This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Tomas Brolik (2021-01-26).
"How Czech Wikipedia Occupied Crimea".
Respect. Retrieved 2021-01-26. This could pass for an opinion, but not part of an entry in an encyclopedia of fact. This is so not just because the story of that place at that time has been told differently by our magazine [Respekt], but primarily because the bigger Wikipedia entries, written in English or in German, described them differently and more factually. The English-language entry at that same place begins as follows:
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
"Illegal referendum"
The article states that the 2014 referendum was "illegal", however the cited source states that this was illegal under the Ukrainian Constitution. The article needs to state this to maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.
182.239.148.72 (
talk)
08:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
If that is the case then the article should reflect that, citing WP:RELIABLE sources, rather than some nebulous legal opinion about "Ukrainian law". Please initiate if this is so.
182.239.148.72 (
talk)
23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I suggest that all editors refrain from using the term "illegal", unless they understand well its meaning. The only universally binding laws in the area of
international public law are Security Council resolutions (with the caveat that they are binding only on the UN Member States). Besides, it's sometimes accepted that the UN Charter is legally binding on UN members. However, violation of a provision of some international agreement is not in itself "an illegal act": just as states have a power to enter commitments at any time, similarly they have a power to remove themselves from these commitments at any time. The only "law" that makes countries to adhere to commitments is... custom, codified in the form of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (esp. the accepted principle Pacta sunt servanda). Nothing "legal" or "illegal" about it. —
kashmīrīTALK19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not for us to decide. If
reliable sources call this illegal, than that is what we have to say here in Wikipedia in our articles. If they don't say it is illegal, then we don't either. However, it is not up to editors' personal interpretations of international law to decide whether we say it is illegal or not. --
OuroborosCobra (
talk)
20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Only when they are reliable for legal matters, which in this case would be mostly academic publications. Or do you have an unlimited trust in Vogue? —
kashmīrīTALK08:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, there is something between academic publications and Vogue which can be normally seen as reliable, even in legal matters (from BBC to NYT, and many others)
Rsk6400 (
talk)
08:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
If a so-called reliable source says that something is illegal, and that is disputable, then we need to look at the expertise of the writer who is claiming it.
182.239.148.72 (
talk)
08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
These types of media are badged as "reliable", yet they are only a conduit for journalists. The question then becomes "Is this journalist a recognised expert on the topic?" As per
WP:REPUTABLE, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors....". That does not mean the magazine per se.
182.239.148.72 (
talk)
05:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Kashmiri, apart from your suggestion being against WP rules (as OuroborosCobra pointed out), I don't think that a single expert on international law would agree with you.
Rsk6400 (
talk)
07:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Please stop using bold lettering - we are not "deaf" and therefore there is no need to
WP:SHOUT. No forum happening here - other editors refuse to discuss the issue which I raised but instead dismissed it. The matter of
WP:UNCIVIL is enough; the matter of the improper use of "illegal" in this topic is not enough, and has yet to be addressed.
182.239.148.72 (
talk)
03:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Power Generation
I have tried to clean up the paragraphs regarding power generation to improve readability and clarity. I am not, though, familiar with the content, and may have inadvertently distorted the intended meaning. Could somebody familiar with the topic please check those paragraphs?
"Pij" (
talk)
04:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
That has been discussed extensively. Which facts do you feel are missing from the previous discussions to start a new one?
Jeppiz (
talk)
13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
"is a peninsula in Eastern Europe"
The first sentence describes Crimea as "in Eastern Europe". The rationale given on this talk page is that Russia also claims it, so it's disputed territory.
Why then are the
Donetsk,
Luhansk,
Kherson and
Zaporizhzhia articles not labelled the same way? The editors who argue this should go to these articles and label them accordingly.
It's worth thinking about just what this article is about versus what the other articles are about. This article is specifically about the peninsula (a geographic feature that exists no matter what its political status is at any given time), as opposed to an administrative division. The articles you have linked to are specifically about administrative divisions, and not merely geographical features. You linked to the Donetsk Oblast, the Luhansk Oblast, etc. The equivilents administrative division article for Crimea would be the Ukrainian
Autonomous Republic of Crimea (or, if you feel like breaching international law by recognizing an illegal annexation, the
Republic of Crimea controlled by Russia). We have similar articles for the Russian occupied administrative divisions, such as the
Donetsk People's Republic. That's the counterpart to the internationally recognized Ukrainian
Donetsk Oblast. This article, however, is not about the political administrative division. Now, since the history of the region and political/military actions did occur in the peninsula of Crimea, it gets some short summaries of those topics in this article, but to learn more, you have to go to the other articles for the specific administrative divisions. --
OuroborosCobra (
talk)
19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Just to add a little more, I realize that in most other articles, there isn't so much of a need to distinguish between the geographical area and the administrative division (e.g. we only have the article on
California, and not separate ones for the geographic area and the administrative division of the state itself), but due to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, we have to do something a little different here. --
OuroborosCobra (
talk)
19:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Question regarding lede
The lede currently has these sentences:
"The region has a population of 2.4 million, and has been under Russian occupation since 2014." (first paragraph)
"In 2014, the peninsula was occupied by Russian forces and annexed by Russia, but most countries recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory." (third paragraph)
These seem redundant and could possibly be combined. I was thinking of removing the second sentence entirely, and changing the first sentence to: "The region has a population of 2.4 million, and although most countries recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory, the peninsula has been occupied by Russian forces and annexed by Russia since 2014". But then I was wondering what should be done with the other sentences in the third paragraph. What do you guys think?
JasonMacker (
talk)
07:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Now that I think about it, another option is to remove the second part of the first sentence entirely, and leave the political claims to that third paragraph. So something like:
"The region has a population of 2.4 million." (first paragraph)
And then leave the sentences of the third paragraph alone.
Given that the previous section (of this talk page) points out that this article is primarily about geography, wouldn't it be better to leave the political stuff out of the first paragraph of the lede, and relegate it to just the second & third paragraphs?
JasonMacker (
talk)
08:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Tavria name
Was the name Tavria/Tauria/Taurica re-introduced during Catherine’s Hellenization of place names in the late 18th century? Or was it already in use on the ground since classical antiquity (which seems unlikely to me)? This would be a clarifying addition to the “Name” section. —MichaelZ.15:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This phrase linking to a war between Russian and Ottoman Empires in the 18th century can be misleading because the use of the word Turkey is misunderstood as the Republic of Turkey, which was officially founded in 1923. Although the war is known as the Russo-Turkish War, the country was rarely called Turkey by its citizens. Therefore, the phrase should be replaced with "Earlier war with the Ottoman Empire" in order to be more accurate and to avoid the quite likely confusion with the modern country of Turkey.
78.173.65.26 (
talk)
20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This is an edit for clarity and proper grammar. Edit the following sentence at the end of 2nd paragraph: (Current) "The USSR transferred the oblast to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1954."
(edited) "In 1954, the USSR transferred the oblast to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1654."
Badattitudebob (
talk)
14:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a small typo in the infobox: it says "Russian Federation" instead of "the Russian Federation". I can't edit it because I've never had a Wikipedia account and the article is extended-protected.
@
Alaexis, let's see what reliable academic sources say regarding Crimea protests.
For example,
Ukraine's Unnamed War - Google Books says - Eyewitness accounts suggest that about half of them opposed the referendum, while the other half demanded it.14
Your quote refers to the protests in Simferopol on February 26 where indeed there were a lot of pro-Ukrainian Tatar protesters. Overall there were many more pro-Russian protesters in Crimea, especially in Sevastopol, as your own source confirms on p. 103 A “National Will Rally against Fascism” took place on February 23, attracting an estimated 20,000 people, far exceeding expectations.
Alaexis¿question?06:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alaexis: What's the use of restoring a nonsensical sentence like "Protests culminated in Russian forces occupying strategic points in Crimea" ? Foreign troops occupying places is not normally called a "protest". What's the use of restoring a POV section together with the POV maintenance tag ? What's the use of searching for outdated secondary sources from far-away places ("The Straits Times") ? The section should be rewritten using academic sources, which I intend to do soon.
Rsk6400 (
talk)
13:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The latest edit was an improvement giving reasoning
[2] since the section is short and previous version was giving too much weight to protests. The section should contain the very essence of events.
ManyAreasExpert (
talk)
08:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This assertion should be backed by sources. Ukraine's Unnamed War discusses the popular protests at length, can you provide other RS which don't mention them or mention them briefly when discussing the events of 2014 in Crimea?
Alaexis¿question?14:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The book discusses protests, as well as many other things. We need to condense these into a few sentences. Which would either mention the protests, along with "other things", or will give preference to "other things". Like, seizing the parliament by masked Russian troops. And so I searched for works dedicated on a subject and tried to find a highly cited ones. And I found
The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books cited 70 times, and the first time it talks about Crimea it says the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament. That's all, two points here: the parliament seizure by Russia and the start of the war.Found another recently published book (therefore just a few citations)
The Russia-Ukraine War - Google Books available via G Scholar and containing a short overview which could be used.
ManyAreasExpert (
talk)
17:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about Crimea, not about the Russo-Ukrainian war in general, so when it started is irrelevant.
The way I see it, we have several sources, some of which give more attention to the protests (Ukraine's Unnamed War, Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine by Wood et al) while others play them down or don't mention them at all. Per
WP:NPOV we should mention various viewpoints. I don't think the protests are given undue weight now.
we have several sources, some of which give more attention to the protests (Ukraine's Unnamed War No, it gives more attention to the annexation of Crimea was guided by a long-term geostrategic imperative: that it would be intolerable for Russia to lose access to a warm water port for its Black Sea Fleet if a Europe-oriented Ukraine were to be invited to join NATO ... Did Crimea break with Kyiv on its own, and then ask Russia for help? Not exactly. After a mass demonstration prevented the Crimean parliament from enacting such a scenario, Russian special forces arrived the following morning. Meeting no resistance, they secured parliament, and installed a pro-Russia government. Within thirty-six hours, the new government issued the call for help., Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine by Wood et al) No, it gives attention to In particular, each chapter identifies an area where Vladimir Putin made a conscious decision to abandon what broadly can be described as the post-Cold War consensus. Putin chose great power status over shared sovereignty, a zero-sum over a win-win attitude toward trade, a strong state over economic prosperity, and symbolic over democratic politics. While no author suggests that the world is necessarily returning to a Cold War–style confrontation between Russia and the West, each chapter provides critical insights into how the great experiment of the 1990s to integrate Russia into Western institutions has come to an end. ManyAreasExpert (
talk)
23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about Crimea, not about the Russo-Ukrainian war in general, so when it started is irrelevant. Yes, we are talking about the section "History of Crimea". and it is important that Ru-Ukr war has been started there.
ManyAreasExpert (
talk)
12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying it's not important. The occupation is already described in this section. Naturally the books about the war would focus on the events in Crimea that were related to the conflict. For example, the discontent of the local population is of interest inasmuch it was used by Russia and facilitated the takeover. Still, the protests are given significant attention in two of the four books we've discussed, so I don't see why we shouldn't mention them in the article.
This is not an article about the war, this article is about Crimea. For this article, the war is important to the extent that it impacted the peninsula and its inhabitants. Ideally we should use sources about the topic of the article to gauge the relative weight of various aspects of its history, but I'm not aware of any such works.
Alaexis¿question?20:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ideally we should use sources about the topic of the article ... like, The Russo-Ukrainian War by Plokhy, which is up-to-date and has chapter dedicated to Crimea events. Like The Russia-Ukraine War by Fedorchak, which is up-to-date and has "HISTORICAL CONTEXT" chapter with short overview of Crimea events.
ManyAreasExpert (
talk)
20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Possibly I wasn't clear enough. These are books about the war, and so they describe the events in Crimea only to the extent that they were related to the war. For this article, the war is just one of the things that happened in Crimea. To be more specific, this section should also describe things like economic development, human rights issues, local politics after the annexation which are topics that are unlikely to be covered in books focusing on the war.
Alaexis¿question?21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree on the latter. But what sources you are talking about?Also, to use Crimea-related chapters from books about the war is perfectly fine here.
ManyAreasExpert (
talk)
21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You mean what sources I suggest to use? Sevastopol’s Wars: Crimea from Potemkin to Putin by
Mungo Melvin would be a good source, it discussed the unrest and the occupation at length in the last chapter. We'll also get another general overview of Crimea's history soon
[3]. These books would be useful for determining the due weight of various aspects of the peninsula's history.
Alaexis¿question?06:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Melvin's book is usable, but post-2022 sources are preferred, as Crimea takeover role has been significantly reassessed by historians in light of the full-scale war.
ManyAreasExpert (
talk)
22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
BCE and CE as timelines...
If you are describing Russian, Ukrainian, and even Greek (my own) history, please respect our cultures and how our use of BC and AD (as opposed to your use of BCE and CE) is preferred to describe our people's historical timelines. However "progressive" you might be, your substitution is actually considered "elitist" and quite disrespectful. Your proposed CE timeline excludes the incorporation of Central and South American people, First Nations of North America, Aborigines of Australia, Asians, most Africans, and is actually a slight on these people. "Common Era" didn't happen, anyway, until late 1700s when every continent was finally discovered and every people around the world were brought into the mix, so your proposed idea of a CE starting time as the same time as the borth of Jesus Christ is really off because that would really make our present day not 2024 AD where a real "inclusive" start time, factoring the 1700s would make today the year 270 CE or something.
173.177.127.212 (
talk)
20:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply