Talk:Republic of Crimea (Russia)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@96.9.247.171 and Wikitigresito:

Before this spirals into a full-blown edit war, can we please discuss the issues at hand? Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, I do not really object stressing the fact that Crimea is internationally recognized to be part of Ukraine, but to my knowledge, this very controversial article has been subject to extensive discussions and therefore I object just changing important parts without building consensus first. wikitigresito (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The current wording under the map in the infobox is "Location of the Republic of Crimea (red) in Russia (light yellow)". It would be better if it said "Location of the Republic of Crimea (red) in Russia (light yellow). The Republic of Crimea is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine."-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a good compromise, yes. I do hope @96.9.247.171: responds to my request for comment. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In principle, the lede explains it, so I think it would be an overkill, but, well, fine with me. Btw I do not think we should search for a compromise with the IP since they clearly do not edit in good faith and are not here to build up an encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I understand your objective and generally agree with you, however, I think the argument does make some sense. Does someone have an overview, whether there are any precedents for this? wikitigresito (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

My objective is actually to agree once on the format and after that to avoid disruption caused by drive-by editors who are not interested in establishing consensus. (Contrary to what many users say, I do not nave pro-Russian nor pro-Ukrainian position, as many users who have been editing in the area long enough can attest). I personally think that the short description of the situation (Crimea was part of Ukraine and was occupied by Russia in 2014; Russia claims it is Russia, Ukraine claims it is Ukraine, internationally it is recognized as part of Ukraine) should be present in the articles, and more detailed description goes to dedicated articles such as Political status of Crimea. Once the description is there (and it is there, in the lede), it is not really necessary every time the article mentions Crimea to say that it is illegally occupied and that it is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. It is not just my opinion, we had a lot of these discussion all over the place in 2014, and all editors active in the area converged to this understanding. (I do not think there is one single place it is written, it is scattered through many talk pages). Despite the general consensus between all editors in the area, we still have a lot of nationalist, both Russian and Ukrainian, editors, who come and change things unilaterally, and typically are either not interested in discussing them, or claim that the consensus I mentioned does not exist, or variations thereof. I believe I have most articles on Crimean topics on my watchlist since at least 2014.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it is fair to challenge a consensus built four years ago based on arguments. It is true that the overall appearance of the article makes it look a little too much like any other Russian state, especially when compared with other disputed territories. What do you think about including a "status" section in the infobox, like it was done at Golan Heights? wikitigresito (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is an article about a Russian subdivision, not about a geographical area. (We also have Autonomous Republic of Crimea about the Ukrainian subdivision, and Crimea about the geographical entity. Crimea has the status in the infobox). If you want to challenge the consensus, open an RfC (though in this case the closing admin might want to cross out votes of editors normally not active on the English Wikipedia).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Though when an editor with a tenure of a month and 100 edits starts getting seriously involved in meta-issues like opening an RfC it most likely means block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see how this is normally included in article for the geographical region and not the political entity. Looks like I am fine with the current version then. Also, please stay cool and avoid speculations about block evasion. wikitigresito (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we accept my original edit? Again, I feel very uncomfortable having to discuss the obvious here as if Wikipedia page re-writes the truth and defines the truth. Indeed some topics may have multiple competing opinions but Crimea is different. European country borders, Ukraine, are being forcibly re-drawn by a larger country, Russia, and we try to reach 'consensus' if we should mention about this on a page about Crimea and ...somehow current version of the page just provides a summary: Crimea is a republic in Russia. The original edit reflects situation correctly and in the correct order: Crimea, internationally recognised as a part of Ukraine, is shown with respect to map of Russia who annexed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.247.171 (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Because (1) this is an article about the Russian subdivision, not about the Ukrainian subdivision; (2) it is already mentioned in the lede of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In its current form and it does not matter if it is about subdivision in Australia or Russia, the summary makes annexation look normal, an accepted fact. So unless you are willingly misinform the public, you have to mention that Crimea is internationally recognised as a part of Ukrain in the summary 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: theoretically, it is possible to add a non-recognition note, either directly visible as here, or in a ruwiki-like footnote manner. But this will require (1) template alteration to allow for one of above solutions, and, likely, (2) symmetric (foot)note about Russian control in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea infobox (which is technically simplier, however, since that template allows free wikisyntax in status field). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why provided that the information is in the lede of either article. It can not be more visible than it is now.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal: "Crimea is a part of Ukraine that is annexed and controlled by the Russian Federation. Internationally Crimea is considered Ukraine, Russia considers Crimea part of..." 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Note should be visible in the summary, use the same font as other messages. I believe current version is already acceptable. Footnote is not acceptable. Summary already hides a lot of important information. 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: It is really unfortunate that Ymblanter and some other contributors to this page consistently try to block me. I believe that Crimea pages are under strong control / influence of people connected to Russian government interests. Wikipedia should do something about this. Wikipedia should not be used for propaganda by a totalitarian regime as it happens here and now. 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This clearly demonstrates your battleground mentality and that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is why you will be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you stop 'building consensus'? Or you all already have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.247.203 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, disruptive editors have been blocked, and will be blocked again if disruption resumes.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter: you mean that you will try hard, with your co-conspirators from Russian troll farms, to suppress any objective edit? You have an assignment to claim annexed Crimea for Russia and you will do whatever it takes to fulfil this assignment. Did I miss something about you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.107.189 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are using a dynamical IP, otherwise I would ask to block your static IP. In the current situation, I will just stop reacting to the bullshit you are writing.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter: First of all, please use civilized language. Although, probably, you do have a military rank in the Russian army or security service, KGB/FSB, and they are not known for being polite. Second of all, let's get back to the topic of discussion. Summary page should mention that Crimea internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.106.164 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I start a new section to deal with proliferation of Russian trolls on this page. 'Republic of Crimea' page deliberately misleads public by providing incorrect information in its summary that the Crimea is a part of Russia. The Crimea is a part of Ukraine that was illegally annexed by Russia in clear violation of international law. Wikipedia is being used as a tool of Russian propaganda. It is time to stop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.106.164 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If the KGB were actually controlling this page, you'd be dead already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Great point - Thank you! KGB/FSB is well known for intimidation and threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.106.164 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a small formatting/coding bug under the subtitle "population estimate":

1,913,731 (<span style="color:Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".%)

I don't know how to fix it, but I presume it's no big task (:

This is an error in the template code. Some people just wanted too much to standartize the template and ignored the warnings that this standartization is going to produce too many errors. Everything was working fine before the standartization. Let them fix this now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It is the second time I have to remove irrelevant "main articles" to subsections like in the Science section to European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service and European Space Agency. Neither of those articles even mention Crimea lets along provide in-depth information about the Science there. What is the point?

I guess the user wants to inform readers that some Crimean scientific institutions cooperate with the European agencies. Please add this info to the body of the article or to the bodies of the "main articles" but do not add those articles as main without explaining to the readers what do you mean. Just as it done now is ridiculous. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an indefinitely blocked user evading a block. Just revert on sight, optionally block the IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article because of possible sockpuppetry. I see an IP user with a very weak command of English who is trying to contribute but whose edits are not helpful because it is often difficult to guess what he means. If he or she would suggest an edit on the talk page rather than edit directly it would be more useful. I guess we could even consider suggestions made in Russian or Ukrainian. I do not know if the IP editor is a sock of a banned user and so I feel uncomfortable to ban. The contributions seem to be in good faith but hardly usable Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

We paid a sum of money for the translation of the text. Are you sure of your judgment? --185.15.37.26 (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, this is pretty clearly a sock of ICrimea--Ymblanter (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not know, who is iCrimea! --178.34.187.142 (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sevastopol Naval Base. Not Republic of Crimea. A sandwich Military of Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.15.37.165 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect R.O. Crimea. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia needs a way to advertise its complete and irredeemable capture by the deep state, they should post this article on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.51.70 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Due to the controversial nature of the political status of the Crimean peninsula, there have been numerous anonymous users vandalizing this article. I believe that updating the protection status to semi-protected will help solve the issue of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael60634 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

How is Crimea a "federal subject" of Russia exactly? Wikipedia doesn't say the West Bank is a de facto part of Israel but rather that it has been under occupation. The same should apply to Crimea vis-a-vis Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.89.106 (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't expect anyone on Wikipedia to give you a sensible answer. That's why no-one trusts the site. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

reliable sources. We say that Crimea "is a federal subject (republic) of Russia located on the disputed Crimean Peninsula" because that is what independent reliable sources report. We say that the West Bank is under occupation because that is what independent reliable sources report. 331dot (talk

) 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone stop russian bots from naming Crimea a federal subject of Russia? This violates international law and numerous national laws and should be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Russian bots" are not at work here, but humans. Wikipedia summarizes what independent

reliable sources state, they state that the status of Crimea is disputed, that Crimea is adminstered as part of Russia, and that many countries consider Crimea to be occupied. If you have an army that you can send to Crimea to drive the Russian military out and retake Crimea for Ukraine, then go ahead and do so and independent sources will report that. This dispute will not be solved on Wikipedia, so we stick to summarizing sources. 331dot (talk

) 12:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian bot is a human that is paid to do what Kremlin tells him to do, if you did not know that. Status of Crimea is not disputed, it is internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, illegally temporarily occupied and administered by Russia and should be marked as such, not as a federal subject of Russia. And have you seriously suggested to start a war to make sure Wikipedia has a correct marking for this territory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk)

NO they are not a bot and Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a separate entity from Republic of Crimea. This article is about the latter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No one pays me to do anything. I suggest you withdraw your accusation or back it up with evidence that I am a Russian agent. I'd love to see that evidence. As noted, there are two different entities here, the political subdivision of Ukraine and the entity Russia created to administer its occupation/annexation. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please also show the international law or UN resolution which requires Wikipedia to display or not display certain content. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The article does not say that

Phil Bridger (talk

) 12:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it's exactly what 332dot keeps inputting here: "The Republic of Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia" while, even by his words, it should be "The Republic of Crimea is an internationally recognized part of Ukraine, temporarily illegally occupied and administered by Russia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ You said that it is illegal for the article to be written as it is now- I asked you to support what you claim by showing the international law or UN resolution which makes that illegal. I again request that you withdraw your accusation that I am a Russian agent or "bot" unless you have evidence of that. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That is because that is what it is, we do not say that "the Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia" or that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia" We say that the entity the Russians set up is a Rusian entity. we also say "which was annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014, but it is still internationally recognized as being part of Ukraine". So we do not say it is Russian.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well this is incorrect, as 332dot wants it to be written that Crimea is a federal subject of Russia. He edited this article in exactly this way. If the article would say that this is an entity set up by Russia to administer occupied Autonomous Republic of Ukraine, it would reflect the correct state of play. But for now, 332dot insists to have it marked as "Crimea is a federal subject of Russia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Russian-created puppet state, and we do say it was annexed by Russia, and it not internationally recognized. This article is not about the Crimea.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Once again, the article does not say that Crimea is a federal subject of Russia, but that the Republic of Crimea is. Until you get that difference there is little point discussing anything.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(separately -- also after edit conflict)

I don't want to do this as a

WP:BOLD

edit, but how about rewording

to read something like

... supporting the assertion re Crimean lawmakers by re-using the cite of this source which appears in the 2014 annexation section, if support is considered needful here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bit wordy, I think we only need "by Russia".Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That wording is blurring the distinction between the Crimean peninsula, the territory, and the Republic of Crimea, the republic established by Russia to administer that territory. That distiction is all-important to the very existence of this article, so I would not support blurring it in any way.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 13:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It is just incorrect. Republic of Crimea is a federal subject of Russia as defined by the constitution of Russia. It is not "considered by Russia" to be its federal subject, it just is. It does not exist outside of this context. What is of course disputed is that Crimea, or the Crimean Peninsula, belongs to Russia, no, most of the countries and the UN consider that it does not and that it is illegally occupied. But this is already in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How about "The Republic of Crimea is a federal subject (republic) of Russia whose existence is not recognized by most nations created to legitimize Russias annexation Crimean Peninsula"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is acceptable but I do not see how this is better than what is in the article now. That was pretty difficult to achieve consensus back in 2014, and I would not touch that consensus unless really necessary, and I do not see why it is necessary to be honest. I do not understand what problem we are trying to solve.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Thank you all for finally starting constructive discussion.

I agree with suggestion by Slatersteven as well.

My understanding is that for the article on Republic of Crimea, entity that is obviously not a republic but a Russian puppet state created to administer occupied territory, it should be clearly explained in the first sentence, for example the way I provided earlier, "Republic of Crimea is an entity/federal subject created by Russia to administer illegally occupied Crimean Peninsula/Crimean Autonomous Republic of Ukraine". And in country it belongs to I would write "administered by Russia", not Russia.

Alternatively, we can follow the above suggestion by Wmitchell, at least it clearly explains that this is an entity created and recognized by Russia to administer occupied territory. Currently, this page is actually the first link that is brought up when googling Crimea/Republic of Crimea, and it is not clear that this is not in fact a de-jure situation. It's only a de-facto situation, a fake entity created by Russia to support it's occupation and administer occupied territory and should be clearly explained. People who do not know the story are in fact confused by this article.

As regards to what Ymblaner said - what he is writing is simply incorrect. Republic of Crimea is considered to be part of Russia only by Russia. Noone else recognizes this, and it should be clearly explained in a ways I provided above.

Actually, Slatersteven's analogy is a bit wrong. Republic of Crimea is not a

East Timor (Indonesian province) approach could work. An example of how this would work (exact wording might well be tweaked) is here. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk

) 21:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC) updated 10:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)