Talk:Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea

August 1992 referendum
This article describes the scheduled August 1992 referendum with needlessly awkward and unclear language. I've raised the issue over at Talk:History of Crimea. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

1992 versus 2014 differences
The fact that the recent referendum has an option to return to the 1992 version, but not retain the current version seems to be a big deal, however I only have the vaguest idea of what the actual differences are and this article does little to help.162.218.212.1 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I have the same problem. I have waded through endless and suspiciously similarly worded propaganda on the web about this and am little wiser.  However it seems that the deeper I dig the more it seems the 1992 constitution (as amended in 1992) is very similar to the pre-referendum status quo in Crimea. Certainly it asserts Crimea as part of Ukraine and an autonomous region, which is what it was before the referendum.  Please can someone identify the significant differences?   2.30.145.179 (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Under Ukraine law, Crimea can't initiate its own laws. All it can do is administer a budget.  It appears that Crimea resented being under the thumb of the Ukraine Rada in this way, and wanted more independence. Correct me if I'm wrong, Santamoly (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issues
The page has some issues, promoting politically loaded POV.

-- The article is about the Constitution of a legal and internationally recognized political body withing Ukraine. The card, however, in the first hand provides an information on "Republic of Crimea" - internationally unrecognized illegal body, installed as a result of the Russian occupation of the peninsula. This order of information might mislead a reader and make them think that the "Republic of Crimea" somehow legally succeeds or supersedes the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The order should be reversed.

-- The article claims that "The Ukrainian government has refused to recognize the reunification of Crimea with Russia and still recognizes the constitution as active." There are three issues with this. First, that's not only the Ukrainian government who refuse (not just refused, this is a process) to recognize the Russian annexation - it's almost all the international community who do not recognize it. The current wording is misleading and should be extended to address the fact that the annexation was ultimately condemned by the world. Also, the use of term "reunification" is questionable at least: the topic is internationally considered an act of aggression and occupation, not some "reunification". The third one is the word "still". Here it has no meaning on its own, the only purpose it serves is to present the opposition to the aggression as something dated and temporary. It should be removed.

-- "During the Crimean Crisis, the Crimean authority repealed the 1998 Crimean Constitution after the Crimean status referendum, 2014." is another example of open POV. The Crimean authority's legitimacy is questionable, the "referendum" is illegal by the Ukrainian laws and have not been recognized internationally, but the article claims that the illegal unrecognized referendum organized by authority of questionable legitimacy under direct involvement of the foreign military somehow "repealed" a legal and internationally recognized Constitution. Thus, the statement is biased and should be re-written.

I've tried to address these issues by adding more information on the topics, mentioned in the article and by adding relevant categories. Unfortunately, my edits were removed by an administrator User:Ymblanter. An attempt to resolve the issue by discussing it on his [|talk page] didn't come anywhere, some of his remarks show that he is willing to keep the article in line with his political views - regardless of its NPOV status. Hence, to avoid conflict, I place NPOV plaque to the article and invite and ask editors to address the neutrality issues I mentioned above. Even if you're heavily pro-Russian and completely support the politics of this country, I ask you to remember that there are laws and countries outside Russia and that legal position of the other sides (Ukraine and the international community) should be properly reflected in the article. AMartyn (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812170216/http://en.for-ua.com/news/2013/01/21/103102.html to http://en.for-ua.com/news/2013/01/21/103102.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312144006/http://www.rada.crimea.ua/en/bases-of-activity/konstituciya-ARK to http://www.rada.crimea.ua/en/bases-of-activity/konstituciya-ARK

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)