Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea/Archive 3

Request of edit(fast)
After: " The Republic of Crimea (Ukrainian: Республіка Крим, Respublika Krym; Russian: Республика Крым, Respublika Krym; Crimean Tatar: Qırım Muhtar Cumhuriyeti, Къырым Мухтар)[6] is a republic located on the Crimean Peninsula on the North shore of the Black Sea. Crimea includes nearly all of the North Black Sea peninsula of Crimea. " Please add: "It is sovereign state recognized by one member of U.N.(Russia). " Reason: Wikipedia should have factual accuracy in NPOV. This is a fact, like in Kosovo state(where de facto there is no S. control currently), of course with lower number of recognizing countries, however it is bigger recognize than many countries, which doesn't have even one country backing. Source: Reuters.


 * This article is about the old Ukrainian republic, in the new article about Republic of Crimea there's correctly stated Russia recognized it.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

fantasy
This article must have been written by Vladimir Putin- it is a Russianized version and is fallacious arguments and reasoning. Simply it is bunk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.132.171 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's funny because someone else just accused me of keeping the article "westernized". Simple fact is that WP:NPOV requires that all sides have an equal say in the article, based on WP:WEIGHT. Clearly no one is going to be happy until it's either all one way or the other. JOJ  Hutton  20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Two articles?
Wouldn't it be wise to have two articles: one called the 'Republic of Crimea' about the now independent state and future Russian federal subject and an other with the title 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' (without Sevastopol) about the Ukrainian subject? That way we can assure neutrality. It is also done with Kosovo: Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija. --Wester (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There already is two articles. That's why this article needs to stay how it is, because it's about the officially recognized part of Ukraine. The other article is about the unrecognized republic. JOJ  Hutton  19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, but then the title should be changed to 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' instead of just 'Crimea'..--Wester (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage archiving
We now have /Archive 1 and /Archives 1 - can someone who knows what they're doing get the two and the bot to a single naming system with all pages linked from here? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox flags
The infobox should not show a change in the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to an independent Crimea, as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea continues to exist under the Ukrainian Constitution and international law. A separate article now exists for the self-proclaimed independent state, which remains unrecognized by all but the country whose military has occupied it. --Nomadic Whitt (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. JDanek 00 7 Talk  05:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but as long this article is simply named 'Crimea' people will change it because they don't know their is an other article Republic of Crimea as well. It's time to move this article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea.--Wester (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the name Russian propaganda
The OFFICIAL name IS infact "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" since 1954. Maybe the "new Ukranian" regime changed the name in last weeks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC) The name added "Autonomous" even though that is widely contested, this page is currently extremely biased toward the Russian point of view. The article should at least point out that this point of view is strongly contested, by groups like the rest of the nations in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:3 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Autonomous Republic is from 1991. Before that it was a simple region. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'
Explanation "Early Ukraine" for Kievan Rus' is incorrect. According to Wikipedia article Kievan Rus': "...was a loose federation of East Slavic tribes in Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century, under the reign of the Rurik dynasty. The modern peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural inheritance". Ukrainian, russian and belarusian people didn't exist back then. There were Ilmen Slavs, Krivichs, Polans, Severians, Vyatichi, Chud and other slavic and finnic tribes. Sentence "Kievan Rus' (early Ukraine)" is not more correct than "Ottoman Empire (early Turkey)", "Roman Empire (early Italy)" or "Goths (early Federal Republic of Germany)" M0d3M (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I’ve [ fixed] this one. — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 12:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move page to Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Crimea could either be redirected to Crimea (disambiguation) or Crimean peninsula (or Crimean peninsula could be moved to Crimea), in the interest of neutrality. --Stan2525 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'd also like to note this is how it is done on BOTH the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias (Crimea redirects to Crimean Peninsula (Ukrainian Wikipedia), and Crimean Peninsula redirects to Crimea (Russian Wikipedia). --Stan2525 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed above.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename now please
Would a moderator please rename the article ASAP to 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' to make clear that this article is about the Ukranian subject and not about Crimea as a whole. But lot's of edit conflicts are caused by this confusion.--Wester (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea declare to join with Russia Federation
Crimea is part of russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.129.40 (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.43.75 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Crima is now part of Russia so this article is completely unfactual this coming from an ubiased englishman. Why is it still shown as being part of Ukraine?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliehelyes (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, heed an advice of a "biased Russian" then. The answer to your question is because, a) Russia has not yet officially incorporated Crimea; b) the international community has recognized and accepted neither such an incorporation nor an intent to do so; c) same goes for Crimean independence. As soon as the first two items are satisfied, then the articles can be edited to replace "Ukraine" with "Russia". Until then, footnotes and additional sections dealing with the Russian situation will suffice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014 ; 14:55 (UTC)
 * Um, but hasn't a group of people on the Crimean peninsula declared independence from the Ukraine? &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Military
Wouldn't it be better to just remove the "Military" section until and unless it gains some content? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really, the Crimean Republic has formed it's own military, it's just the topic is open to too much POV. BananaBandito (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Map
I will remove the map from this article until an alternative map can be provided. Crimea is no longer under Ukrainian control and has formally become part of the Russian Federation. Regardless of anyone's personal position on the matter, it can no longer be stated as a fact that Crimea is part of Ukraine, as the reality on the ground and legal declarations from Crimea's autonomous Government state otherwise. The nearest thing to any reasonable rebuttal to this would be to categorise Crimea as a disputed territory and even then it has to be considered as part of one country or the other as it is not an independent state. Owl In The House (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be edit locked to even regular editors :/ Owl In The House (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fully protected because people keep making changes, although in good faith, to the article that violate NPOV. Ukraine considers the area to be under the control of a foreign invasion force. As well as the EU and the US and 16 of the 18 members of the UN Security Council. It's still considered part of Ukraine, regardless of which military is currently occupying the region. JOJ  Hutton  13:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are only 15 members of the Security council... 129.234.37.53 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor mistake. Doesn't change the facts. JOJ  Hutton  14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

International community
The phrase "international community" is widely used by politicians (and cited by the press) but there is no legal authority that can speak on behalf of "the international community". Further there are 193 states and only a fraction of the countries condemned the situation and said that the referendum is illegal. It's not an established term in this context and should not be used in the article.--Wrant (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A country does not have to explicitly express condemnation to continue recognizing the territory as a part of Ukraine. Only a few countries explicitly recognized the incorporation into Russia, which leaves the remaining countries in overwhelming majority (to refer to which as "international community" is more than appropriate, especially since that's the term sources use).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014 ; 15:35 (UTC)

This is pretty wrong. The UN Security Council is legally able to start war under certain conditions, but also to transfer region to another state. In the Security Council all voted to damn the so called "referendum", except one member, which unfortunatelly still has veto power.

fundamental question
Encyclopedia or Newsroom? Why to change the text after every news in the world? --House1630 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we want to give up-to-date information.--Wester (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Every hour, every minute ? --House1630 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The world is changing every minute. ;)
 * and every second ... --House1630 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you care? As long as the editors adhere to WP standards and seek consensus, they can go as often as they please...--Truther2012 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel like there is danger of some being very cavalier and not respecting or not even understanding the fact that:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper
"As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:


 * 1) Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.  Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
 * 2) News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews..." - Cheers,  JDanek 00 7 Talk  05:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH ! --House1630 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph: "The legality of the vote has been rejected... with few exceptions"
The legitimacy and legality of the vote has been rejected by the government of Ukraine and the international community, with few exceptions.

What are these "few exceptions"? The cited NY Times article doesn't say anything of the sort...


 * I agree with you, the source doesn't mention anything like this.--Wrant (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I smell a rat, or rather weasel in this case. Unless the "few exceptions" can be named, the part should be removed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This page made the news (ABC)
But not in a good way.... There a way we can come to some kind of an agreement? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting this! Why do you say "not in a good way"? I think it's excellent. It shows that real discussion is taking place with some serious thought to both sides. Maybe the politicians should learn form Wikipedia editors? Even though the article is locked. lol USchick (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it funny how we are being "silenced" by "the oppressive admin government of Wikipedia" by keeping this article protected? I'd say we go invade the Ukrainian Wikipedia and take it for ourselves. Then, when they call us for invading their 'pedia we claim it's just "local self-defense forces". LOL. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I like your idea, but I think we should invade Russian Wikipedia instead. USchick (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014
Under "Etymology", in the sentence "In English, Crimea has often been referred to with the definite article, as the Crimea, although its usage was more common before the late 20th century", please change "its usage" to "this usage". TIA!

Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014
"On 3 March, it was reported that the head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet gave the Ukraine a deadline of dawn "

Should be "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine", when talking about independent nation, and not the soviet republic.

Haroski (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Where does this go?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/crimea-war-words-wikipedia/story?id=22970582 should it be included in the article or somewhere else on wikipedia? It shows how the Crimea conflict has spilled over to the English wikipedia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Crimea" is now being referred to as "a disputed territory" by media
From the New York Post:

From The Wire:

From Deutsche Welle:

From the Los Angeles Times:

The current state of this article now violates WP:NPOV indisputably.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * you mean by media in NATO countries? They are not all the media :) 178.222.53.31 (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blogs: The Crimea is a Russian land. This is the return of territory. History in brief: The battle for the land of the Khazars. Crimea. History of 20th century http://russ-history.blogspot.ru/2014/03/the-battle-for-land-of-khazars-crimea.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton Kol (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A blog is not considered a reliable source. Crimea was around long before Russia was a dot on a map. The sources say that Crimea was invaded,     even Russian sources call it an invasion  so "disputed" is much more neutral. My preference would be to stick with the sources, and say it was invaded, but for the sake of neutrality, "disputed" is more than adequate. USchick (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 March 2014
add:

Mebeingyou (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This template is used if many editors edit the article in one day. Not an issue in this case. USchick (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

New attempt for consensus
The page move will not happen for several days. In the meantime, can we get consensus on changing the lede? If the article gets moved, we can change it back. If it doesn't get moved, this is a very neutral lede for a general article about Crimea. USchick (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Clarification: IF the article gets moved to Autonomous Republic of Crimea (which is being discussed above), the lede should be reverted to what it is now, as part of this proposal. This proposal thus only applies for as long as this article is still named Crimea. USchick (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (rephrased by CodeCat (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC))


 * Support. USchick (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support (with the following conditions, which have been added) if the thing we are agreeing to includes, also, agreement to revert the change after the move. Otherwise we may have to go through the whole process again just to have it reverted back. We should make a consensus both on this change, and on reverting it back afterwards. (Since nobody else has voted yet, it's ok if you remove my post and redo the proposal) CodeCat (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. The move may or may not happen. It may be "no consensus" which means not moved. Thank you for that clarification. I added it at the top and changed your comment to "Approve" with your permission. Thank you. USchick (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Making a statement that Crimea is disputed makes it seem as if Russia's claim is considered legitimate in the eyes of the international community. Only Russia appears to support its claim, while everyone else either does not recognize the annexation as legal, or has not said a word in any way. Its not neutral then to legitimize Russia's claim to Crimea by making it equal with the majority of the world. Yes we mention the events, but we do not make them equal because most of the world "considers this to be illegal". It violates WP:UNDUE.-- JOJ Hutton  18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. It would go against WP:NPOV to completely ignore the dispute that currently exists (and is widely sourced). Giving no credence to the dispute at all would violate WP:UNDUE. CodeCat (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion above about the word "disputed." Here's my response to that. The sources say that Crimea was invaded,     even Russian sources call it an invasion  so "disputed" is much more neutral. My preference would be to stick with the sources, and say it was invaded, but for the sake of neutrality, "disputed" is appropriate. What do you think? USchick (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As it has already been told to you before in other discussions and as it has already been noted in this talk page, the following reliable sources state explicitly that Crimea is a disputed territory:
 * New York Post: "Ukraine made plans Wednesday to yank all its troops out of Crimea as Russian forces seized two more Ukrainian military bases in the disputed territory ."
 * The Wire: "Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council chief Andriy Parubiy announced the withdrawal plan Wednesday in the wake of the escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia over the disputed territory ."
 * Deutsche Welle: "Ukraine has announced plans to remove its military forces from the disputed Crimean territory ."
 * Los Angeles Times: "Ukraine's interim leaders in Kiev said they were making plans to evacuate their outnumbered military personnel from Crimea and to seek United Nations support to turn the disputed region into a demilitarized zone."
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Heres my response to that and I'll offer an analogy and I hope to keep it simple.
 * Imagine if Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple decided to send some of his armed security over to Microsoft and take over the building that houses the Microsoft Windows division. His claim would be that the code for "Windows" was stolen by Bill Gates from Apple and that the division and all its software was rightfully Apples now. He may even get some of the key people in the division to go along with it. Now Google, Samsung, and all the other key software companies say that they "consider this to be illegal." Now, would Microsoft Windows now be considered an Apple product or even be considered as "disputed"? Of course it wouldn't be. It would still be considered as part of Microsoft because what Apple did, even if they think that they are right, would be illegal in the eyes of everyone except them.
 * Its as simple as that. If nobody recognizes the claim, there's nothing to dispute.-- JOJ Hutton  18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't go by what you believe or what your opinion is on the matter. That's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. There is something called WP:VERIFIABILITY on Wikipedia, one of our content core policies. This policy states explicitly that, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The statement, "Crimea is a disputed territory" is attributable to a reliable published source as shown to you above, as shown to you on another discussion, and as shown to the community in this talk page. Your attitude is becoming disruptive under WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT even after you have been shown and provided reliable sources, as well as being shown and provided with Wikipedia's policies. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think JOJ has a right to oppose and he doesn't need to be pressured to change his mind. USchick (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for him to change his own personal opinion. That's his own life and he does whatever he wants with it. But this is Wikipedia, and our personal opinion is irrelevant and must be put it aside when a reliable source says the contrary. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He can oppose based on any reason he wants to, even if he wants to claim the aliens made him do it. If his reason has no merit it will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. USchick (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:CONSENSUS, editors "try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources , and common sense ." Wikipedia is not a forum, we are not here to express our own personal opinion on a matter like this person is doing. We are here to build an encyclopedia and to discuss improvements to it through reason and reliable sources, not through personal opinions or perspectives. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you like to beat him into submission? Is there a policy about that? USchick (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And what opinion am I trying to use Wikipedia as a forum to push? JOJ Hutton  19:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose until the RM is finished - People are already confusing the content of this article in the RM above, thinking that it is a "general Crimea article", when it is not. We can't afford to change the scope of this article in the middle of an RM, confusing the situation further, and separating the topic of this article from its edit history. We have to wait, regardless of how bad the situation is in the interim. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's what the qualification at the top is for. It's explicitly intended to cover only the interim period until the move is made. CodeCat (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing it in the interim will confuse people more. It will also screw up the edit history. This article is, and always has been about the Autonomous Republic. We cannot change that now. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This proposal didn't address what map will be shown in the infobox. It currently is showing Crimea as part of Ukraine, and of course this does not reflect reality. The map should be changed to a map of crimea region alone. Chaldean (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the Autonomous Republic, which is part of Ukraine. It is not an article about the Republic of Crimea, which is separate. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * People, I would suggest that you simply edit this page right now. It has proper name for the article, this is place for content to be, and it is currently unprotected. Keep/use this, Crimea, page to describe entire history of Crimea for centuries. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Would that not be considered bypassing the RM process? RGloucester  — ☎ 20:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Might be. However, if people can avoid intense edit war while editing Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea, I would expect admins do not care too much about this. If they can not, admins will protect Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea too. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone's got the guts to be bold and restore that article, I'll help get it in order. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What do we do with it when the move passes? Do we just delete it? CodeCat (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The admin who closed the discussion would have to delete it, yes. That's why I'm weary. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this move. Do we need a new discussion for that? Or should someone just do it? I can help later today, but not right now. USchick (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No discussions needed. Someone just needs to be bold and restore that old version of that page. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the attempted Autonomous Republic of Crimea article (currently a redirect) was a WP:POV fork of this article, and would again be just that if somebody tried to recreate it now. Not legitimate. Besides, it will almost certainly be overwritten in a few days, once this page finally gets moved there, and that will create nasty technical problems of attribution (preserving edit histories for copyright attribution etc.) if at that stage it should turn out people had in the meantime added new and worthy-to-be-preserved material to it. Please don't start doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The main page about Crimea should have general geographic information (eg Macedonia) about the peninsula with listed different historical, current, de-facto and de-jure political entities on the peninsula. Autonomous Republic of Crimea does not include whole territory of the peninsula, the city of Sevastopol is a separate administrative subject and is not part of the Autonomous Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predavatel (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why there is a proposal to move this page to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Unfortunately, that move is at least 4 days away, so this discussion here is about what we should do in the meantime. CodeCat (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be well less than four days (the seven-day period isn't set in stone after all); what matters is that it be done on the basis of a properly articulated mature and stable consensus. I really don't understand this feeling of haste. Just because some people out there thought they had to overthrow political systems and international boundaries within a matter of days, doesn't mean they can expect us to follow each and every turn of events on the same day, does it? It's only natural that a project like ours will take its time to react to things. What's so bad about taking whatever time it is we need to figure out what should be done? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This proposal is part of the reason for haste, in a sense. It's extremely difficult to get dozens of editors to agree that they need to be patient, especially when there are Ukrainians, Russians and Crimeans all coming here feeling offended one way or another, and posting on the talk page that they want it changed. So you have lots of different people all working in an uncoordinated way because nobody knows what's what and what's going on anymore. People create content forks, complain about NPOV, ask why nothing is being done, etc. etc. It becomes repetitive and frustrating to have to deal with it. CodeCat (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then remove the protection and let us fix the article the same way we fixed Supreme Council of Crimea without administrative intervention. Remember, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS not everything has to be solved through discussion. Consensus can also be achieved by editing. Just like @Yulia Romero and myself achieved consensus by editing Yatsenyuk Government incrementally without ever talking directly to each other. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a difference of opinion. This article is a grave violation of NPOV, as it stands, and misleading. In a crisis such as this, it is our duty to provide accurate information, is it not? So that we do not provide more fodder for the flames? There is no doubt that what Wikipedia says impacts the world. People read it, and it may misinform them. That is the last thing we want, isn't it? Not only that, but it leads to the type of bad media coverage we've seen today. We merely have different approaches. You take the "wait and see approach", whereas I prefer to at least set-up a stopgap measure in meantime so that people are not mislead. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no one expects this article to be edited because the entire world knows that the article is locked because it's been in the news. Twice. And no one complained about the content. USchick (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Predavatel (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose All thoughts so ar. The issue people are ignoring is that Crimea from 1500-1917 was always a term for more than just the Peninsula. At times the Crimean Khanate was less than all the peninsula, but huge swaths of land to the north. The Tauride Governate of the Russian Empire always included large areas north of the Peninsula, Crimea has at many times been a term used for an area that is much larger than just the Peninsula.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So we should base our decision today on something that happened in 1500 and ended in 1917? At one time "Russia" was the entire Soviet Union, Kievan Rus, and probably other things, but today, it's limited to the Russian Federation and the article reflects what the country is today. Whatever Crimea was in 1917 can be covered in the history section. USchick (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 March 2014
I would like to add in reference and a hyperlink to Adam Mickiewicz's The Crimean Sonnets in this article.--Orestek (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2014
Add

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the page move discussion is finished. Anything else that would change the status of the page would only get in the way of that. CodeCat (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * The Split-apart template is simply to say that a split has been proposed, it does not change the status of the page. Per WP:Split you're supposed to add that template (or one like it) when someone proposes a split. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * CodeCat, per WP:PROSPLIT "If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject. Additionally, adding one of the templates below will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split.". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm allowed to disagree even with adding that template, am I not? The reason I disagree is that under the current conditions (i.e. a pending move request) there is no way for us to assess a split. And if we aren't in a position to discuss it yet, then there's no point in adding a template for it either. CodeCat (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to oppose a split on the basis that there's no way for us to assess a split that's fine, but that doesn't change that I've proposed a split. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is, it's your opinion that there is no way for us to assess a split, and that we aren't in a position to discuss it yet. You're entitled to have that opinion, and you're entitled to oppose a split on the bases of that opinion, but none of this changes that I have proposed a split. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggested date for article rewrite re: Russia's de facto acquisition of the peninsula
As I think most can see, it appears most probable that Russia will ultimately succeed in this recent annexation of Crimea. Russia is now the "de facto" owner and military controller of the peninsula, and has been since approximately March 7, 2014. Since Wikipedia policy generally prefers to recognize de facto governments over merely theoretical ones, I propose that at the very latest, if this de facto arrangement does not change within 6 months, by Sept. 7, 2014, that this page be fully reedited to reflect Russia's de facto acquisition of the Crimea, and that wording about Ukraine's "theoretical" ownership be reworded to reflect the fact that it is a former status and no longer current. Please note that the page's "move protection" will expire on September 7. Scott P. (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: Did you know that whenever Wikipedia recognizes the existence a de facto government, the rest of the world has no choice but to comply? So it is written! (Somewhere... I think?) :-) Scott P. (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We made it to The Washington Post
Congratulations to @Owl In The House, @USchick, @Knowledgekid87, and our new Internet celebrity with just 6 posts... @Cheesenibbles!!!

OH LAWDY~

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

14:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the media for listening! It's nice to know that someone is paying attention. Lol, for us to make the news, it means that our conversations are more interesting than what the politicians are talking about. Great job everyone! USchick (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice yes, but usually when the media pays attention to Wikipedia, it's not usually for a good reason. Oh well. JOJ  Hutton  13:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This time it's for Wikipedia's swift and accurate maps, with editors making better decisions than the State Department and National Geographic. Ha ha! USchick (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well at least somebody is trying to keep a neutral head. Kudos. The maps should reflect the "recognized status" of the region, and not the "occupied status".-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  17:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. USchick (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yay lol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Ukraine regarding Crimea
There is currently a discussion regarding maps on Ukraine and Russia changing Crimea to a different shade to reflect it as a disputed territory. Cross-posting here as it's related to this article. Discussion can be found here: Talk:Ukraine. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014
Please from the country infobox, please remove "established_event12 = Referendum to re-join Russia" as it doesn't have to do anything legally with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as part of Ukraine.

 A.h. king  • Talk to me!  12:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur. Until this referendum is recognized internationally, it's considered illegal. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  13:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In criminal law contexts, Wikipedia does not usually assume illegality until a court of competent jurisdiction says so. On the other hand, if person X were to allege that he owns the house of person Y, that's probably not a good enough reason for Wikipedia to start referring to it as the house of person X.  It's probably best to refer to it as a house subject to competing claims by X and Y.  The Kosovo issue was ultimately resolved by a decision by an international court, and the same may perhaps happen here, in a legal (if not political or diplomatic) sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. If I understand 's post, there is no consensus for this change at this time and it will require some more discussion.  If I misunderstand, please feel free to reactivate this request and I apologize.  Thank you. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement "is recognized internationally, it's considered illegal" does not make any sense at all. "Illegal" means NOT RECOGNIZED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.181.113 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)