Talk:Political status of Crimea

Only Russia and Russian puppet states

Only Russia and Russian puppet states recognized another fictional puppet state Kazakhstan did NOT recognized Crimea !!! the link provided does NOT say anything about ecognition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.205.56.234 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article form the Ministry of Foreign affairs in Kaz. http://www.mfa.gov.kz/en/#!/news/article/13803 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordium7 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That source doesn't say that Kazakhstan recognizes Crimea as a sovereign state. It says they view the referendum as "a free expression" and Russia's annexation "is regarded with understanding". TDL (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kazakhstan, in an official statement mind you, calls it the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea." And they go on to say that it is seen in Kaz. As a "free expression of will" of the population of Crimea. In other words, they recognize that it is legal under International Law. Which is usually as far as International Recognition is extended from one state to another. 24.145.141.27 (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is only your interpretation. Source said nothing that Kazakhstan (and Mongolia as well) had recognised independence of Crimea. Aotearoa (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Crimea is the name of the Ukrainian political entity. The Russians stripped it of its autonomous status, renamed it Republic of Crimea, and subordinated it to their Southern Federal District. This also omits mentioning the city of Sevastopol, which is a separate entity. —Michael Z. 2019-03-16 16:16 z

Surprisingly, Afghanistan, a US puppet state recognises that Crimea has become a part of Russia. How come? --Vitzque (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohh great, another Crimean/Ukrainian crisis article

Is this article really necessary? As far as I know, the Crimean authorities could care less about recognition from other countries. PM Aksyonov has even stated that Crimea won't follow the so-called "Abkhazian model", i.e. supervised independence sponsored by Russia. I suggest we delete this or merge it with Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation. --Tocino 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

• International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
• International recognition of Kosovo
• International recognition of Transnistria

LordFixit (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

These countries aren't going to give up their independence in favor of joining another country, like how Crimea is with Russia, therefore international recognition of Abkhazia, Sahrawi, Kosovo, etc. is vital to their existence as self-proclaimed states. With Crimea, international recognition is largely meaningless. --Tocino 23:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The problem is the region of Crimea is dependent on Mainland Ukraine for water and electricity, so it could take quite a while for it to be fully integrated into Russia. In the meantime, it may have to be an interim independent state for a bit, and this page shows who is in support of Russia moving forward. It also could turn into a case of Russia doesn't annex it for one reason or another, and then of course Crimea will not want to just go back to Ukraine, so it may try to maintain itself as an independent nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordium7 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• 100% agree that this should be merged into Republic of Crimea. The number of separate articles on this same subject is getting rediculous. Nouvelle Planète (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nations who do not recognize

Should this article not include the nations that do not recognize the Republic of Crimea (aka most of them)? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Distracting image

As of now, the countries that recognize the Republic of Crimea are better represented by a table (see WP:WHENTABLE) than this image.

Map of UN members that have recognised the Republic of Crimea

  UN members that recognise the Republic of Crimea

68.165.77.208 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree however I think that the image should still be updated whenever other recognitions are made. WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename "International recognition of Sevastopol and the Republic of Crimea"

Sevastopol is also not recognized by most countries therefore I think the page should be renamed so that it is included. WhyHellWhy (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Against Why? The independent Republic of Crimea has covered both Ukrainian administrative units: the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol. Aotearoa (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this article about the recognition of the short lived country or the newly added federal subject of Russsia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyHellWhy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is going to be deleted/ merged. Also 'Sevastopol and the Republic of Crimea' wasn't the name of the proclaimed state. IJA (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mongolia and Kazakhstan

I've deleted both Mongolia and Kazakhstan from the recogniton list because they never gave diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Crimea. Mongolia and Kazakhstan didn't recognise Crimea as a state, they recognised the legitimacy of the referendum. Big Difference! People should read the sources before adding fake diplomatic recognitions to wikipedia. IJA (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as per my comments in #Only Russia and Russian puppet states. The sources don't say anything about recognizing Crimea as a sovereign state. The same nonsense is being added repeatedly to Republic of Crimea (country) as well. TDL (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt any country other than Russia will *ever* recognize this as a state. All unsourced diplomatic recognization claims should be reverted promptly. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusion

This article mixes information about the short lived country and the federal subject of Russia. If this article is about the recognition of the short lived country then there isn't really much point of it to still be here because Republic of Crimea (the country) no longer exists and was only recognized by Russia during its one day as a country. However if this article is about the federal district of Russia then it still has a reason of remaining on Wikipedia, although it should be edited and updated, some sources say that Serbia and Syria along with some other countries have already accepted the Republic of Crimea to be a part of Russia, but I'm not exactly sure about that fact so it should be researched. If this articles remains on Wikipedia and will be about the recognition of Republic of Crimea as a federal district of Russia then it should renamed to "International recognition of Sevastopol and the Republic of Crimea" because Sevastopol's status as a federal district of Russia is also not recognized by most countries.WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I could see an argument for redirecting the focus of this article from recognition of the Republic of Crimea (the country) to recognition of the Republic of Crimea (the Russian federal subject), and merging the recognition information about the short-lived country into Republic of Crimea (country). --Stan2525 (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Lukashenko's Position

http://www.belta.by/ru/all_news/president/Krym-segodnja-javljaetsja-chastju-Rossii-i-ot-priznanija-ili-nepriznanija-etogo-fakta-nichego-ne-izmenitsja---Lukashenko_i_663695.html

72.79.135.33 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Name of the article

I tried renaming this article from International recognition of the Republic of Crimea to International recognition of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, but Ymblanter has undone the move twice and suggested that I bring it to the talk page. What do you think the article should be named? It's no longer about the short-lived country; now the article covers the referendum and Russian annexation. [Soffredo] 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I have only undone it once, but yes, it should be discussed first. I do not have any particuar opinion except for that it shorter without Sevastopol.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally think the title really does need to be renamed to "International recognition of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol". WhyHellWhy (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer "International recognition of Crimea". Calling it "International recognition of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol" could make it sound like the title refers to an entity calling itself the "Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol". "International recognition of Crimea" is simple and covers the breadth of the topic. —Stan2525 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to add the Sebastopol. Sebastopol is in Crimea, even if it is not in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or the Republic of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 14:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ahnoneemoos:: Thank you for your edits, but please, first, have in mind that consensus in this section so far is clearly against renaming, so please kindly rename it back and continue discussing. Second, some of your edits seriously deteriorated the quality of the article. For example, in the version before your edits each act of recognition was sourced individually, and those where the sources were not clear or reliable enough, had an additional {{cn}} template. Now you put all these sources together, and additionally removed a lot of info. Please restore. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• We had a discussion about this at different places and the consensus was that we should move all this mess to this new name. Would you like to have a centralized discussion here instead? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for the modifications. Concerning the renaming discussion, I do not particularly care whether it runs here or elsewhere, as soon as all the participants of all possible discussions are aware of their existence. Normally though the rename discussions are conducted at the talk pages of the article-to-be-renamed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

How to list the states who recognise

On the list, oughtn't we to list those countries that recognise and are only partially recognised themselves separately from the regular states? This approach is followed elsewhere on Wiki. But I expect it is bothersome to reconfigure the list. I am not good at that sort of formatting any way. Any volunteer? Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Note: I have moved the talk page previously at Talk:Political status of Crimea to Talk:Political status of Crimea/archive 1 to make way for this move. bd2412 T 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol → Political status of Crimea – This article was recently moved to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. While I am not opposed to the expansion of the scope of the previous International recognition of the Republic of Crimea article, I am opposed to the present title. Sebastopol is in Crimea, and this title implies that it is not, which is false. It is not part of either the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea, nor the Russian federal subject Republic of Crimea, but it is part of Crimea itself. The simplest solution, which would also shorten the title, is to merely refer to this article as Political status of Crimea, which perhaps more adequately deals with the separate political entities that either govern, or claim to govern the Crimean Peninsula. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Move whatever you want to wherever you want, providing that the current history of “Political status of Crimea”, namely my initial contributions and subsequent edit warring by a sysop, will not become hidden. Note that Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs) never attributed the stuff they reuse, so the {{copied}} box above relies on that page’s history exclusively. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, how to arrange edit histories after an eventual normalisation? There are two branches: one that I created from scratch and that is now edit-protected at a NPoV-breaching redirect, and another one that initially was “International recognition of the Republic of Crimea”. Should one branch will be preferred over another (possibly moving the original “International recognition…” somewhere else), or edit histories have to be merged completely? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:CONCISE Red Slash 23:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Current name of this article and its renaming

I'm afraid that someone is going to have to explain to me what has happened. I had been following the deletion discussion for the International recognition of the Republic of Crimea, and the eventual decision was to keep it. Bizarrely, however, that article no longer exists. Now, I should underline the fact that I understand that the judgement there was that it may yet be appropriate to divide the content from that article up over others. However, where was it decided to merge into this article? I seem to have missed something. This article contains a short section covering the old content. However, I wouldn't say that that is exactly sufficient to satisfy the 'keep the content' decision from the recognition article. I think that it is important to point out what kinds of decisions were made that have left us with this situation. Then we can talk about a move. RedvBlue 22:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know, as I wasn't connected to those who moved the article. I'm aware of ANI conversation that might be enlightening, however: WP:AN/I#Protection review - Political status of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 03:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Those who moved international recognition of the Republic of Crimea? It was user:Ahnoneemoos and, indirectly, user:Martin Berka (see here). I neither endorse nor oppose such decision that might look premature, but the article has currently the title Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol, that is obviously the same topic as Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that we cannot edit because of Dpmuk’s edit warring. I am neutral about where the edit history of the original “International recognition of the Republic of Crimea” should eventually go and where the title International recognition of the Republic of Crimea should redirect, but let me stress important points again:

• Political status of Crimea is a valid topic where a fresh article existed 6 days ago, but was destroyed in the edit war started by Dpmuk (talk · contribs) about which most of the community remained silent (see the link given above by RGloucester).
• One may use the current, mostly written by Ahnoneemoos, revision to re-occupy the title (or, versa, leave it here and replace “Political status of Crimea” with the redirect), if some attribution problems will be solved satisfactory (see few paragraphs above).
• There is already a discussion what to do with this multitude of articles. I do not know why most of you (including Ahnoneemoos) do not post there, while I advertised it wherever possible.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I only made a suggestion in response to your question. While I consider "political status" more neutral and general, I was unaware that the suggestion would be enacted without discussion.--Martin Berka (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• On one point, I must add that Political status of Crimea was never a "fresh article" because of your manner of creating it. It was merely the former Republic of Crimea (country) moved to Political status of Crimea, and then the original content was replaced. I still don't understand why you moved it instead of just making political status of Crimea, which would've avoided all of our present troubles in this regard. Regardless, that is neither here nor there. RGloucester — ☎ 05:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  Similarly, I can blame RGloucester for their support to Dennis Brown who started “all of our present troubles in this regard”. How the way I created the article matters if I didn’t break anything? I can’t calculate possible responses of any user. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If I can ask to leave other matters aside (if only for a moment) so that I can return to the issue of the recognition article. At the moment, I haven't really seen the answers that I was looking for. As far as I can see, the merge of the recognition article to here was based on one comment on a talk page of a different article. I still have a feeling that maybe I'm missing something, but so far it looks as if the action taken was in contradiction to the decision to keep the recognition article (or at least keep its content). As a result, I rather feel that that article should be restored, at least for the time being. It may end up that the best thing to do is keep it as a separate article, but with a different name (International recognition of Accession of Crimea to Russia was already suggested). By the way, I will now keep an eye on that other talk page, as suggested, and comment there if I feel the need. RedvBlue 05:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• You now know the same as I know. Feel free to move the article back, but preferably in a non-humiliating manner because Ahnoneemoos is now upset due to all this complications. The current version will remain in the history anyway and we’ll be able to retrieve it after imminent defeat of Dpmuk. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• This was not a merge. It was a move (rename) and a refocus. We have been discussing this at:

1. WP:AN/I#Protection review - Political status of Crimea
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International recognition of the Republic of Crimea
3. Talk:Republic of Crimea (country)/Archive 1#Proposal to merge article titled "International recognition of the Republic of Crimea" into this article
4. Talk:Political status of Crimea#Possible replacement
5. Talk:Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol#Confusion
6. Talk:2014 Crimean crisis#What to do after normalization?

The problem is that while all this was happening two things happened: (i) Republic of Crimea (country) got merged into Republic of Crimea (federal subject) while (ii) Political status of Crimea got protected. There's really no point in having one article about the recognition of a country that lasted one day when we don't even have an article about said country and when we can have an article covering that subject under a broader subject (such as 'political status'). Per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, a guideline:

[E]ditors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia, these steps should be undertaken first before some new article is created.

I truly beleive that what's best for our readers is to have all this mess centralized in one single article named Political status of Crimea where we explain the details about the country, how it was recognized and what not, and the current status of the two entities that it was created. It also seems to be the overall consensus from separate discussions in different places. If you want to revert it, then go ahead but I will let you know that this article will exist anyway. My suggestion would be that you request a split if you want International recognition of the Republic of Crimea to exist as a standalone article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I’ll happily help with the question of “having all this mess centralized in one single article”, but we should to make a talk:Political status of Crimea #The question of edit histories decision, and remove the fraudulent page protection to implement it, of course. I know an admin who will effect the history merger, but a consensus must exist. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Working. I'm updating this article to reflect this new refocus. Give me a few minutes so that you understand. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed. OK, all fixed now. This version of this article should give you an idea of why this should be the central place for all this mess. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for some answers. The first thing to say is that it is admirable to try and get all this into one article. Whether or not that is practical remains to be seen, I think.

Next, I think that it would make things easier for what I am going to address later if I now say that I support dropping "and Sevastopol" from this article's title. Wikipedia has decided that 'Crimea' should mean the whole peninsula, so that would make sense.

I think that I'll politely decline the suggestion to put forward a split request. Not only would it seem bizarre to be having a split discussion about an article which was just kept from deletion (it would make more sense if it were to be a merge discussion), but hopefully I'll also explain further why that might not be an appropriate discussion.

Now I just need to talk for a bit about what a 'political status of …' article should and should not be. I've had a look at some other 'political status of …' articles, and it seems clear to me that there are a few conclusions to draw. Let me say, in bullet points, what kinds of things I think that a 'political status of …' article should include:

• Nationality of the territory, including details if this has changed over time
• Complete history of the political structure of that territory
• What form of government has that territory had over the years? For example, a republic or a kingdom?
• How has that territory operated politically? For example, democracy or anarchy?
• What elections, both local and national, have citizens of that territory voted in?
• Has that territory ever been subjected to dispute?

As you can hopefully see, 'political status of …' articles should not focus on one, current, period. Instead they should go back centuries, and cover the evolution of the political status over time. Now, you might think that this sounds similar to the history of Crimea article, but actually that is more about wars and invasions. In fact, the one section of that article that might be more comfortable in one that I've just described has cleanup templates tagged to it. Maybe there could be some mutual improvement? Anyway, to summarise:

• 'Political status of Crimea' should not be another 2014 Crimean crisis article, but instead be one that is more generally about Crimea.

This may well be a long way off, given what we have now. Yet, with Crimea's unique history, there is the potential for what would really be quite a good article. That's if someone wants to put the work in, of course. That's also if there is a feeling that such an article should go ahead, at all. Maybe, because it doesn't exist at the moment, that is a good enough reason for not having it in the future.

If I'm right, then I have basically said that the content that is on this article at the moment should be under a different title to 'political status of Crimea'. If the content should continue to exist as a separate article, then I think it should have another name. Looking at the article, then 'current political status of Crimea' would be more appropriate than 'political status of Crimea'. There is even a 'background' section, which is a fact that emphasises that preceding developments are not of titular importance. However, 'current political status of Crimea' is not a serious suggestion. It sounds clumsy and is potentially unsustainable.

'Disputed status of Crimea' would be a better suggestion. There are some articles that have a 'disputed status of …' title, such as this and this.

Again, however, whatever title this article has, there has to be a feeling to go ahead with it. As the article already exists, then maybe that is a good enough reason to keep it for the future. I would question, though, what value that this article has. Some of it is strikingly similar to the accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation article. There is a real case to merge this into that. I'd like to know the feeling about that. Might it be best to just have that article, along with an international recognition article?

While I've mentioned the international recognition article, I should say that even if it is merged somewhere, then I think that its tabular method of displaying information is better than just a simple list of country names. However, I do think that international recognition of Kosovo is a pretty solid article, and I could see the same working for Crimea.

Another article that did exist, but does not currently, is the one about the short-lived country. Before I continue to talk about this, keep in mind that I wanted to add a section about the short-lived Crimean army to that article. The main question, though, is if the article is restored, should it then be merged somewhere else. It is hard to say, but I get the general feeling that if that were to happen, then there would need to be an infobox at its new location. This is another thing to keep in mind, as I talk through some of the options that a restored short-lived country article could then be merged into:

• Merge into Political status of Crimea? As I've outlined above, a 'political status of …' article should not simply be about one moment in time. Of course, the short-lived country should be mentioned, but no more than any other political status that the territory has had in its history. This may not leave enough room to justify a merge. There would also be problems in terms of adding an infobox, as that would look out of place when compared to the rest of the article. My proposed military section would also not fit into an article about political status.
• Merge into Disputed status of Crimea? A 'disputed status of …' article should mainly be about establishing the territorial claims that each side has, and I don't think that it is an appropriate place for information about the short-lived country. Indeed, my military section would have no place there. Now, you may point out that I have already cited disputed status of Gibraltar, and that has a 'military importance' section. However, that is more about the dispute's role in military, rather than a military role in the dispute.
• Merge into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation? If you see the short-lived country as being nothing more than simply part of the process, then maybe this is the option for you, as this article is all about process. With that, though, complications come regarding my military section, as it would not fit in.

Overall, I still think that the short-lived country requires its own article. We'll have to wait and see what happens next if it is restored. I don't think that it is part of "all this mess", though. It was a separate political entity, and that makes it very clear and not messy at all. In fact, it is one certainty in all this. Look at ourselves; we don't even know what the other articles in this topic should be named.

The short-lived country could possibly be something that we look at again. However, what has happened to our discussion about it? Now that it has been archived, should someone alert the administrators that they need to go through it and make a decision? RedvBlue 12:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it out of the archives, and asked for closure. We'll see what happens. However, I do not agree on many of your points. Political status articles are common, and they tend to deal with present status issues, though they may detail historical background. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In a way, I see what you mean. You could say that 'political status of' implies 'current political status of'. However, I'm not wholly convinced. Having it as it is kind of makes me wonder why the current political status is so special. Why shouldn't this article focus just as much on the 1954 transfer of Crimea? That is, like now, a huge moment in terms of Crimea's political status, and so deserves an equal level of attention within the article. The current situation is also less relevant without detailing what went before it.

So I still think that the title is wrong for what we have at the moment. It could be good if the article was expanded so that it covered all of Crimea's political statuses, which I think would be more in line with the title. If not, then there must be a real case to merge it into accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation.

Thanks for seeking an end to the short-lived country debate. Unfortunately the judgement seems to be that it was being discussed in the wrong place! RedvBlue 21:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a non-admin closure, and I'm not sure it was appropriate. It might be wise to request administrator closure for such a contentious issue, but I don't think I should be the one to do it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reasons for the lack of recognition

The lack of recognition from Ukraine and the international community is based primarily on the fact that the referendum included an option to join Russia while the region was under military occupation by Russia itself. This is a misleading statement because it actually talks only about the legitimacy of the referendum, while there were lots of other reasons for not recognizing events after the referendum. Various politicians and scholars (for example, [1]) have argued that even a free and fair referendum would not be sufficient to make the claim for self-determination legitimate. Crimean authorities did not try to negotiate better terms for the existing autonomy within Ukraine, the referendum did not include the entire electorate of Ukraine (which would make it constitutional), there were no negotiations for a different legal secession procedure, people of Crimea were not victims of persecutions from the central state. Moreover, international law was protecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, for example, there was Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, with no means of enforcement, but nevertheless legally binding.—pivovarov (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Argentina

I found an article saying Argentina backed the Crimean referendum, however I'm not exactly sure if it talks about a formal recognition [2] . Can someone share their thoughts on this and whether or not Argentina should be added to the list of states who recognize the Crimean referendum. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bunk table

The table given in Stances/other is very obviously a piece of original research and/or misrepresentation of sources where every instance where some official from a given country made some statement along the lines of "yep, Russia annexed Crimea" is taken as "such and such a country recognized Russian annexation of Crimea". It's POV nonsense. It's also tagged as "failed verification", which it clearly does, hence it goes. Don't restore this junk unless somehow reliable sources can be provided to support it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, most of it is a complete fabrication. The fact that a state voted against the UN resolution is not evidence that they recognized the referendum. Perhaps some of the table could be salvaged, but only the content which is actually supported by sources. TDL (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We should move parts of the table to the Crimean status referendum, 2014 article. There are States that have recognized the referendum. [Soffredo] 12:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to contain a bunch of not actual countries (transnitria, South Ossetia etc). Seems weird to include unofficial micro nations, might as well see what sealand thinks..... 49.196.48.28 (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Integration to Russia v integral part of Ukraine

I've added the claim that Russia has fully integrated Crimea into Russia as this is relevant to the point that the majority of countries continue to regard Crimea as an 'integral' part of Ukraine. Qaz1984 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"vast" majority?

Hello, I changed "Regardless of all this, Ukraine and the vast majority of the international community has not recognized the validity of the referendum, and has not recognized the accession of this country into Russia." to "Regardless of all this, Ukraine and the majority of the international community has not recognized the validity of the referendum, and has not recognized the accession of this country into Russia.". I'd like to know why this was reverted? What makes 51.81% a "vast" majority? Thanks, Jahelistbro (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, where did you pull the 51% business you're talking about from? The UN? How many sovereign states have accepted the annexation as being legal? What do you think the worldwide economic sanctions are about? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes.. The UN resolution. In which 51.81% voted for the resolution (100 nations), 5.7% (11 nations) voted not for it, and 42.49% (82 nations) neither voted for, nor not for it.. Though I think the issue I had might be with reading comprehension.. As I read it again, and again (the part of the sentence "the vast majority of the international community has not recognized the validity").. the "has not" stands out.. Peace, Jahelistbro (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's like this.. 48.19% of the international community hasn't recongnized the invalidity of the referendum.. Jahelistbro (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Whose reading comprehension are you talking about? You're playing at WP:OR semantics. What is represented is the fact that only the Russian Federation, plus a few of its collaborators, voted against. Eleven states didn't vote. Even if they had voted in favour of the RF, 100 nation-states is 'the vast majority'. Please stop using this talk page as a WP:SOAPbox. This thread is an editor time and energy sinkhole. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, Jahelistbro was clearly talking about his own reading comprehension, and conceded that he might have been interpreting the meaning of the statement incorrectly, and was trying to explain his general thought processes. 94.3% did not recognise the validity of the referendum, but 51.87% affirmatively declared it not valid. I suppose the question is whether or not the statement "94.3% of UN members have not recognised the referendum as valid" implies that those 94.3% consider the referendum to be invalid. Personally I think it is unacceptable to lump those 82 countries with either side. Any statements making references to what 182 countries have not done or what 93 countries have not done is an NPOV violation (not OR, because anybody can do basic arithmetic.

In summary: present the numbers for what they are, don't make any statements that group one set with another set that states what they haven't done. Statements about things that have not happened don't belong anywhere on WP (with exceptions). Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Abstaining from recognizing is not recognizing

Hey, user:Lin4671. Your revert was factually incorrect. Exactly eleven countries recognized the annexation as legitimate by voting against the UN resolution. So the rest of the world, 182 countries or 94%f the UNGA, did not recognize it, and it is false to say that only 52% didn’t.

If you want it to have more detail, then rewrite it better, and maybe in a more appropriate article section where it belongs. —Michael Z. 2017-09-18 02:02 z

You are approaching this the wrong way - the resolution was asking members not to recognise: only 52% of members voted to support that resolution. The percentage of those who voted against the resolution is not the significant figure - it is those that positively voted for the resolution - 100 out of 193 - that counts. Lin4671 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The statement you are trying to enter into this article, “52% of the sovereign states in the world [...] did not recognize the Republic of Crimea's claim to sovereignty,” is demonstrably false. —Michael Z. 2017-09-18 17:18 z

So let's look for a solution. I suggest we reword the paragraph to avoid this problem. How about:

"The Government of Ukraine does not recognize the Republic of Crimea's claim to sovereignty, nor the unification of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with Sevastopol, nor the referendum that paved the way for Crimean secession. It is backed by a non-binding UN resolution urging non-recognition that achieved majority support." Lin4671 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Let’s refrain from repeating information that belongs in the Others section, but expand the details there. How about leave this with just the following?:

The Government of Ukraine did not recognize the Republic of Crimea's claim to sovereignty, nor the unification of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with Sevastopol, nor the referendum that paved the way for Crimean secession.

 —Michael Z. 2017-09-19 01:03 z

Smart thinking. Cheers Lin4671 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Political status of Crimea

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Political status of Crimea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "un.org":

• From Singapore: "Trends in international migrant stock: The 2008 revision", United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2009).
• From International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: "Security Council Fails to Adopt Text Urging Member States Not to Recognize Planned 16 March Referendum in Ukraine's Crimea Region".
• From History of Crimea: "Backing Ukraine's territorial integrity, UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid". UN News Center. 27 March 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Positions (This discussion is directed to Ymblanter and I)

Ymblanter, let us talk about some of the positions on Crimea and sort this all out.~~fenetrejones (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think if we list countries as recognizing Crimea as a part of Russia, we must have reliable sources stating these countries recognize Crimea as a part of Russia, not that they voted against the UN resolution. If we do not have these sources, we must say that they voted against the resolution, and make a list (actually, two lists, for two resolutions). In particular, I doubt that Serbia in any way recognizes Crimea not as a part of Ukraine, and this statement should have sources confirming it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, This will be long but here are the positions.

2014:

All NATO and EU Countries(all these countries have responded with sanctions against Russia for the event), Georgia(Applied sanctions), Switzerland(applied sanctions), Moldova(Applied sanctions), Ukraine (Part of the Topic as well as applying sanctions), New Zealand (Applied Sanctions), Australia (Applied sanctions), and Japan(Applied Sanctions)

In addition one Non UN member state has sanctioned Russia over the Crimean crisis: Kosovo Countries sanctioning are shown here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis The United Nations Security council of 15 member states voted about Crimea when the crisis all but Russia(who vetoed it) and China (Who abstained) voted for:

(Stances on the countries who voted for besides the one who I mentioned that applied sanctions) -Argentina On 15 March, the Argentine representative to the UN Security Council, Maria Cristina Perceval, voted in favor of a US-sponsored resolution condemning 16 March referendum. She elaborated that she had voted in favour of the resolution because it asserted the principle of territorial integrity and would have contributed to constructive dialogue towards a peaceful solution involving all political actors. While urging refraining from actions that would hamper such a solution, she said it was indeed for Ukrainians to decide their own affairs. It was not for the Council to define the situation, but rather, to maintain international peace and security. Argentina hoped all countries would respect the principle of non-interference in State affairs."

-Chile 15 March the Chilean representative to the UN Security Council, Octavio Errazuriz voted in favor of a US sponsored resolution condemning the March 16 referendum. He elaborated that "as it was an appropriate response to the crisis in Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum required the parties to observe Ukraine's independence and current borders, and to refrain from military measures. The planned referendum was not in line with Ukraine's Constitution, he said, emphasizing the fundamental importance of ensuring that the rule of law was observed, nationally and internationally. Indeed, it was for Ukrainians to choose their future through a democratic process that respected minority rights. The crisis must be resolved peacefully through dialogue, and Chile regretted the Council's inability to support the resolution due to the use of the veto. The Council had not fulfilled its responsibility."

-Chad 15 March the Chadian representative to the UN Security Council, Mamet Zene Cherif voted in favor of a US sponsored resolution condemning the March 16 referendum. He elaborated that his Government had consistently supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and had voted in favour of the resolution out of a commitment to such principles. Concerned about the continued escalation of the crisis, despite the Council's appeals for restraint and calm, he said it was still possible for the parties to open the way for national reconciliation and maintenance of territorial integrity by engaging in dialogue. With that, he reiterated the importance of upholding the principles of territorial integrity, non-use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes, in line with the Charter.

-On March 15, Jordan voted for the resolution condemning the March 16 referendum. The Jordanian ambassador, Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein stating he had voted in favour of the resolution out of respect for Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, as well as for the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. Underlining the importance of adherence to the United Nations Charter, especially Article 1 on peaceful dispute settlement, he said Crimea was under Ukrainian sovereignty.

-Rwanda On 15 March, Rwandan ambassador Eugène-Richard Gasana voted a resolution in the UN Security Council condemning the March 16 referendum. He said the timing of action on the draft resolution was not productive. Now was the time for frank dialogue, rather than rhetoric that would isolate a country. The situations in Ukraine and Crimea had unfolded rapidly, and the pressure exerted by some countries had diverted attention away from careful analysis of their root causes. While Rwanda had still voted in favour of the text, which embodied important principles such as sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, it urged Ukraine to launch an inclusive national dialogue, and the international community to help avoid further deterioration of the situation.

-South Korea – On 15 March, the representative of the Republic of Korea to the UN Security Council, Oh Joon voted in favor of a US sponsored resolution condemning the March 16 referendum. He elaborated that he "had voted in favour of the text, which embodied important principles such as sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity. Those principles should be respected. Today's failure to adopt the text would not close the window to a diplomatic solution, he emphasized."

-Nigeria – U. Joy Ogwo, Nigeria's representative on the UN Security Council, voted in favor of the US-backed resolution condemning 16 March referendum; she had voted in favour because the text embodied principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which obliged member states to settle disputes through peaceful means. Pointing out that the draft resolution was not a country-specific text, she said the pacific settlement of the territorial dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon through the International Court of Justice should serve as a beacon. Nigeria opposed unilateral actions aimed at altering a country's configuration.

The statements by Argentina, Chad, Chile, Rwanda, Nigeria, and South Korea are all in favor of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Later the UN General assembly voted in favor of Ukraine's territorial integrity with 100 against (Rwanda and Argentina abstain, but in addition to the sanctioning countries and the security council members) these countries vote in favor: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Bhutan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines (Who later changes positions), Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Palau, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Trinidad, Barbados, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cape Verde, Mauritius, Madagascar, Seychelles, Libya, Tunisia, Niger, Benin, Togo, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, CAR, DRC, Somalia, and Malawi also voted in favor of Ukraine's Territorial Integrity

Bosnia. as well as two other Non UN members Vatican and Taiwan also recognize Ukrainian Territorial Integrity

Now on the Pro Russia side of things

Russia obviously recognizes Crimea as a part of Russia because it annexed it. and as for other countries here is who else supported Russia:

Afghanistan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan In addition to those three, at the UN ten other countries joined Russia Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe and these countries have also made statements about support for Russia In addition four unrecognized countries recognize Crimea as a part of Russia: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Artsakh.

Post 2014: While many positions did not change, the UN adopted a resolution called “Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine” and in that document it states " "Condemning the ongoing temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine — the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) — by the Russian Federation, and reaffirming the non-recognition of its annexation," as one of the points in the resolution The Resolution also confirms Russia as an occupying power The final vote was 70-26-76 Many countries who voted for, voted for the previous resolution These states who did endorse the previous resolution but did this time are: Botswana, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Yemen, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Israel Israel is an interesting case because its initial position was more neutral but this resolution shows support for Ukraine's territorial integrity And on Russia's side In addition to the ten who voted against as well as Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan: they were joined by Burundi, Cambodia, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Myanmar, Philippines, Serbia, South Africa, Tajikistan, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.

On September 21st Ukraine set a draft to include a resolution about Crimea and Donbass being occupied territories Guyana, Djibouti, Jamaica, Uruguay and Ecuador for the first time endorsed Ukraine's position. Russia was joined by Armenia, Belarus, Burundi, Cuba, Iran, Kazakhstan , Myanmar, Nicaragua, Philippines, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela.

Now on Serbia in specific, Serbia initially supported Ukraine's territorial integrity, and then Serbia voted against this resolution. In 2018, President Vucic reaffirmed support for Ukraine's territorial integrity. These positions contradict each other.

Here is in my final opinion on how the positions should look:

Ukraine:

Countries supporting Ukraine:

All NATO members,All EU Members Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Georgia, Moldova, Switzerland, Georgia, Argentina, Chile, Chad, Nigeria, Rwanda, Bosnia, South Korea, Jordan, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Bhutan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Palau, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Trinidad, Barbados, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cape Verde, Mauritius, Madagascar, Seychelles, Libya, Tunisia, Niger, Benin, Togo, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, CAR, DRC, Somalia,, Malawi, Botswana, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Yemen, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Israel, Ecuador, Djibouti, Uruguay, Guyana, and Jamaica Non UN members supporting Ukrainian Territorial Integrity: Kosovo, Taiwan, Vatican

Neutral Positions: Serbia, Vietnam

Russia:

Recognizes Crimea as a part of Russia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Cuba, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Philippines, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe

Non UN Members who recognize Crimea as a part of Russia: Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria Opposes labeling Crimea as occupied territory: Cambodia, China, Eritrea, India, Serbia, South Africa, Tajikistan, Uganda, and Uzbekistan~~fenetrejones (talk) 5:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, this is original research. We, with a very few exceptions, do not have sources stating that countries support or oppose to Ukraine or Russia, or even whether they recognize the annexation of Crimea. We do have results of the vote on the resolution, and we can present these results in a table. Going beyond this would be original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have updated it all. Everything has been fixed.~fenetrejones (talk) 7:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Extrapolation and sourcing for foreign stances

The current sourcing in the "Stances" section is inadequate. We should not extrapolate a position based on our interpretation of wp:primary sources, as is currently being done with UN resolutions. We should also provide enough information to explain to readers why a certain country is in a certain section, which at the moment isn't the case. In the "pro-Russian" list, there are a few countries with no sources beyond a vote in the UN. There are also others, such as Cuba, where a deliberately non-committal statement is being used to effectively present Cuba as supporting the Russian Annexation of Crimea, which it doesn't do. The "part of Ukraine" section is worse. Many entries are based on one UN resolution, and while this resolution was specifically on the issue of territorial integrity, this needs to be explained in the Notes. Some entries on the list don't have a source at all. Meanwhile, the criteria for the "Neutral" section is unclear, and it includes very tangential information such as the use of the Russian language in Kazakhstan.

In order to make such information more clear to the reader, there really shouldn't be any sources at all in the "State" column. All sources should be in the "Notes" column alongside the relevant information from those sources. That would prevent for example Burundi currently having a source that doesn't even mention Burundi. CMD (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You see burundi on the voting results. IDK why the language part is in Kazakhstan. The resolutions are about Russian presence so if you vote in favor that equals condemning the Russian presence.The resolutions in their text even say that they endorse the territorial integrity of Ukraine.Fenetrejones and yes, a notes section would be helpful. (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Interpreting negative votes in UN resolutions like that is WP:OR. Countries can oppose resolutions for a variety of reasons. UN resolutions can be wordsmithed endlessly, and a country may simply oppose a particular formulation of a particular idea. Unless there is another source explaining the reasoning behind a particular vote, it is undue to extrapolate that to a "pro-Russian" position. CMD (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with CMD. While it's notble how states voted on the reolution, interpretimg them as recognition (or not) of the annexation is WP:OR. We'd need further sources to support that. TDL (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Great example of Wikipedia's limitations

This article proves that not everything can be handled well by Wikipedia amateurs. Regardless of Moscow's claims, seizing a territory by military force renders its status as occupied in violation of international law. The Geneva Conventions spell out very clearly what an occupying power can and cannot do; changing the political status and sovereignty of that territory is also a violation of international law. The only exception to this would be a change sanctioned by the UN Security Council. The edit wars here are a foolish waste of time; the only correct description of Crimea and Sevastopol is that they are sovereign territories of Ukraine that are illegally occupied by the Russian Federation in violation of its commitments under international law, including the United Nations Charter. Flashpanner (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Russia does not characterize itself as an occupying power in regards to Crimea or that it seized it by military force. Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Under international law, it does not matter whether Russia does or does not characterize itself as an occupying power. Russia is a signatory to the UN Charter and the Geneva Protocols which are very clear about what constitutes a lawful transfer of territory between two states vs a military occupation. Flashpanner (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

agree Flashpanner I tried to reflect the change in status with a new lede that highlights the internationally recognized illegal occupation per UN Charter and the Geneva Protocols Jgmac1106 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis

CMD, I am not trying to be rude but what you are counting as recognition and what you are not is extremely inconsistent. You say that Uzbekistan should not be put in other because of a vote. Ok, fair enough. But why does Bolivia stay under Pro Ukraine positions? I know the government there changed and it was moved to pro Ukraine position on the basis of voting. Maybe the current Bolivian government has made a statement that changed its stance on the matter, but it is not cited here. The position from Kazakhstan came from the foreign ministry website calling the referendum, the will of the people. If votes are such a problem, then why are Andorra, Benin, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, and many, many more included under the Pro Ukraine position. I do think they support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but you seem to have problem when states are put under Russian position for votes but not the Ukranian position. Guyana, Uruguay and some other countries are also included on the basis of a UN resolution. I am not denying their positions, but it seems to only be a problems, when it is pro Russian states. I am not being rude, I am just pointing out that your attitude is inconsistent on the matter.Fenetrejones (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As I stated in the section above, it's WP:OR. The Andorra vote was explicitly on the "Territorial Integrity of Ukraine". It is not about which countries you "think" support X or Y, but what the sources actually say. CMD (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It not an I think matter, those resolution are actually about the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I just used Andorra as an example. Why do Uruguay and Guyana and probably some others get to stay for voting for a Pro Ukraine resolution. Why does Bolivia change? If you think andorra and all this other countries voted in favor got to stay instantly, why was it such a big of a deal to have Syria and Cuba in Pro Russian stances. Other resolution are about territorial integrity of Ukraine to if you actually read them. Voting for a resolution about Ukraine's territorial integrity and nothing beyond a vote looks like Original research to me. Here is one . Fenetrejones (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That resolution is on the "Problem of the militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov", it is not just about territorial integrity. Using it to extrapolate statements on sovereignty, as discussed above, is WP:PRIMARY. Bad inclusions are big of a deal because they don't have sufficient sourcing. CMD (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

what about Bolivia and those other countries i removed purely based on votes?Fenetrejones (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not that the stances are based on votes, it's that specific votes were being over-interpreted. A resolution specifically on the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine" is reasonably clear (at least for For votes). A resolution on a related but different subject, such as militarization, is not a sufficient indicator. CMD (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You are still dodging the question. I am not talking about that resolution. I am talking about other vote interpretations like Bolivia.Fenetrejones (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please link to information and sources here. I don't which what vote you're talking about, or how it's being interpreted. CMD (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There was this one about including Crimea into the Un agenda. . It was used to cite sources for uruguay, guyana and like one or two others so i removed it.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that source certainly shouldn't be used to place anything in this list, it has no context at all. GA 73 appears to have two resolutions related to Crimea, but both are about specific topics rather than supporting either position as a whole. CMD (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Neutrality tag

Can anyone, as respectfully and concisely, explain how or why this article has a NPOV tag? - Kevo327 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kevo327: I came here wondering the same thing. Given that 1. no one has explained this to you over the past few months, 2. there's no discussion on this talk page seemingly related to the tag and 3. I don't see any clear signs of POV in the article myself, I've removed the tag. I've also moved the OR tag from the top of the article to the Stances section, as it seems the only OR issue (some countries are still categorised purely based on a vote on a UN resolution, as discussed but not resolved in various sections of this talk page) is specifically related to that section. Lennart97 (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just compare and contrast to the other articles... I don't know even where to start. --Jakey222 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate on my previous comment. The article used to be about the 'Political status of Crimea' following its annexation by Russian, however, currently its purpose is more vague, with its scope seemingly expanded to include some ill defined dispute between Ukraine and Russia that extended two decades prior, without any aspect of it (political, geopolitical, strategic) being covered in the article.

Currently the only thing that is covered is the 'Evolution of status of the Crimean Peninsula within independent Ukraine' which seemingly more appropriate to Autonomous Republic of Crimea article. Otherwise there is already a dedicated article to Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War. --Jakey222 (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead makes little sense

dispute over the status of Crimea between Ukraine and Russia. The dispute began during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but did not escalate into a conflict until the 2014 Ukrainian

Where is the source that support that? There is not a single mention of this dispute between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea, in fact Russia confirmed Ukraine integrity in 1994, so it can't be from 1991. Best I can find is some SYN from dispute over Russian presence in Sevastopol naval base. --Jakey222 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be two phases, (1) lingering issues between successor states of USSR which were resolved in 1997, and (2) resurfaced as means of Russian leverage to prevent further Ukraine cooperation with the EU and NATO, pushing it to integrate into Russian-led initiatives instead. --Jakey222 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the 'Crimean problem' ?

Currently the article [3] lead state its about the dispute between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea, which has began in 1991. But the article doesn't outline what that dispute(s) is/were.

The article contain 2 main section (1) first focused on 'evolution of status of the Crimean within Ukraine' which would be better suited in Autonomous Republic of Crimea and (2) second focused on stances over the annexation, a poor imitation of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation --Jakey222 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. The intro actually makes it look like some kind of ongoing, escalating dispute. In fact, the status of Sevastopol was subject to a spurious claim, but in 1997 when Ukraine gave the RF 80 percent of the Black Sea Fleet (Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet), three days later the RF dropped the claim and recognized Ukraine’s borders (Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty). There was also a 2003 Tuzla Island conflict that was settled in the Treaty Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Cooperation in the Use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.

None of this was about the status of Crimea. —Michael Z. 00:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Crimean problem" (or "question") is a renown historical name in all languages, strongly established in all the academic sources. What happened in the last decade is just a piece of a bigger picture, not the whole picture. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you share sources that use the term "Crimean problem" or "Crimean question"? Additionally, if you have access to such sources, you may consider initiating a request for page move (WP:RM)? Nagsb (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and infinite other sources. Basically all of them, you can just google the terms. Note that whether this historically attested name is gonna be kept or not, the current heading is heavily POV-biased and hence unencyclopedic. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The linked sources all seem to define the Crimea question or problem as a significantly broader subject than the topic of this article. Fediw 2000 specifically names three issues, the one of disputed political status being essentially resolved as of publication. Marples and Duke 2018 name five issues.

This article is not necessarily about “the Crimean problem” as such. But perhaps we can agree that it should be.  —Michael Z. 14:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Est. 2021, Michael I consent to the move and the change of the lead to the Est. 2021 version, provided that the article is revised to align with the new broader scope “the Crimean problem”. But only in this arder, first rewrite to align with the new broader scope and then move and change the lead. Nagsb (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well then we should remove “Crimean problem/question” from the lead as long as the article scope does not correspond to the definition in reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 00:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Scope expantion

I think that after the Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts the scope of this article should be expanded to cover the status of all occupied areas. The article should be moved to something like Political status of the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine as well. Political status of Crimea does not differ from that of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. Skovl (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted this move. Crimea has been in a different situation to the other mentioned areas for years, and sources still discuss it differently to the other territory. It may be that they are resolved together, but for now that would be WP:CRYSTAL. CMD (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that I should create an article Political status of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts if you write that sources discuss Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia differently to Crimead? Skovl (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Effort would be best directed to existing articles like 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, which covers that topic. CMD (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis there are articles about 2014 Crimean referendum, Annexation of Crimea and this article about political status of Crimea. There are articles about 2022 referendums, Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, but there is no yet article about the political status of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. It is inconsistent, that it my problem. Skovl (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

One has had almost a decade longer to develop sourcing. It is not inconsistent for different things to be different. CMD (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A decade? The Crimean Tatar nation was ethnically cleansed from their homeland in 1944. The Crimean Khanate was established in 1441 as a sovereign state and successor to Cumania and the Golden Horde. These are integral to Crimea’s status, and there is no such analog to the Ukrainian oblasts, which never constituted nations. (Zaporizhzhian Host is arguably predecessor of Ukraine, not its oblast.)  —Michael Z. 15:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation into Political status of Crimea#Stances. Most of the content of International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is already in that table, what is still not can be easily added. Skovl (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• A reverse merger is a preferable option. International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is a clearly defined topic, whereas Political status of Crimea appears quite unusual. --Kpratter (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Note that both the proposal and the only commenter were blocked as socks of the same user, so I close the proposal. If a user in good standing wants to follow up, please file a new proposal. Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Chipmunkdavis, please stop edit warring[4][5][6] and discuss. This article is subject to WP:CTOP and WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 09:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

An odd post to make. Thank you for linking a few of the points I made. CMD (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is improved by explaining that Russia invaded Ukraine with army and airborne forces to occupy the peninsula, and that Russian special forces occupied the parliament forcing it to elect a Russian governor. The improvement appears to be self-evident, since your edit summary shows that you were unaware of these well-known facts supported by numerous reliable sources.

So I will restore my edits, if there’s no objection. —Michael Z. 10:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article already says that Russia deployed troops. The suggested changes add verbosity, sometimes unclear verbosity, without adding any understanding of the reader to the topic. CMD (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No. The current text is misleading. They didn’t deploy, as if in preparation for military action. They conducted a military operation: an illegal invasion and occupation.

As you are intent on preventing this sourced information from appearing in the article with your multiple reverts, we are at an impasse. I will get more opinions on the edit. And I will ask for admin action on the edit warring.  —Michael Z. 13:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Those words aren't distinct in that way. Forces get deployed during military operations. They are being deployed right now[7]. CMD (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My dictionary has different definitions for deploy and invade. There is no article about the Russian deployment in Crimea because the Russians invaded Ukraine, occupied its territory, and annexed it.  —Michael Z. 15:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to argue there. Such an article would be quite redundant to existing ones. CMD (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m arguing against your insistence of using the euphemism “deployed troops” for the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea.  —Michael Z. 12:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a euphemism, it's a bog-standard English phrase to which I have even provided a source that uses it for the current war. It's also not merely my insistence, it's the existing text. CMD (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

We’re going around in circles, at an impasse, so I have called for a 3-O. Indeed, it’s not really a euphemism, because it doesn’t even encompass the meaning of what happened: a crime of aggression and violation of the UN Charter, which you insist on omitting from the background in this article.  —Michael Z. 14:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@User:Chipmunkdavis, I have asked for a WP:3O. —Michael Z. 12:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. At this edit I have given my best attempt at resolving this problem. Specifically, while both deploy and invade could be used, neither of them has to be, and I have removed them. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge, tThank you for trying to help find a resolution. The result still seems inadequate to me, because the lead still mentions the action of the Crimean parliament but omits that the parliament was Russian controlled, and because it referred to Russian soldiers in Ukraine but fails to explain why they were there, specifically that they came from Russia.

I will start an RFC if this remains unresolved.  —Michael Z. 07:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, good points. At this edit I have added that the parliament was guarded by Russian troops. I don't think we need a precise itinerary for them - I imagine that almost all of them came directly over the Russian land border but it really wouldn't matter to this article if they were just returning from a sightseeing trip to Andorra. Their allegiance, not their physical route, is what matters here. Does this resolve the issues for you both? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, the edit is a bit redundant to "Russian-backed", now it is "Russian backed and guarded by Russia", so perhaps Russian-backed could be removed given the greater specificity. (I would also say guarded is a bit benign, perhaps "overseen"?) With that in mind it's a minor tweak that doesn't stray far from the article body or topic, so no issue on my end. CMD (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This has made the article’s lead worse. Replaced the fact that that Russia has been unable to capture its “annexed” territories with trivia about tax law that doesn’t belong in the lead. Misleadingly wrote that Russian invaders “guarded” the parliament instead of the truth that they forcibly conducted a coup replacing the legal local government.  —Michael Z. 07:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, do you have a source for exactly what the Russians did with and to the parliament? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, if we have RS that say that Russian troops controlled entry and exit to the building, we can say so. If we have RS that they were present in the parliament chamber, we can say that. If we have RS that just report in a more abstract way that no sensible member would have dared to vote against the annexation, we can say that. I hope to see RS for whatever changes you propose.

That Russian law is used in present Crimean administration is central to the annexation process, not trivia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources are pretty clear Russian forces were in control of the building (eg. contemporaneous report), I suggested overseen above to encapsulate that idea (including incorporating the now redundant prefix). Adding too much detail would be getting away from the purpose of this article and its WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this help? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a good improvement. Thank you.  —Michael Z. 11:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, combines them well. CMD (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, with thanks to you both for your work, I'll leave it at that for the time being. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

History section is insufficient

As pro-Kremlin people are fond of saying “Crimea was always Russia” in the context of this subject, a history starting in 1921 gives inadequate context to explain all of the issues. Please feel free to expand it to include the Crimean Khanate and the revolutionary period.  —Michael Z. 13:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I fully support this. A section about history, starting in 1921, is misleading at best. 79.160.157.148 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)