands are indeed a direct comparison. The 2013 referendum is a farce because the population there is not aboriginal, they are just settlers. But still, for the purpose of law, it is deemed valid, mainly because doing otherwise would lead to tension with the UK, which is a major power and NATO member. Wikipedia follows this in its maps. For the same reason Crimea should be at least shown as a disputed territory, even though Russia controls it, and they want so. And, most importantly, its population is NOT artificially implanted by an imperialist colonial power like the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.94.250 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are overlooking some Russian history (e.g. the relocation of the Tartars); but there still isn't much difference: In both cases one country claims the territory, takes it through force or threat of force, holds a referendum, and uses the result to justify annexation. In both cases the approval rating was over 95% (of those that voted). You can argue over the moral superiority of one side vs. the other but ultimately, as Mao said, power comes out of the barrel of a gun. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Falklands are not similar, because the British did not mass deport a population in the mid-20th century, as the Soviet authorities did to the Crimean Tatars after World War II. Also, the Argentine situation is very different because the Argentines themselves are by and large not an "indigenous" population, but largely descendants of Italian immigrants in the early 20th century (like Pope Francs), and almost exclusively of people who immigrated from Europe since 1700. Actually if we want to talk about imperialistic expansion we could discuss the expansion of the Argentine state against the free-roving gauchos in the mid-19th century. Additionally, Crimea is united by land with the rest of Ukraine, which makes it less distinct than the Malvinas Islands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet they introduced a foreign one (since the Brits have no business to do in South America, their place is on their small island).
The IP said, "Someone out there say that the cases are the same", then explained why someone is wrong. But unless someone's comments are in the article, it is of no relevance. TFD (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They should not be a direct comparison. When the British colonised the Falkland Islands originally (before 1832 and 1770 when permanent colonisation was re-attempted) there was no native population as the territory was uninhabited and always had been until the colonial era. Since the discovery of the Falkland Islands (By the French or British depending on who you believe, both have strong claims) successive attempts were made to colonise by the UK, France and Spain. No 'native' population was ever displaced in the process as there never was one. In fact I would question whether there is such a thing as a 'truly native' population to any territory. In the case of the Crimea, Soviet authorities deported vast numbers of the Tatar population from the 1950s onwards, who had long been the inhabitants of the peninsula, and gave more of the territory over to Russian and Ukrainian peoples. Therefore, the referendum can be seen as lacking validity. However, it raises the question as to why should the Tatars have such a strong claim to the Crimea? Before their arrival and conquest, the main inhabitants were Mongolians and Greek Byzantines, who in turn had subjugated it from the control of the peoples who had been there before them. The Argentine Government claims that the Falkland Islands referendum was illegal as the population had been put there by the UK, but that is a strange argument to take considering that the Argentinian population was put in South America by the Spanish. At least in the case of the Falklands no original peoples were supplanted by the settlers, which cannot be said for the Spanish colonisation of Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambrown607 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geographic location template
I don't believe it's necessary to include Russia as bordering Ukraine to the south in the "geographic location template" at the bottom of the page. That would be in breach of NPOV, since Ukraine (and most of the international community) regards the Crimean peninsula as it's territory, while Russia does not. It would be neutral to remove the mention that Russia borders Ukraine on the south, period. I see some reverts floating around, let's discuss this before proceeding with the new addition to the template. §DDima23:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually consider it to be redundant, full stop. If the Black Sea (which is not within the boundaries of any one country) is seen as a demarcation of a border, and the geographic location template only notes north, south, east and west, then the south is all the territory along the Black Sea. That being the case, it also borders with Romania along the Black Sea, therefore both the Romanian and Russian flags need to be added. So far, the introduction of the Russian flag has been used as a POV statement rather than as a useful and neutral depiction. The intent of these templates is to inform readers as to location and borders, not to use them as political platforms. Why introduce something unnecessary to inform anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey as a 'border'?
As Turkey doesn't physically border with Ukraine on terra firma, but is part of a trans-sea co-operative, is it relevant for the purposes of the geographic location template to add Turkey as a bordering country in the south? It strikes me as being unintuitive to depict Ukraine as if it were landlocked. By the same logic, Romania borders with Russia and Georgia (and visa versa). I've reverted this addition of Turkey on the understanding that the Black Sea is used as the standard for all of the countries located around it at the end of that country's territory in whichever direction it is to be found. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well say that the US borders China, Vanuatu, South Africa, and the Antarctic. Or even Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using the light green color for Crimea seems somewhat misleading and inconsistent. The China map uses the same light green color for Taiwan, even though the situations are not similar at all: China has no control over Taiwan and the people don't want to join China. Russia has total control over Crimea with the approval of its people. In reality Crimea is not a contested territory, except in the minds of politicians. I think Crimea should be labeled as fully part of Russia on the Russia page, and marked with some other color on the Ukraine page that represents territorial claims without control. This should be the same color used for Taiwan on the china page. A different color should be used to mark contested territories (where multiple parties have actual influence over, say if Crimea was controlled by Russia, but its people were not happy with the Russians and were protesting/rebelling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.164.176 (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We just had a lengthy Request for Comment (see #Request for Comment above) about the map and the consensus was to have Crimea in light green as a disputed territory. Wikipedia has not specific policy regarding maps an disputed territories. Just because it's done one way on China does not mean it must be done here. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, situation is similar in some aspects: China has no control over Taiwan and people don't want to be in China just like Ukraine has no control over Crimea and people don't want be in Ukraine. Only difference is that people of Taiwan choose to form an independent state while people of Crimea choose to join the Russian Federation. Feon {t/c} 14:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake. I have no problem using the light green for Crimea on Ukraine's page just like the light green on China's page. The problem I have is with the light green on Russia's page, Russia's relationship with Crimea is nothing the Ukraine's or China's with Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.164.176 (talk • contribs)
Actually, Feon, you are oversimplifying the situation. The 'referendum' was held after a military takeover (widely criticised), and the referendum has been widely criticised for the lack of options. A large percentage of the global community don't agree with your evaluation of the situation, and it is Wikipedia's position to be WP:NPOV in reflecting what verifiable, reliable secondary sources have to say on the matter. As per EvergreenFir's suggestion, please check talk pages (particularly when weighing in on high traffic and controversial articles) for the history of discussions and consensus. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy, you seem to be completely missing the point and sparked unnecessary political discussion which has no place here. Political details you mentioned (e.g. opinion of international community) are completely irrelevant to this map issue. Only thing that matters is that Crimea is disputed territory and should be shown in the map as such, which it currently is. Feon {t/c} 09:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine has no current administrative control over Crimea because the Russians invaded that part if Ukraine. Ukraine and just about most of the world, minus the crazy countries, still consider Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The fact that a good number of people in Crimea wanted to join Russia should be irrelevant. It's the same situation as in 1938 when Germany sent troops into the Sudetenland. A good part of the people supported it and unlike Putin, Hitler at least asked for permission first before sending in troops. If Mexico sent troops to Los Angeles because most people in the city are ethnic Mexican, would the area now be considered Mexico or even considered disputed? No it would not. The same holds true here. JOJHutton21:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, JOJ, your analogy is reasonable as a response to user Feon and the IP suggesting that it is was the 'democratic' choice by the people of Crimea, and whose next suggestion will be pushing for the map as being non-contested 'it's Russia now because the people wanted it' for both this article and the corresponding Russia article. That suggestion has already been dismissed as a non-starter per the RfC. I would, however, suggest that you retract, "... minus the crazy countries ..." POV condemnation is inappropriate and provocative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of all this nonsense about a Russian "invasion" and/or "occupation" of Crimea. What utter nonsense! I'm not sure what troops you believe Putin sent into Crimea; Russian troops have been in Crimea since the days of Catherine the Great centuries ago, and they have always had a very close relationship with their Crimean counterparts. All of a sudden their presence is an invasion? That's nothing more than western propaganda. The constitution of Ukraine became null and void the second the violent coup overthrew the elected government in Kiev. The Crimean referendum was legal and democratic; the people of Crimea have every right to self-determination and they freely chose to rejoin the Russian federation! Calling this an invasion is just careless and misleading. What editor JOJ refers to as "a good number of people" in Crimea who supported a move back to the Russian federation was damn near unanimous, at 96.77% with record breaking voter turnout. To say that this is "irrelevant" is saying that you do not support the democratic process. Perhaps you also support the neo-Fascist coup that recently took place in Kiev and triggered this whole mess? 173.212.80.159 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why reliable sources need to be used when representing maps. That would solve this entire problem of people pushing their opinions. However, even though no such sources exist, we keep hearing that such sources may appear one day, so in the meantime, people do whatever they imagine simply because there's consensus to create a brand new map, not recognized by anyone anywhere. Why even have policies in place if the policy is going to be ignored? USchick (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you are right. Why have guidelines and policies when a simple majority can override them. NPOV and OR are core content policies, but what has happened here is that the "knee jerk" reactionists used a "majority rules" argument to override two core content policies. And for the record, Google Earth still considers Crimea as part of Ukraine. Same with Apple Maps. JOJHutton03:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that if someone wants to hire X number of paid editors, they can easily skew an article, since there's no policy in place anyway, and everything is negotiable. It's amazing to me how on a discussion page, any real discussion is suppressed for some reason as "inappropriate and provocative" when the discussion is about policy. The people arguing against policy are talking in circles about how "we should all just get along." Great! Let's use real sources, and let's say exactly what the sources say, and then I'm sure we can all get along just fine. Can we please start moving in that direction? USchick (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Crimea and Taiwan are similarly disputed territories, because in both cases countries that claim it (Ukraine and China respectively) have no control over it, so it only makes most sense to mark them on maps the same way, which is the way it is now, so there is no need to change it. It seems that some editors would like Crimea to be completely included in Ukraine on the maps (dark green on this map), while others would like it to be completely included in Russia on the maps (gray on this map), but either of those options would violate NPOV.
This is true, but the on the map of Russia, Crimea should be marked differently. Russia has actual control of Crimea, while Ukraine just has a claim (just like China has only a claim over Taiwan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.164.176 (talk • contribs)
Those are irrelevant details for this map issue. It only matters is what is disputed territory and what is undisputed territory. Crimea is a disputed territory, so that's why it is marked as such on both maps. Feon {t/c} 07:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that disputed can mean different things. In this case, Ukraine has nothing but a claim over Crimea. In the map caption the lack of control should be noted. Previously this lack of control was mentioned, but someone removed it. On the Russia page it mention that Russia has control of Crimea.74.102.164.176 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who removed it from this page. 'Disputed territory' is a recognised legal term. 'Disputed, uncontrolled territory' is not a legal term. A person may have an uncontrolled fit of indignation over a term they thought ought to be used not being used. The fact that it is used on the Pakistan and India articles merely means that it is being used incorrectly and should be fixed, or that the circumstances are different as there is no use of de facto or de jure. Uncontrolled, in terms of territory, means that there is no formal (or reasonably enforceable) form of governance, and the territory suffers from lawlessness as a result. For your edification, you will be disappointed to find that I have also removed 'controlled' from the Russia infobox. De facto covers the control issue, thereby rendering the use of 'controlled' as redundant (commonly known as tautological). Note, also, that we don't make up legal qualifiers as we go along because that it WP:OR. Until I've heard back from some genuine lawyers, we don't entertain qualifiers like de jure. De facto is appropriate for the Russia article, but any other qualifiers for the Ukraine article are, for the moment, speculative (or WP:OR). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Map sources
Would anyone be interested in looking at reliable map sources? Search engines like Google and Yandex don't count. Countries producing their own country maps also don't count. Wikipedia editors who produce maps also don't count. Let's examine cartography sources in the business of producing maps. What they claim to do in the future, doesn't count because the person saying that may be fired tomorrow and replaced by a different person who will say something new. Let's look at actual sources. Primary and secondary. Who's interested? USchick (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in an article on disputed territory, an OI map is relevant. The RfC was based on the idea that a new NatGeo map was going to come out any day now. How long should we agree is a reasonable amount of time to wait for this map that doesn't exist? A week? A year? Ten years? USchick (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly understand that the INTIM essay would be more applicable to us if we had not gone through the thorough RfC above? Did we just change the map without discussion and threaten you that you were violating policies X, Y and Z? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Local Consensus does not override core content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The fact that a near majority of editors appeared to be in favor of a distorted and worldly unrealistic map that gives far too much weight to one position over another only means that the inmates are now running the asylum. As far as the policies are concerned, the RFC is against policy.--JOJHutton01:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the idea that this RfC was based on Local Consensus alone, JOJ? You did see that I commented on being concerned about this point well before the RfC was closed by a neutral admin. I actively pursued this concern in other venues with experienced, neutral editors and was unequivocally pointed towards the fact of the existence of a plethora of WP:V, WP:RS as demonstrating that ignoring these and the National Geographic map would be WP:OR, and that it would be WP:POV to disqualify sources being cited in the body of the article itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2001 census have no data about ethnic groups, but about nationalities
In many places in the article, the words "ethnic group" are used with data from the last census which occured in 2001. This is wrong.
The 2001 census can be seen on the site of the Ukrainian government. There are no lines named "етнічних груп" (ethnic group), but there is a line named "Національний склад населення" (Composition of the population by nationality). The difference is important because there are only 17% of the population whose nationality is Russian, but there are 29.6% of the population whose mother tongue is Russian, and therefore about 30% who are from the ethnic group of Russia. The census does not ask people what is their ethnic group (characteristics pertaining to culture, language, religion and race), because this is not politically correct, and because this is impossible in many cases, e.g. when you have a person having a father from one ethnic group, and a mother from another ethnic group. The census is only askig about the nationality which is more easy, but less representative.
Yes, it is true that the census had the words "nationality" rather than "ethnicity." However, your viewpoint that because 29.6% of the population's native tounge is Russian is equivalent to making close to 30% of Ukraine's population as ethnically Russian is wrong. I was born in Ukraine and my native language is Russian. I am Ukrainian and identify as a Ukrainian, and I don't speak the language. Simply because my native language is Russian doesn't make me Russian.
It's just simply how the census was administered, and the people were given the choice to classify themselves as Ukrainian, Russian, etc. We may never know the exact statistics of how many Ukrainians/Russians/anyone else there is living in Ukraine, but the numbers that were given in this census are as close as we can get, because a large portion of Russians would not classify themselves as Ukrainians, just as a large portion of Ukrainians would never classify themselves as Russians. Those who wished to associate themselves with one group or another—already did, and those are these statisics we have today: ~77% Ukrainians, ~17% Russians, etc. §DDima02:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As we're on the subject of ethnic groups, languages and census statistics, the whole subsection on Regional differences reads as simplistic. Considering the fact that the next census has been pushed up to 2016, we're stuck with trying to make sense of what the 2001 census statistics actually tell us. I think it would be useful to weave information from this Forbes article into the content to clarify (she says, laughingly) that the 2001 census isn't really particularly informative in a meaningful way, full stop. My only reservation is that it's an op ed, but the author is Dr. Leo Krasnozhon (who was associated with the Political Science department at UNT and currently teaching at Loyola University in New Orleans). Any thoughts? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good article, thanks for bringing that up. I can't wait till the new census is conducted, it would be interesting to see these new statistics today. But we must wait till the dust settles (if it ever will) to see this information. §DDima05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ukraine has been covered in the media from various angles, I might take a look around and see whether I can find any more articles of a similar nature. It's a long way until 2016 and there's a whole generation to account for since 2001. I think it would be valuable for me to do a little tidy up of that section, even if only to clarify that the most recent statistics aren't clear on what is being represented. I'll take another look at it over the next couple of days and see if I can't make a couple of tweaks in order to make it more informative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After querying the sources for this map (originally uploaded with the description being, "The most numerous ethnic groups in Ukrainian rayons (if the data was available) or oblasts in the year 2001."), all I managed to elicit from the uploader was this response. The history of the map reveals absolutely nothing about sources. As I've had no further responses since that time as to where he/she extracted the individual raion stats, I've removed it as WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary name of the Ukrainian National Anthem?
80.112.167.215 has alerted me regarding the current title of the national anthem. Being from the pre-independence Ukrainian diaspora, I always knew it as per the title in the infobox (Ще не вмерла України - Ukraine has not yet died). In checking against Ukrainian Wikipedia, it is certainly presented as being the entire first line of the lyrics, і Слава, і Воля".
The State Law of 2003 is no more edifying as it merely calls it the Ukrainian State Anthem and provides the now redacted lyrics (one verse followed by 2x chorus), but does not actually name it by title. Having checked a multitude of google links, I still see it coming up as "Ще не вмерла України". Even in the English language article about the anthem, the title is notably absent, i.e., it's only discussed as the State Anthem of Ukraine!
The title is: Ще не вмерла Україна (with an "a" in Ukraina).[29][30] The official first line to the song used since 2003 are Ще не вмерла України (with an "и" at the end). [31]USchick (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that was my error, USchick. I was too lazy to break out my Ukrainian keyboard and just copy-pasted the title. To qualify, I've always known it as, "Ще не вмерла Україна". Where on earth did the, "Ще не вмерла України і слава, і воля" come from? It reads as a beginners' Ukrainian exercise in 'spot the grammatical error'. Has Ukraine been turned into a plural with a singular death? What case is it supposed to be? Probably best to leave it as just the transliteration of the correct title. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it's supposed to rhyme with молодії. A better question would be, who in their right mind would choose a message like that as their national anthem? Obviously not someone who understands marketing, or positive thinking, or anything that makes sense. It's nice to be in agreement with you about something. :) USchick (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had visions of a month-long retreat in which the idea was to decide on an alternative... except that, by 11pm on the final Sunday, the 'committee' remembered they weren't there just for the fringe benefits and (full of horilka, salo and pickled herrings), they tossed the seriously non-PC verses and, being too drunk to hold a biro, got the partially literate village idiot to write out the new and improved anthem out on a greasy serviette. ;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits
I've noticed some recent non-constructive edits, such as this one. I would like to point out that (1) the use of "disputed" was reached by consensus and "occupied" is POV, (2) the population estimates and land areas are larger with the inclusion of Crimea (and flipping them is incorrect), and (3) we use "Kiev", not "Kyiv". If there are particular questions, please pose them here. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum: for those who wish to find out why 'Kiev' is used over 'Kyiv', if you check the top of this talk page you will find a huge link to direct you to the correct page. As the link reads, "If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please click here", and is prominent directly above the talk page instructions box, as well as directly below the box, you shouldn't have any problems finding it. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Revert to consensus version at 16:22, 11 April 2014.. Hope EvergreenFir stop to try make disputed changes in infobox without discussion. 2) There is an international recognized size of Ukraine's territiory (603,628), the commemts of russian position shouldbe at "Administrative divisions" section and based on reliable sources not someone's calculation. --Geohem (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there needs to be an RfC regarding this matter ASAP. According to neutral, experienced editors, if verifiable WP:RS is being used in the body of the article (as per the Euromaidan and 2014 revolution), WP:CALC should be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iryna Harpy (talk • contribs)
Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on occupied Ukraine territories. I am not sure that it's obviously and there is no problem to calculate current Ukraine population and territory. So I proposed to left source based information and as comments add (that population/territory of Crimea at ______ was...). In any case, this information should be displayed with the correct comments in the text of article. In the infobox, we can provide a link to the same comment.––Geohem (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to revert the changes by Geohem again. Please note that Geohem's edits are against consensus (see Talk:Kiev/naming and #Request_for_Comment) and unconstructive as they present false info (with respect to the population estimates). We have had the "disputed" language on here since March 30 at least (see [32]). You are welcome to start an RfC if you like, but refrain from edit the infobox against consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is currently being held on the Russia talk page regarding appropriate content for the lead for the Russia article which will also affect the lead for the Ukraine article.
I am extending an invitation to all page watchers and those involved with contributing to this article to participate. Thank you for your engagement in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian intervention in Ukraine
This section I have repeatedly separated from the Euromaidan 2014 Revolution section. Through contemporary, these are distinct processes. The EM Revolution may be over soon, but the Russian intervention will alas extend.
At present it is certainly a "current event" topic, so this section is bound to undergo substantial changes in the future. Hopefully, the extensive material will be transferred to the "main articles", leaving the text length commensurate with the (future) historic relevance. MGTom (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was some editing related to the statement: Not without the aid of massive Russian propaganda with intention to balance the sides. Modification may be necessary for Eastern Ukraine, but in Crimea IMHO (I closely followed the reports) the pro-Russian (in the form of "anti fascist") propaganda was overwhelming. Please provide any proofs/indication of effective pro-Ukrainian propaganda in Crimea, and for that matter in Eastern Ukraine. I hope there will be more detailed analyses available in the future. I am sure that there will be many many books. MGTom (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, currently I'll leave it as is. "Not without aid of massive..." is, after all not "Because of massive..." etc. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MGTom, one of the main issues Seryo93, EvergreenFir, myself and others have been trying to address on this article and its sister article, Russia, is keeping the details to a neutral minimum on both articles per WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BALASPS, etc. for WP:BROADCONCEPT articles in which sections bloating up beyond the size of 800 years of history are detracting from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see Talk:Russia to get an idea of how much of a struggle it's been).
I think that, unless we manage to keep both articles tightly restrained to brief consensus version, they're going to keep attracting an unmanageable amount of interest group traffic trying to use them as surrogates for the actual current affairs articles because they don't stand a look-in on those articles themselves. BRD isn't working: check the content for these sections on either article and you'll find someone stepping in and trying to rewrite them according to their POV on a regular basis. Serious contributors are getting caught out for edit warring (primarily inadvertent). At this rate, anyone trying to keep the two articles working in tandem is going to be blocked, sanctioned and prevented from touching the content. We've got two black holes here, people. Either we collaborate or we get pulped. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have inspected the talk page of the Russia article Talk:Russia on the recent topics (Crimea, federal subjects, maps). It is something that has to be avoided. The proposal of Iryna Harpy is good: keep the main article on Ukraine tight. In the accompanying special topic articles the blow-by-blow developments may be recorded. The actual media war, which spills over to Wikipedia, should also be a topic, as it is of paramount importance in the development of the conflict. I will try to contribute by transferring any excessive, but valuable material to the specialised articles, leaving here the minimum.MGTom (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MGTom. Noting that you are a long time and experienced Wikipedian who contributes to a wide variety of articles in many areas of Wikipedia (as opposed to that of a single purpose account), your assistance would be greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reblock paragraph structure for readability. No change to text. Repair redlink. Add short update on 2014 Geneva Pact from recent Economist report. Update template status per no new Talk page additions for over 48hours. FelixRosch (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding update on current status of 2014 Geneva Pact along with quote from U.S. VicePresident Biden. Also adding Url and cites for Vladimir Putin endorsement of waiting for 25 May Ukrainian elections and Putin's Notable pledge for de-escalation of military tensions on the Ukrainian border. FelixRosch (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FelixRosch: You have been asked to engage here, on the talk page, a number of times already. You've failed to engage and a consensus version appropriate to this article has been reached. Should there be any dramatic changes to the situation truly meriting changes to the text, please make your suggestions here first, rather than use this as a log page for your additions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about the biodiversity section, which mentions only animals and fungi. What about plants? I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to say "ss17 (endemic) species (of fungi) have been tentatively identified" when the linked source says "These fungi are not necessarily endemic to Ukraine, but in the Cybertruffle database there are currently no records from any other countries." That doesn't really sound like a support of "have been tentatively identified". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain as to what the question is, Richardson mcphillips. Where are they referred to as being 'regional' languages? The only indication from the last census in 2001 (with the new census having been moved from 2008 to 2016 before we see any comprehensive figures on details which not addressed in previous census data) is of numbers of Armenian and Albanian peoples living in Ukraine. This doesn't automatically translate into those citizens living in specific regions/concentrated communities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I see what you're referring to, being the infobox. I honestly don't know where the list of 18 languages came from. I'm just going to take a look around the state laws regarding languages and see whether it is in any of the acts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: per this edit. The reference had been inserted into the midst of the list. I've moved it to the top of the list and corrected it to reflect 18 regional languages - with no allusion to Albanian - as being recognised aside from Ukrainian as the state language ("The Law of Ukraine", Document 5029-17, Article 7: Regional or minority languages Ukraine, Paragraph 2). As a legal document, it doesn't delve into the specifics of where each of these regions are to be found. If the exact location of Armenian is of urgent significance to you, I'd have to go through all of the appended Articles in order to find out precisely where. Even then, the legal documentation may not be available online, or may only be found at the regional sites. Is this something that can wait? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Yes, no urgency. I was just wondering if Albanians and Armenians lived in particular regions of Ukraine. Minority I understand, regional not entirely. Again, thanks. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing my attention to the issue. At the least, it's drawn my attention to the fact that someone slipped Albanian (which shouldn't have been there) in amongst the recognised languages. The demographic information in this article is confounding and does need a serious tidy. There are actually corresponding articles which should be linked in here and on the main demographics page.
The legislation adheres to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The nomenclature is a little confusing, but a region is approximately an oblast, however the legislation allows individual 'councils' (in Ukraine's case, approximately a raion/district, although the term it's a little more complex than that) are entitled to treat languages represented by less than 10% of that district's population as recognised languages. That said, here's the wikilink to the information you're after for the Armenian community in modern Ukraine --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Should the article say in the lead that the group (or that some of its subgroups’ members) are neofascist or neo-Nazi, without citing a minimum of 3 top-quality sources?” --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE tag in Russian intervention in Ukraine
In response to the WP:UNDUE tag in the Russian intervention in Ukraine section by Moxy, I've trimming the section down to get the basics of the issues and removed the details which belong on pages related to the crisis. Starting this section for any dialogue about the changes. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, EvergreenFir... and thank you Moxy for initiating the clean up. This issue has been addressed several times here, on this talk page, where it has become clear that, as a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPSad infinitum apply. Hatnotes are used per section in order to direct readers to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Having read through EvergreenFir's trim, I believe it to be a good balance of enough information delivered in a neutral, encyclopaedic tone and would accept it as a consensus version which should not be added to.
I'd also like to remind contributors (again) that using any sections about recent events (Euromaidan, etc.) as surrogate current affairs sections plainly violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines and is, therefore, not subject to talk page discussion, speculation, or consensus. If contributors wish to elaborate on the content, they should involve themselves with the relevant current affairs articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that the lead should indicate that the present situation is in flux. There are questions about the legality of the present government, depending on which constitution one refers to. There are questions about how much territory it actually controls. Until there is some sort of election there, it is impossible to forecast what Ukraine will look like in the near future. The lead that you propose seems to imply that everything is settled, nothing to see here, move along. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia shouldn't try to be up to minute, and certainly shouldn't try to look ahead. The current government is recognized by everyone except Russia. The great huha (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most Wikipedia articles on countries do not include the number of subdivisions (ratio of about 2:1, by my quick check of a handful of countries across the globe). Should be no biggie to just leave it alone, even after the crisis is over. It clutters the lead. By the way, the request for comment was asked in the negative; not a good practice. Jd2718 (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with you, Jd2718. The Russia article RfC has been up for nearly a month, so perhaps EvergreenFir could request that it be closed by an administrator, and that the RfC proposal here should follow the general lines of my proposal in that RfC. While some of us are aware of what is at issue, I think that Seryo93's brief request isn't clearly stated for other members of the community (apologies, Seryo93, that's not intended as a slight). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Neutral/uninvolved contributors kept dropping in every time it looked as if it were ready to close. I think it's definitely run its course now. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an Anecdote about Cossack Rebellion in 1648
User:Iryna Harpy, Hi! I noted where my recent edit in the WP article, "Ukraine," was reverted, under the complaint: "Rv Broken link, using intro and not establishing RS." What do you mean here by RS? Davidbena (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Davidbena. What I meant was exactly what I expressed in the edit summary I provided: that the citation link was broken and, although I tried to figure out where you were trying to link to, I couldn't establish your source. The link is malformed, and the text on that page (is it a blog, a forum?) doesn't point the Nathan ben Moses Hannover reference you've cited. Having searched for the "The Abyss of Despair", I haven't been able to establish anything other than the Wikipedia article in which it is called "Yeven Mezulah", and which unequivocally states that "... it is no longer considered a reliable historical source in spite of its literary qualities." Wikipedia is not a repository for anecdotal information.
Nevertheless, as we're on the subject, this article only provides outlines of the history, geography, economy and culture of Ukraine, and I'd consider that your addition of this 'anecdote' to this section as being undue given the balance in context. If you care to check the link to the 'largest of the Cossack uprisings' you appended the anecdote to, you'll find that these issues are expanded on at length and in context in the Khmelnytsky Uprising article, with a major section and detailed subsections on the casualties (specifically Jewish, Polish and Ruthenian/Ukrainian casualties). It is also dealt with in the Bohdan Khmelnytsky article with no punches pulled.
If you feel this anecdote to is essential, I'd suggest that it belongs in one of those articles, although it won't pass muster as it has been determined to be WP:QUESTIONABLE at best.
First, to clarify what I meant by "anecdote." Here, my intent was simply to say that there is a need to make a short (terse) but relevant addition to the text, an addition which bears on some important historical piece of data related to the given context which is outlined in general terms, and which short addition gives fuller meaning to what is being described in the sub-title (i.e. Ukraine's history). There is a feeling that one gets while reading the present article that the Cossack rebellion, an important juncture in Ukrainian history, was no more than a rebellion which ended with the emancipation of its serfs, as if all else went well, and no one else was oppressed. Here, the very, very short addition will put everything else back into perspective.
As for the source that I cited, I used actually two different sources: 1) The book, "The Abyss of Despair," by Nathan ben Moses Hannover; and 2) a YouTube link (perhaps inappropriate for this venue), but which nevertheless interviews contemporary scholars in the United States and one Russian Professor who all say the exact same thing, viz., about the suffering brought upon the Poles living in the Ukraine at that time, as well as to the local Jewish population who often acted as tax collectors on behalf of the Polish nobles. If the aforementioned book is deemed unreliable, I am sure that their testimonies would not be considered unreliable by any means. I will be willing to use a different source, if you wish, but that will have to wait until I can go to the Hebrew University Library in Jerusalem. Any suggestions? For your information, here is the link to the YouTube video:
Per your comment, ... about the suffering brought upon the Poles living in the Ukraine at that time, as well as to the local Jewish population who often acted as tax collectors on behalf of the Polish nobles.. you've inadvertently put your finger on the pulse, yet I don't believe you realise it. This took place on Ruthenian/Ukrainian territory which was occupied by the Poles. If you wish to add this information in order to "put everything else back into perspective", for the sake of balance, I would need to counter it with the plethora of well sourced historical information attesting to the brutality of the Polish regime and the suffering inflicted on the indigenous peoples (being the Ruthenians/Ukrainians) living on their own land. Do you see this as being warranted in light of what this article represents? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna, in the final analysis, you decide on what is appropriate or not. This is your well-studied article, and I agree, that you are far more knowledgeable than I am in this field of expertise. Having said that, by pointing out the fact that atrocities were committed by the Poles to the indigenous Ukrainians, we cannot deny the fact that also ordinary Jews who had no part in this oppression (but simply belonged by race to others who acted as tax-collectors and estate managers on behalf of Poland) suffered also as a result of the Cossack rebellion. In my humble opinion, I think that there is a valid place to mention both atrocities. One atrocity led to another atrocity, which is deeply etched in the Jewish national conscious. What do you think? If you agree, I'll provide a better reference source. If you do not agree, I will herewith forego of pursuing this any further.Davidbena (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm most certainly not trying to expunge these atrocities from Ukrainian history, Davidbena. As I've noted in regards to this article elsewhere (please see the discussions about keeping the current crisis in Ukraine and Russian intervention in Crimea down to a critical minimum), this is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article/lengthy disambiguation page. To bring this subject into the article would require a careful balance which I don't see as justifiable. Take into account that there are many other details regarding the history of Ukraine which aren't here, or have not been elaborated on precisely due the complexity of their nature. It's purpose is to serve as a quick read.
If you wish to develop this subject, it should be done so on the pages directly related. As an exercise in comparison, please read the articles on the subject of Germany, Spain, France (i.e, just an off-the-cuff quick list of those 'countries' who had expelled the Jews in a less than pleasant manner) and tell me how much you can find on the subject prior WWII information. I don't see any information about the history of the Jewish population during the late Middle Ages. Try taking a look through the article on Poland, particularly the claims under human rights and tell me whether you can spot the difference between theory and practice. What about Russia? Nothing? I find myself wondering why you have taken issue with this particular article: have you done so with these other articles? If not, why not?
As this is a talk page, and not a forum, it's inappropriate for me to expound on the subject here any further. If you wish to discuss it with me further, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I will not pursue this matter any further, other than to say that a short sentence is, indeed, mentioned about Jewish oppression in Spain, under the sub-title of Medieval History: "That same year, Spain's Jews were ordered to convert to Catholicism or face expulsion from Spanish territories during the Spanish Inquisition." A similar line, as short as this one, would have been appropriate in showing the general outcome of the Cossack rebellion. As for the other countries you've mentioned, if there were to exist a sub-title on a particular French or German king during whose medieval reign great crimes against humanity were committed, there would also be a place to briefly mention that fact too. Enough has been said here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bold Revert Discussion, BRD, for Crimea-Russian Intervention subsection requested by EvergreenFir and other editors
During the last week to ten days there was extensive paragraph blanking by EvergreenFir at the Russia page dealing with the annexation, which is Reverted here for BRD according the request of EvergreenFir yesterday. The extensive paragraph blanking by EvergreenFir of ten thousand bytes was on the diff of 30April2014 which is reverted here for this BRD, along with the addition of a Notable Putin quote regarding the pending Ukraine 25May2014 election. I have set up this BRD to allow All participating editors to express their views and to help avoid the extensive back-and-forth editing in the last week from occurring the future. All participating editors are welcome to post their SUPPORT/OPPOSE for any/all of the enumerated issues covered during the last week to ten days. I have compiled the list exhaustively from all the issues I could identify from the Talk page discussions on Ukraine and on Russia without regard to this editor's views for purposes of NPOV. You may add any new ones to the list as required and remember to add the sequence number at the end to maintain the sense of order and enumeration. BRD consensus usually requires at least 48-72 hrs in order to attain consensus, and editors ought to keep from posting any new edits on the Ukraine Page until consensus is established. Please remember to sign each of your SUPPORT/OPPOSE comments with your user account name. Also please note that the two prominent issues of dispute during the last week have been on either NOTABILITY or RECENTISM and it may be worth keeping this in mind in posting your opinions below. NOTABILITY is in 5 Pillars for Wikipedia and RECENTISM is part of Wikipedia's general policy statement. If the BRD procedures are followed by everyone then a consensus should emerge relatively quickly and a neutral Administrator will be invited to close out the BRD. Everyone should try to invite newly arriving editors on the Intervention subsection to participate in this BRD, and the current version should be maintained by everyone until the BRD is completed (usually 48-72hrs) with no changes until that time when Consensus is established. If everyone follows BRD policies this should lead to a result relatively quickly. This is the enumerated list of pending items for SUPPORT/OPPOSE discussion in this BRD for editor comment/opinion. FelixRosch (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Announcement of Ukraine national voting for new government and referendum on 25 MAY 2014.
SUPPORT This item should be included in the Russia-Ukraine Intervention subsection upon completion of this BRD. (example text) FelixRosch (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE The item should not be included in the Russia-Ukraine Intervention subsection upon completion of this BRD. (example text) FelixRosch (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(2) On the example of Crimea, at least three major cities (prinves) in Eastern Ukraine have announced plans for voting on a referendum for declaring independence and/or self-determination from Ukraine.
(3) Daily reports over the last month in NYTimes and London Times of armed military conflict between pro-Russian and Ukrainian para-military groups in the Slovyansk and Holivka corridor (150km circumference) to the immediate west of Luhansk.
(4) Putin announcement to abide by 2014 Geneva Pact and offer/pledge to de-escalate the Russian military build-up on the Ukraine border from early MAY.
(5) John Kerry 4-point plan of US State department to Renormalize Russia's relation to Crimea and Ukraine.
(6) Issue of economic insolvency of Ukraine (bankruptcy) in EU reports on economic viability of Ukraine to support Crimea.
(7) Massive Russian investment in Crimea to underwrite Crimean international access (Passports and State Department programs) as well as pension & retirement re-investment guarantee financed in April.
(8) Russian military build-up on Ukraine south-east Russian border alerted by John Kerry as "War-zone" readiness on 7 April.
(9) Further Ukrainian regional protests in other Ukrainian cities seeking Russian re-nationalization.
(10) Russian authorized budget plans for Civic rebuilding of Crimea intrastructure including expanded new large scale spanning bridges for bridge links to Russian mainland.
All participants in the BRD discussion are invited to add their comments to any/all of the above issues, and please remember to sign each one of your opinions with your user account name. FelixRosch (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support small paragraph - not a point by point or quote by quote version. Thank you FelixRosch for joining the conversation - we started talking about this ten days ago at Talk:Ukraine#UNDUE tag in Russian intervention in Ukraine and agreed on a small amount of text after the small talk we had at the Russia article. We have asked you to propose text on talk page(s) before insertion to avoid all these edit wars and editorial problems - as you have been reverted by multiple editor's multiple time for a variety of reasons. That said lets tlak this out ..no need to revert right away now that your here and can hear the opinions of other. I personally dont see a need to give a point by point here on this over view article of the country as a whole (as has been discussed a few times now). Just a small paragraph that explains the fact there is this ongoing issue will be find as we have many main articles on the problem. At the very least we need to fix all the quotes the same problem we have at Vladimir Putin. Quotes are incompatible with an encyclopaedic writing style as quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.-- Moxy (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"(1) Announcement of Ukraine national voting for new government and referendum on 25 MAY 2014.
You might want to wait until after the election. Did you announce all the primary voting times on the U.S. Page? Think, seriously, think.
(2) On the example of Crimea, at least three major cities (prinves) in Eastern Ukraine have announced plans for voting on a referendum for declaring independence and/or self-determination from Ukraine.
OPPOSE This Item should not be included. No elected officials or representatives from these cities made this decision. Criminals who have intimidated and tortured unarmed civilians have announced to fake elections on Sunday. They receive their marching orders from Putin.
(3) Daily reports over the last month in NYTimes and London Times of armed military conflict between pro-Russian and Ukrainian para-military groups in the Slovyansk and Holivka corridor (150km circumference) to the immediate west of Luhansk.
OPPOSE It is the "armed conflict between Putin supported para-military groups and Ukranian civilians and military in Eastern Ukraine."
London Times is currently owned by Rupert Murdoch, a man known for making up more stuff than the editors of this wikipedia article.
(4) Putin announcement to abide by 2014 Geneva Pact and offer/pledge to de-escalate the Russian military build-up on the Ukraine border from early MAY.
OPPOSE You do not post this announcement unless you also post that Putin is a pathological liar and never abides by his or Russia's promises.
(5) John Kerry 4-point plan of US State department to Renormalize Russia's relation to Crimea and Ukraine.
You could, not that the 4-point plan means anything. Why not post Kerry's recipe for biscuits as well?
(6) Issue of economic insolvency of Ukraine (bankruptcy) in EU reports on economic viability of Ukraine to support Crimea.
OPPOSE You should post that the country had most of its wealth stolen by Putin supporters.
(7) Massive Russian investment in Crimea to underwrite Crimean international access (Passports and State Department programs) as well as pension & retirement re-investment guarantee financed in April.
OPPOSE This is an obvious PR stunt by Putin. There are no free reporters there and no way to verify what is actually happening. Reprinting PR from Putin without clarification is incompetence.
(8) Russian military build-up on Ukraine south-east Russian border alerted by John Kerry as "War-zone" readiness on 7 April.
So, It's still going on. You should wait to see how things play out first.
(9) Further Ukrainian regional protests in other Ukrainian cities seeking Russian re-nationalization.
OPPOSE Are you people stupid? Any protest without at least 10,000 verifiable people is not worth a mention on the wikipedia article for a nation. This includes ALL the regional protests in Ukraine. If it is worth a mention, then the U.S. page needs to have a few million more entries for "protests". Armed criminals supported by Putin could be mentioned, I guess.
(10) Russian authorized budget plans for Civic rebuilding of Crimea intrastructure including expanded new large scale spanning bridges for bridge links to Russian mainland.
OPPOSE Wait for the bridge to be built, then write an article on that if you want. They haven't even broken ground and you're already announcing it for the Putin PR machine. Are you stupid or do you support Hitler . . . um, I mean Putin.
The armed invasion of Crimea by Russia after the Russian puppet president was deposed could deserve a mention. A day by day, blow by blow updating should not occur as most of this is unverifiable or found to be completely wrong. You need to have more discipline in your updating. Most people do not come here for the latest news. You do not need to feel that you have to provide this no matter what." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltrot (talk • contribs)
Before I read this wall of text, let me be clear that it is the bold edit (your addition of text) that is reverted. Do not readd it until consensus is reached. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support small, concise paragraph - Okay, I see you're trying to format this similar to an RfC, but we can just talk about it generally. The issue is that a large, extensive paragraph would be WP:UNDUE compared to the entire history of Russia. We have 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and 2014 Crimean crisis, which are mentioned in the section hatnote, to hash out the details of the crisis. Interested readers can go there for detailed info. The main country pages are not appropriate places for detailed info on these issues. WP:RECENTISM says that we should avoid giving undue weight to recent events when, in the grand scheme of things, they are not likely that notable. To put it another way, we should not give the current crisis equal space as the entire section on WWII. The latter is much more notable and important. Comparatively, this is minor and the attention given to it in the article should reflect that. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support small, concise paragraph - Per Moxy and EvergreenFir, and per protracted discussions regarding this matter amongst those who have been contributors to the Ukraine and/or the Russia article over a long period of time rather than recently become in the development and content of these articles resultant of high profile current affairs issues. Neither article is a surrogate current affairs article and, therefore, I'll add WP:NOTNEWS to the list of policies and guidelines being contravened. For those wishing to involve themselves with developing the current affairs articles, please follow the hatnotes to the appropriate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I know contributors have been nitpicking regarding WP:BROADCONCEPT as somehow applying to disambiguation pages exclusively, but seem to have misunderstood that a main article is written (such as this or the Russia article) rather than have a convoluted DAB page. The application of WP:COMMONSENSE in itself would suggest that pages about countries are, ultimately, precisely these form of DAB pages which use hatnotes per section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
97% of Crimeans did not vote to secede from Russia.
This is a blatant and utter lie.
The tartars obviously didn't participate. You're less than 97% already! This has got to be one of the stupidest edits on wikipedia. No wonder people say wikipedia shouldn't be trusted.
Which one of you works for the Putin? Or do all of you work for Putin.
There were no international monitors for that "vote." If it really even happened? And you don't even reference it. This is an absurdly bad edit.
Here are the actual facts for you people.
Russia did invade Crimea with Troops. They did stage a fake vote. They did not bother to count the votes. They announced that 97% had voted to join Russia.
Tartars refuse to participate in order to undermine the results. There is no need to rig an election when the other side does not participate. We do not know if the results would have ben 65%, 80%, or 95% had the Tartars participated. We do know that the Tartars thought they could not win or they wouldn't have boycotted. Democracy is for those who participate; you can't boycott the election and then cry about the result. Maybe that works in Ukraine but not in the English speaking world. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=Lead> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Lead}} template (see the help page).
.svg){kind=small}
DDima 19:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.png)
.svg)
_-_Crimea_disputed.svg)
Fixed: per this edit. The reference had been inserted into the midst of the list. I've moved it to the top of the list and corrected it to reflect 18 regional languages - with no allusion to Albanian - as being recognised aside from Ukrainian as the state language ("The Law of Ukraine", Document 5029-17, Article 7: Regional or minority languages Ukraine, Paragraph 2). As a legal document, it doesn't delve into the specifics of where each of these regions are to be found. If the exact location of Armenian is of urgent significance to you, I'd have to go through all of the appended Articles in order to find out precisely where. Even then, the legal documentation may not be available online, or may only be found at the regional sites. Is this something that can wait? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
