Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

src nd rnw

quote ( After annexing Russia doubled payments to about 560,000 pensioners and 200,000 public workers (in Crimea).[74] Those raises were cut back in April 2015.[75]

In June 2015 The Economist estimated that the average salary in Crimea was about two-third of the average salary in Russia.[75] According to Russian statistics by March 2015 the inflation in Crimea was 80%.[76]

According to the Crimean authorities local food prices have grown 2.5 times since Russia's annexation.[77] Since then the peninsula now has to import most of its food from Russia.[77] Ukrainian news agency UNIAN claimed in June 2015 that many Crimeans travel to mainland Ukraine to buy groceries.[78] )
one , info should be updated ;
two , since when , unian (and the rest) , expecially since pla$tic mayidan , is a (at least) neutral , objective and professional source ?! 


 -~ rjp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.80.2 ( talk) 06:04, 26 May 2017

On "Military occupation and annexation" tag

I know this is a sensitive issue, however we should take this as npov. We should label it as Republic, whatever (like other republics) since it is a de facto part of Russia. This name is not appropriate per infobox template. It's already mentioned that it's annexed, disputed, etc. Beshogur ( talk) 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

You probably mean non-NPOV, “non-neutral point of view.” Disagree.
Your argument is self-referential or unreasonably restricted. But like other Russian occupations, it is de jure part of Ukraine, and it’s already mentioned that it’s a Russian republic – facts just as real as the ones you cited. You haven’t given any rationale why your chosen facts are the only ones to be considered.
The following is a rationale: Illegal military occupation and crime of aggression is what it is considered in neutral sources, under international law, and according to most of the world (e.g., in several UN General Assembly resolutions), while “republic of Russia” is what it is attested to be by the aggressor and a handful of states beholden to it. The former is neutral, the latter extremely prejudiced. If you disagree, then please explain why do you want to use Russia’s opinion on its invasion, and not Ukraine’s, much less the rest of the world’s?  — Michael  Z. 16:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply
This is not the first occupation in the world. Follow wikipedia guidelines. Beshogur ( talk) 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Which guidelines are you referring to? Rsk6400 ( talk) 12:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The infobox template and of course WP:NPOV. People should stop acting like this is the first and only military occupation. Crimea is occupied by Russia but "Republic of Crimea" is an administrative division, not "military occupation and annexation". Wikipedia is not the United Nations. Beshogur ( talk) 14:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Regarding NPOV, you have already been given an exhaustive answer. Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see "an exhaustive answer". While the lead is mentioning it is a republic of Russia, this answer is just a way to dodge it. Beshogur ( talk) 14:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Rosguill: sorry to bother you. Can you share your views? Thanks. Beshogur ( talk) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I think the status quo is reasonable, although other articles about territories in analogous situations do have a less "occupation-forward" infobox, such as Judea and Samaria Area, Republic of Northern Cyprus, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), and these descriptions also seem reasonable as alternatives. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
That's what I'm trying to say. This is the only like this, also got changed after 2022. Beshogur ( talk) 16:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It should change, it looks forced, likely due to being a misapplication of the infobox field. settlement_type is for "City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation"; neither "Military occupation" nor "annexation" are administrative entities (or even nouns). CMD ( talk) 16:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Template:Infobox political division uses the same thing. For example Hong Kong:
|settlement_type = Special administrative region Beshogur ( talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Also it's incorrect that Ukraine is de jure owner of "Republic of Crimea". Ukraine's one is Autonomous Republic of Crimea. People who made these edits either have no clue or do not know how to edit. Beshogur ( talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea are one place. Just look at a map and tell me what it says.
Are there corresponding articles for Judea and Samaria, Northern Cyprus, and Jammu and Kashmir, that make them an analogy for this one?  — Michael  Z. 00:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
They are not. They are a separate subdivisions of two countries. Autonomous Republic of Crimea pratically doesn't exist anymore, but on paper. Moldova and Georgia have also similar situations to this. De jure autonomous governments with no de facto power. Beshogur ( talk) 07:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
They are also geography, not paper; the same geography, so the statement “separate subdivisions” and assertion that part of Ukraine “doesn’t exist” asks us to reframe reality with a Kremlin POV. And as entities of law, sovereignty, and human rights, one is rightful and the other is criminal.
It’s especially important when this affects people’s rights. You can see the UN OHCHR [1] and HRW reports on human rights in Crimea, that Russia’s imposition of an illegal regime in Ukraine violates Ukrainian law, international humanitarian law and war crimes law, and denies people in Crimea and displaced many of their rights directly and indirectly, including right to nationality, the right to own property including their homes, the right to work, etcetera.
Some things that continue to exist within the borders of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea: inalienable human rights, Russian crimes, and culpability for them. The evocation of “power” legitimizes “de facto” crimes and denigrates laws “on paper.”
The argument is remarkably similar to the USSR’s and Russia’s false claims that Poland “didn’t exist” when the USSR joined the Nazis in invading it at the start of WWII, a justification for mass murder and ethnic cleansing in Poland.  — Michael  Z. 16:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Stop distorting my words, it's clear what I meant. Beshogur ( talk) 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Rosguill: this is not the only one with alternate governments:
Not to mention there were breakaway republic of Artsakh had alternate subdivisions. Similarly Northern Cyprus has Girne District opposed to Kyrenia District. None of them uses this terminology. Ukraine shouldn't be an exemption. These users acting emotional. It's already mentioned that it's occupied. Republic of Crimea is not de jure part of Ukraine, but Autonomous Republic of Crimea is. These are separate governments. Of course Crimean peninsula is de jure Ukraine, that's something else. Sevastopol is one page, thus the method used there is correct. Beshogur ( talk) 15:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
My sense is that DRN or an RfC is the best way to resolve this at this time. Accusing other editors of being emotional on an article talk page is unlikely to be productive; if there is a persistent pattern of disruption, you know how to file a report at WP:AE. As we operate off of consensus, not precedent, arguments based on analogies to what has worked for the presentation of other conflicts are informative and persuasive, but not a priori decisive. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Rosguill: It's not only about this article. Other Ukraine related articles are in the same situation. Always the same users patrolling the articles, and enforcing their views. As I showed, this is not the only de facto/de jure situation. Look also at Kashmiri ( talk · contribs)'s comment.
Mzajac ( talk · contribs) also accusing me of "Kremlin POV" by distorting my words claiming I said that part of Ukraine “doesn’t exist” while I said these are separate subdivisions, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea doesn't exist pratically, but only in paper. It's pretty clear. Beshogur ( talk) 16:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It wasn’t an “accusation,” but I am surprised you’re doubling down on the statement after I pointed out its implications.  — Michael  Z. 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
So you've put this sentence randomly here to everyone? Beshogur ( talk) 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Everyone discussing edits surrounding this subject should be aware of this issue.  — Michael  Z. 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Beshogur, I 100% agree with you – this article is not about any Ukrainian entity. I have pointed it out several times, also specifically to @ Mzajac in response to their POV pushing elsewhere, and tried to explain to them that, say, Warsaw District was not an administrative unit of Poland. Unfortunately, they fail to understand and keep pushing this nonsense idea of the Republic of Crimea being an administrative unit of Ukraine, lol. — kashmīrī  TALK 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Kashmiri, please respect WP:TPG. Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
No reason to change infobox. Per Michael Z. Panam2014 ( talk) 18:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I expect that anyone who actually read the discussion can see Kashmiri’s straw-man argument and personal attack for what they are, and that they that are pushing a non-neutral POV that Crimea is not in Ukraine.
This article is a child article of the broader subjects of Ukraine and Crimea whose histories are open-ended, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea which goes back to at least 1921, representing a recent aspect of their histories. More permanent Crimean topics in article sections like Geography and Transport should be moved to the parent articles where they belong.  — Michael  Z. 19:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The settlement_type parameter is self-explanatory, which is why it was left at "republic" for almost 9 years. Mellk ( talk) 12:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with you. There was no dispute until the invasion. The body already mentions the situation + added a tag about autonomous republic. Beshogur ( talk) 15:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

A new category for this ?

@ Hecseur: thanks for starting a discussion at Category_talk:Republic_of_Crimea#On_the_subject_of_controversiality. Maybe it's better to continue the discussion here, since the category talk is a bit difficult to find. We already have Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and its subcategory Category:Events affected by annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. All pages that you added to the new Category_talk:Republic_of_Crimea which you created, belong in on of the "Annexation" categories. That's the better name for the category, no need to create an additional one.

The new category is also POV, since the international community doesn't recognize Crimea as a Russian federal subject. And finally, it's confusing, since there are other uses for the name "Republic of Crimea". Since the English WP has its own system of categories, the existence of a similar category in other languages is irrelevant here. Rsk6400 ( talk) 10:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Why do we need yet another category? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I do still think that there is an important distinction here: A category called "The Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" has a very large scope and covers a vast amount of articles relating to military actions and other events occuring within Crimea during this time. A category on the "Republic of Crimea" is entirely specific to the political entity, focusing on its governing structure and laws. I believe it's a useful distinction that makes information about how this political entity operates more readily available. Just as well this has been done in other language wikis before: Excluding the English Wikipedia, there are 23 languages in which a category for the Republic of Crimea exists, alongside 34 who have a category for the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. A quick glance shows that more than a handful of languages have both categories.
While this is not a rule, other languages do give precedent for this sort of categorisation. However, much more importantly, I do believe it makes a very simple distinction that can be useful to the average reader.
Regarding POV:
The Republic of Crimea (the political entity formed by Russia) most definitely is a Russian federal subject. The first line of the Wikipedia article for it says as much.
It's important to remember we are not here to right great wrongs, and the fact Russia is doing abominable things in these conquered territories does not change how these territories are currently administered.
Could it be confusing?
Possibly. There is the case of the Republic of Crimea that existed between 1992 and 1995. However, considering the main article is already unambiguously named Republic of Crimea I do believe the case of naming is already settled here.
Please let me know if there's any other issue you'd like me to address Hecseur ( talk) 15:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
There really are cases where the "Annexation" categories cover military events, but I think those events should be removed from the cat, since annexation is a legal action. I don't see any article correctly belonging to "Annexation" that should not also belong to "Republic of Crimea". The annexation was the founding event of that "republic". You don't have to remind me about RGW, but we shouldn't name categories (or articles) in order to make unrecognized entities seem normal. We could call your category "Russian occupational administration of Crimea", but between that and "Republic of C.", the current name ("Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation") seems the natural choice. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I disagree with your outlook here. I very much do agree that the naming of articles and categories should not work to legitimise unrecognized entities. However, I completely disagree that this practice of a rather simple WP:TOPICCAT constitutes legitimisation; Merely acknowledging something exists and the way that it works is not, and cannot be interperted as an endorsement. Other examples of unrecognised entities being categorised in this manner include Category:Northern Cyprus, Category:Transnistria, Category:Abkhazia, Category:South Ossetia, and many more such examples.
Categories are organized as overlapping "trees"; The fact that there isn't any article that could be categorised under Category:Republic of Crimea that isn't within the scope of Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation simply means that the former should be a subcategory of the latter, which is something that I should've done when creating the category. Hecseur ( talk) 12:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
In my view, its also vice versa: There isn't any article within the scope of Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation that could not be categorised under Category:Republic of Crimea. Meaning, the two categories have identical scopes. Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see how Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, a category that currently encompasses everything from the events that lead up to, to every consequence of the Russian annexation could have the exact same scope as a category specifically focused on an governing entity formed in the aftermath of the annexation. I see that in your view the scope of Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation should be reduced, but that is not the circumstance in which Category:Republic of Crimea is being created in. Hecseur ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I also support a specific category for the political subject of the Russian Federation, as per Category:Northern Cyprus, Category:Transnistria, Category:Abkhazia, Category:South Ossetia, and many more such examples. To expand on this, Category:Republic of Crimea is very useful for cat hierarchy, but despite that it can include subcats and pages that Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation does not - and should not - include, e.g. Category:Politics of Crimea (including Category:Political parties in Crimea), List of chairmen of the State Council of Crimea, Prime Minister of Crimea, President of Crimea and even pages related to the Pro-Russian Republic of Crimea (1992–1995). Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 01:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
How are those examples precedents?
We already have a Category:Crimea which represents the geographical region and subdivision of Ukraine. There is no separate Category:Autonomous Republic of Crimea for Ukraine’s political division in Ukraine, but there already is Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation about the Russian political division in Ukraine. And you want to create a second category on the Russian division of the exact same territory of Ukraine?
Which of these cited examples have more categories about their Russian occupations than about their native administrations and need still more? And why?
Looks ridiculous to me.  — Michael  Z. 04:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Mzajac: Actually, what looks ridiculous to me is having to read this. The precedent is clear: we have Category:Cyprus (island) and Category:Northern Cyprus (unrecognized political entity), so what's the difference? As I already noted, Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation does not - and should not - include Category:Politics of Crimea, Category:Political parties in Crimea, List of chairmen of the State Council of Crimea, Prime Minister of Crimea, etc. - all of them being strictly related to the political entity ( Republic of Crimea). Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you saying politics of Crimea relates to the illegal Republic of Crimea, but not to the geographical region of Crimea, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, nor the historical the Crimean Oblast, nor the historical Republic of Crimea? Per you, does it include the city of Sevastopol or not? Are you going to create a new article Sevastopol (since 2014)? Do we need new articles “Politics of Crimea (X)” for every historical Crimean entity?  — Michael  Z. 12:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree, this is definitely wrong. The categories on Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea should both be subcategories of Category:Political history of Crimea which is a subcategory of Politics of Crimea, which directly relates to the geographical region of Category:Crimea rather than any specific subdivision. Hecseur ( talk) 05:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually you raise a good point: I believe there should be a seperate Category:Autonomous Republic of Crimea; It's already the case with 23 different language wikis. The distinction between Crimea, a region that has a vast scope of history and culture, and a specific subdivision in Ukraine is useful to someone unfamiliar with the topic looking for information specific to the Ukrainian subdivision. Hecseur ( talk) 10:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Correction: It might be 22 languages actually. Mongolian has idiosyncratic categorisation with a category for "the Crimean Penninsula" and an additional category for "Crimea". While they do recognise that this Crimea category refers to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (by stating that Wikimedia has media relating to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" on the category page), I'm not sure if it actually counts. Hecseur ( talk) 10:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hecseur, Est. 2021, one of the problems of the "Republic of Crimea" is that you two have differnt ideas of what should belong in that category. Rsk6400 ( talk) 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Rsk6400: I actually agree on all the pages included by Hecseur, just pointing out that we should also include the subcats and pages I mentioned above, that are not - and should not be - included in Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

As there's no definitive position against the category (nor CFD), and as {{ db-catempty}} states that category may be deleted if it has remained empty for at least seven days, specifically on or after 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC), I'm going to temporarily repopulate the category to supersede {{ db-catempty}} at Category:Republic of Crimea. In case the result of this discussion will be opposite, you can pursue the deletion of this category, but wait until then. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 09:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm removing Category:Politics of Crimea as I believe I have already explained concisely why it absolutely shouldn't be categorised under here. As for this discussion, if you think this category merits deletion you can discuss it at WP:CfD, as the appropriate avenue to discuss category related issues. Otherwise removing all categorised pages creates an empty category that is to be deleted by WP:C1, but does not qualify to be deleted under WP:SPEEDY as there's no consensus. By policy, this is not a valid course. Hecseur ( talk) 11:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Non-NPOV location maps

The location maps reflect a non- WP:neutral POV. They show two different non-NPOV international boundaries: the Russia map reflecting Russia’s current claims, the Crimea map its former claims 2014–2022. The Russia map shows the 2022 “annexation” as disputed (with stripes), but the 2014 annexation as not disputed, and there is no reason for the inconsistency. The Crimea map is just Kremlin POV and should not be used.

They should be replaced with up-to-date maps that highlight the territories in question, but otherwise reflect a neutral POV according to policies. International boundaries should be shown as recognized legally, internationally, and by the UN. Russia’s illegal claims should be treated as Russia’s claims.  — Michael  Z. 16:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There is a typo, are you saying that the 2014 annexation was not disputed? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
What is the typo and where?
I’m saying that Russia calls parts of Ukraine “annexed” Russian territories, including Crimea, Sevastopol, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts: so any maps that show Russian “annexation” with stripes should show all of these areas with stripes consistently, and they should show international boundaries neutrally and consistently.
(Russia also claims other places: this week Putin said the Black Sea Coast and Odesa are Russian, and Russia issued Kharkiv Oblast licence plates before being driven out of there, but the map is based on the declared “annexations.”)
(And the two similar location maps should also highlight the subject the same way, either in red or in yellow, but that is merely a failure of consistency and not neutrality.)  — Michael  Z. 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Ahh I see, yes all the maps should show the disputed claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Republic_of_Crimea&oldid=1212612617"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

src nd rnw

quote ( After annexing Russia doubled payments to about 560,000 pensioners and 200,000 public workers (in Crimea).[74] Those raises were cut back in April 2015.[75]

In June 2015 The Economist estimated that the average salary in Crimea was about two-third of the average salary in Russia.[75] According to Russian statistics by March 2015 the inflation in Crimea was 80%.[76]

According to the Crimean authorities local food prices have grown 2.5 times since Russia's annexation.[77] Since then the peninsula now has to import most of its food from Russia.[77] Ukrainian news agency UNIAN claimed in June 2015 that many Crimeans travel to mainland Ukraine to buy groceries.[78] )
one , info should be updated ;
two , since when , unian (and the rest) , expecially since pla$tic mayidan , is a (at least) neutral , objective and professional source ?! 


 -~ rjp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.80.2 ( talk) 06:04, 26 May 2017

On "Military occupation and annexation" tag

I know this is a sensitive issue, however we should take this as npov. We should label it as Republic, whatever (like other republics) since it is a de facto part of Russia. This name is not appropriate per infobox template. It's already mentioned that it's annexed, disputed, etc. Beshogur ( talk) 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

You probably mean non-NPOV, “non-neutral point of view.” Disagree.
Your argument is self-referential or unreasonably restricted. But like other Russian occupations, it is de jure part of Ukraine, and it’s already mentioned that it’s a Russian republic – facts just as real as the ones you cited. You haven’t given any rationale why your chosen facts are the only ones to be considered.
The following is a rationale: Illegal military occupation and crime of aggression is what it is considered in neutral sources, under international law, and according to most of the world (e.g., in several UN General Assembly resolutions), while “republic of Russia” is what it is attested to be by the aggressor and a handful of states beholden to it. The former is neutral, the latter extremely prejudiced. If you disagree, then please explain why do you want to use Russia’s opinion on its invasion, and not Ukraine’s, much less the rest of the world’s?  — Michael  Z. 16:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply
This is not the first occupation in the world. Follow wikipedia guidelines. Beshogur ( talk) 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Which guidelines are you referring to? Rsk6400 ( talk) 12:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The infobox template and of course WP:NPOV. People should stop acting like this is the first and only military occupation. Crimea is occupied by Russia but "Republic of Crimea" is an administrative division, not "military occupation and annexation". Wikipedia is not the United Nations. Beshogur ( talk) 14:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Regarding NPOV, you have already been given an exhaustive answer. Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see "an exhaustive answer". While the lead is mentioning it is a republic of Russia, this answer is just a way to dodge it. Beshogur ( talk) 14:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Rosguill: sorry to bother you. Can you share your views? Thanks. Beshogur ( talk) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I think the status quo is reasonable, although other articles about territories in analogous situations do have a less "occupation-forward" infobox, such as Judea and Samaria Area, Republic of Northern Cyprus, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), and these descriptions also seem reasonable as alternatives. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
That's what I'm trying to say. This is the only like this, also got changed after 2022. Beshogur ( talk) 16:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It should change, it looks forced, likely due to being a misapplication of the infobox field. settlement_type is for "City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation"; neither "Military occupation" nor "annexation" are administrative entities (or even nouns). CMD ( talk) 16:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Template:Infobox political division uses the same thing. For example Hong Kong:
|settlement_type = Special administrative region Beshogur ( talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Also it's incorrect that Ukraine is de jure owner of "Republic of Crimea". Ukraine's one is Autonomous Republic of Crimea. People who made these edits either have no clue or do not know how to edit. Beshogur ( talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea are one place. Just look at a map and tell me what it says.
Are there corresponding articles for Judea and Samaria, Northern Cyprus, and Jammu and Kashmir, that make them an analogy for this one?  — Michael  Z. 00:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
They are not. They are a separate subdivisions of two countries. Autonomous Republic of Crimea pratically doesn't exist anymore, but on paper. Moldova and Georgia have also similar situations to this. De jure autonomous governments with no de facto power. Beshogur ( talk) 07:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
They are also geography, not paper; the same geography, so the statement “separate subdivisions” and assertion that part of Ukraine “doesn’t exist” asks us to reframe reality with a Kremlin POV. And as entities of law, sovereignty, and human rights, one is rightful and the other is criminal.
It’s especially important when this affects people’s rights. You can see the UN OHCHR [1] and HRW reports on human rights in Crimea, that Russia’s imposition of an illegal regime in Ukraine violates Ukrainian law, international humanitarian law and war crimes law, and denies people in Crimea and displaced many of their rights directly and indirectly, including right to nationality, the right to own property including their homes, the right to work, etcetera.
Some things that continue to exist within the borders of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea: inalienable human rights, Russian crimes, and culpability for them. The evocation of “power” legitimizes “de facto” crimes and denigrates laws “on paper.”
The argument is remarkably similar to the USSR’s and Russia’s false claims that Poland “didn’t exist” when the USSR joined the Nazis in invading it at the start of WWII, a justification for mass murder and ethnic cleansing in Poland.  — Michael  Z. 16:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Stop distorting my words, it's clear what I meant. Beshogur ( talk) 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Rosguill: this is not the only one with alternate governments:
Not to mention there were breakaway republic of Artsakh had alternate subdivisions. Similarly Northern Cyprus has Girne District opposed to Kyrenia District. None of them uses this terminology. Ukraine shouldn't be an exemption. These users acting emotional. It's already mentioned that it's occupied. Republic of Crimea is not de jure part of Ukraine, but Autonomous Republic of Crimea is. These are separate governments. Of course Crimean peninsula is de jure Ukraine, that's something else. Sevastopol is one page, thus the method used there is correct. Beshogur ( talk) 15:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
My sense is that DRN or an RfC is the best way to resolve this at this time. Accusing other editors of being emotional on an article talk page is unlikely to be productive; if there is a persistent pattern of disruption, you know how to file a report at WP:AE. As we operate off of consensus, not precedent, arguments based on analogies to what has worked for the presentation of other conflicts are informative and persuasive, but not a priori decisive. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Rosguill: It's not only about this article. Other Ukraine related articles are in the same situation. Always the same users patrolling the articles, and enforcing their views. As I showed, this is not the only de facto/de jure situation. Look also at Kashmiri ( talk · contribs)'s comment.
Mzajac ( talk · contribs) also accusing me of "Kremlin POV" by distorting my words claiming I said that part of Ukraine “doesn’t exist” while I said these are separate subdivisions, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea doesn't exist pratically, but only in paper. It's pretty clear. Beshogur ( talk) 16:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It wasn’t an “accusation,” but I am surprised you’re doubling down on the statement after I pointed out its implications.  — Michael  Z. 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
So you've put this sentence randomly here to everyone? Beshogur ( talk) 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Everyone discussing edits surrounding this subject should be aware of this issue.  — Michael  Z. 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Beshogur, I 100% agree with you – this article is not about any Ukrainian entity. I have pointed it out several times, also specifically to @ Mzajac in response to their POV pushing elsewhere, and tried to explain to them that, say, Warsaw District was not an administrative unit of Poland. Unfortunately, they fail to understand and keep pushing this nonsense idea of the Republic of Crimea being an administrative unit of Ukraine, lol. — kashmīrī  TALK 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Kashmiri, please respect WP:TPG. Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply
No reason to change infobox. Per Michael Z. Panam2014 ( talk) 18:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I expect that anyone who actually read the discussion can see Kashmiri’s straw-man argument and personal attack for what they are, and that they that are pushing a non-neutral POV that Crimea is not in Ukraine.
This article is a child article of the broader subjects of Ukraine and Crimea whose histories are open-ended, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea which goes back to at least 1921, representing a recent aspect of their histories. More permanent Crimean topics in article sections like Geography and Transport should be moved to the parent articles where they belong.  — Michael  Z. 19:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The settlement_type parameter is self-explanatory, which is why it was left at "republic" for almost 9 years. Mellk ( talk) 12:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with you. There was no dispute until the invasion. The body already mentions the situation + added a tag about autonomous republic. Beshogur ( talk) 15:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

A new category for this ?

@ Hecseur: thanks for starting a discussion at Category_talk:Republic_of_Crimea#On_the_subject_of_controversiality. Maybe it's better to continue the discussion here, since the category talk is a bit difficult to find. We already have Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and its subcategory Category:Events affected by annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. All pages that you added to the new Category_talk:Republic_of_Crimea which you created, belong in on of the "Annexation" categories. That's the better name for the category, no need to create an additional one.

The new category is also POV, since the international community doesn't recognize Crimea as a Russian federal subject. And finally, it's confusing, since there are other uses for the name "Republic of Crimea". Since the English WP has its own system of categories, the existence of a similar category in other languages is irrelevant here. Rsk6400 ( talk) 10:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Why do we need yet another category? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I do still think that there is an important distinction here: A category called "The Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" has a very large scope and covers a vast amount of articles relating to military actions and other events occuring within Crimea during this time. A category on the "Republic of Crimea" is entirely specific to the political entity, focusing on its governing structure and laws. I believe it's a useful distinction that makes information about how this political entity operates more readily available. Just as well this has been done in other language wikis before: Excluding the English Wikipedia, there are 23 languages in which a category for the Republic of Crimea exists, alongside 34 who have a category for the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. A quick glance shows that more than a handful of languages have both categories.
While this is not a rule, other languages do give precedent for this sort of categorisation. However, much more importantly, I do believe it makes a very simple distinction that can be useful to the average reader.
Regarding POV:
The Republic of Crimea (the political entity formed by Russia) most definitely is a Russian federal subject. The first line of the Wikipedia article for it says as much.
It's important to remember we are not here to right great wrongs, and the fact Russia is doing abominable things in these conquered territories does not change how these territories are currently administered.
Could it be confusing?
Possibly. There is the case of the Republic of Crimea that existed between 1992 and 1995. However, considering the main article is already unambiguously named Republic of Crimea I do believe the case of naming is already settled here.
Please let me know if there's any other issue you'd like me to address Hecseur ( talk) 15:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
There really are cases where the "Annexation" categories cover military events, but I think those events should be removed from the cat, since annexation is a legal action. I don't see any article correctly belonging to "Annexation" that should not also belong to "Republic of Crimea". The annexation was the founding event of that "republic". You don't have to remind me about RGW, but we shouldn't name categories (or articles) in order to make unrecognized entities seem normal. We could call your category "Russian occupational administration of Crimea", but between that and "Republic of C.", the current name ("Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation") seems the natural choice. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I disagree with your outlook here. I very much do agree that the naming of articles and categories should not work to legitimise unrecognized entities. However, I completely disagree that this practice of a rather simple WP:TOPICCAT constitutes legitimisation; Merely acknowledging something exists and the way that it works is not, and cannot be interperted as an endorsement. Other examples of unrecognised entities being categorised in this manner include Category:Northern Cyprus, Category:Transnistria, Category:Abkhazia, Category:South Ossetia, and many more such examples.
Categories are organized as overlapping "trees"; The fact that there isn't any article that could be categorised under Category:Republic of Crimea that isn't within the scope of Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation simply means that the former should be a subcategory of the latter, which is something that I should've done when creating the category. Hecseur ( talk) 12:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
In my view, its also vice versa: There isn't any article within the scope of Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation that could not be categorised under Category:Republic of Crimea. Meaning, the two categories have identical scopes. Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see how Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, a category that currently encompasses everything from the events that lead up to, to every consequence of the Russian annexation could have the exact same scope as a category specifically focused on an governing entity formed in the aftermath of the annexation. I see that in your view the scope of Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation should be reduced, but that is not the circumstance in which Category:Republic of Crimea is being created in. Hecseur ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I also support a specific category for the political subject of the Russian Federation, as per Category:Northern Cyprus, Category:Transnistria, Category:Abkhazia, Category:South Ossetia, and many more such examples. To expand on this, Category:Republic of Crimea is very useful for cat hierarchy, but despite that it can include subcats and pages that Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation does not - and should not - include, e.g. Category:Politics of Crimea (including Category:Political parties in Crimea), List of chairmen of the State Council of Crimea, Prime Minister of Crimea, President of Crimea and even pages related to the Pro-Russian Republic of Crimea (1992–1995). Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 01:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
How are those examples precedents?
We already have a Category:Crimea which represents the geographical region and subdivision of Ukraine. There is no separate Category:Autonomous Republic of Crimea for Ukraine’s political division in Ukraine, but there already is Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation about the Russian political division in Ukraine. And you want to create a second category on the Russian division of the exact same territory of Ukraine?
Which of these cited examples have more categories about their Russian occupations than about their native administrations and need still more? And why?
Looks ridiculous to me.  — Michael  Z. 04:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Mzajac: Actually, what looks ridiculous to me is having to read this. The precedent is clear: we have Category:Cyprus (island) and Category:Northern Cyprus (unrecognized political entity), so what's the difference? As I already noted, Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation does not - and should not - include Category:Politics of Crimea, Category:Political parties in Crimea, List of chairmen of the State Council of Crimea, Prime Minister of Crimea, etc. - all of them being strictly related to the political entity ( Republic of Crimea). Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you saying politics of Crimea relates to the illegal Republic of Crimea, but not to the geographical region of Crimea, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, nor the historical the Crimean Oblast, nor the historical Republic of Crimea? Per you, does it include the city of Sevastopol or not? Are you going to create a new article Sevastopol (since 2014)? Do we need new articles “Politics of Crimea (X)” for every historical Crimean entity?  — Michael  Z. 12:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree, this is definitely wrong. The categories on Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea should both be subcategories of Category:Political history of Crimea which is a subcategory of Politics of Crimea, which directly relates to the geographical region of Category:Crimea rather than any specific subdivision. Hecseur ( talk) 05:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually you raise a good point: I believe there should be a seperate Category:Autonomous Republic of Crimea; It's already the case with 23 different language wikis. The distinction between Crimea, a region that has a vast scope of history and culture, and a specific subdivision in Ukraine is useful to someone unfamiliar with the topic looking for information specific to the Ukrainian subdivision. Hecseur ( talk) 10:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Correction: It might be 22 languages actually. Mongolian has idiosyncratic categorisation with a category for "the Crimean Penninsula" and an additional category for "Crimea". While they do recognise that this Crimea category refers to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (by stating that Wikimedia has media relating to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" on the category page), I'm not sure if it actually counts. Hecseur ( talk) 10:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hecseur, Est. 2021, one of the problems of the "Republic of Crimea" is that you two have differnt ideas of what should belong in that category. Rsk6400 ( talk) 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Rsk6400: I actually agree on all the pages included by Hecseur, just pointing out that we should also include the subcats and pages I mentioned above, that are not - and should not be - included in Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

As there's no definitive position against the category (nor CFD), and as {{ db-catempty}} states that category may be deleted if it has remained empty for at least seven days, specifically on or after 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC), I'm going to temporarily repopulate the category to supersede {{ db-catempty}} at Category:Republic of Crimea. In case the result of this discussion will be opposite, you can pursue the deletion of this category, but wait until then. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 09:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm removing Category:Politics of Crimea as I believe I have already explained concisely why it absolutely shouldn't be categorised under here. As for this discussion, if you think this category merits deletion you can discuss it at WP:CfD, as the appropriate avenue to discuss category related issues. Otherwise removing all categorised pages creates an empty category that is to be deleted by WP:C1, but does not qualify to be deleted under WP:SPEEDY as there's no consensus. By policy, this is not a valid course. Hecseur ( talk) 11:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Non-NPOV location maps

The location maps reflect a non- WP:neutral POV. They show two different non-NPOV international boundaries: the Russia map reflecting Russia’s current claims, the Crimea map its former claims 2014–2022. The Russia map shows the 2022 “annexation” as disputed (with stripes), but the 2014 annexation as not disputed, and there is no reason for the inconsistency. The Crimea map is just Kremlin POV and should not be used.

They should be replaced with up-to-date maps that highlight the territories in question, but otherwise reflect a neutral POV according to policies. International boundaries should be shown as recognized legally, internationally, and by the UN. Russia’s illegal claims should be treated as Russia’s claims.  — Michael  Z. 16:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There is a typo, are you saying that the 2014 annexation was not disputed? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
What is the typo and where?
I’m saying that Russia calls parts of Ukraine “annexed” Russian territories, including Crimea, Sevastopol, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts: so any maps that show Russian “annexation” with stripes should show all of these areas with stripes consistently, and they should show international boundaries neutrally and consistently.
(Russia also claims other places: this week Putin said the Black Sea Coast and Odesa are Russian, and Russia issued Kharkiv Oblast licence plates before being driven out of there, but the map is based on the declared “annexations.”)
(And the two similar location maps should also highlight the subject the same way, either in red or in yellow, but that is merely a failure of consistency and not neutrality.)  — Michael  Z. 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Ahh I see, yes all the maps should show the disputed claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Republic_of_Crimea&oldid=1212612617"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE