Talk:Constitution of the Republic of Crimea

Untitled
This article on a sensitive topic is heavily biased towards the Russian POV:

- It refers to unrecognized "Republic of Crimea" as to a legitimate political entity

- It considers Crimea a legal part of Russian Federation, while the Russian annexation of Crimea has been internationally condemned as an act of aggression.

- It make questionable claims about the subject itself: eg "The constitution established the republic's status and authority within Russia and replaced the previous Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" while both the status and the replacement have not been internationally recognized

- It misleads the reader about the subject history by omitting important facts: eg it made some claims on the Crimean "referendum" 2014, but failed to mention the legal status of the referendum itself, which might lure reader into believing that there was some real referendum at the time.

- It is poorly categorized, as the article's subject is directly connected to the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian dispute over the occupied territory and thus to the politics of both Russia and Ukraine

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) 11:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Addressing the first issue from those mentioned above: the expression "the Republic of Crimea, a federal subject of Russia that covers most of the Crimean peninsula" lures a reader into believing that the so-called "Republic of Crimea" is really JUST another federal subject of Russia, which happened to be geographically located on the Crimean peninsula. In the same time, it omits the important fact that the "Republic" has never been recognized as such by international community, but it is considered to be an illegally occupied territory under temporary control of Russia. This piece of information is crucially important to understanding of the legal status of the article's topic, so it must be included. Therefore, I change it to the following: "Republic of Crimea - a self-styled republic formed in the aftermath of the Russian invasion into Ukraine and occupation of Crimea." AMartyn (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a clear POV, and this is why I reverted it. A non-POV version of this is already in the article Republic of Crimea.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already justified in detail, why this is not "a clear POV" and why the version in the article is not "a non-POV version" by any means. You failed to provide any valid grounds for your point, thus I have to restore the edits. If you still want to delete them, please provide better explanations then your "I do not like them". AMartyn (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the same time, I must admit that I appreciate your edits in the History section, they really address some of the issues I mentioned on this page and they make a great step forward for the page. Thank you. AMartyn (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLD, this is your responsibility to convince the editors, including me, that your edits are appropriate. So far, you failed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First, the page you're referring to does not exist. Then, as per WP:Rollback your revert actions are illegal, as "You did not convince me" could not be considered a proper explanation. I have to edit the page once again to address the article issues, I explained in detail here at the top of the page. AMartyn (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD. You may want to introduce your POV as many times as you wish, it just does not mean it has to be in the article without consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The cycle requires a constructive discussion. Your "my POV is the ethernal truth, PERIOD!" is not a good enough attitude. If you want to discuss, don't be shy, write your comments here. AMartyn (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do not like it, go ans seek mediation. Otherwise you will soon be blocked for edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The subject refers to itself as the Constitution, but it is pretty questionable if it might be really considered the Constitution in a legal sense. The term is usually applied when considering states or organizations, not establishments on an occupied territory. That's why I'm suggesting a neutral term "the document" with additional explanation that it was declared to be the basic law of something. AMartyn (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your personal opinion. The constitution of the Republic of Crimea is a document in its legal sense, and, moreover, the Republic of Crimea obviously has no other constitution. I appreciate that you want to add to every sentence that it was illegally occupied, but it is not really necessary. The situation is well described in other articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a common fact that there is no such internationally recognized legal body as "the Republic of Crimea". That's why your claims are just missing the point. The reader should be well aware that this is a highly questionable topic and while Russia considers "the Republic of Crimea" a legal political entity and thus its Constitution a document in its legal sense, from international point of view all this "the Republic of Crimea" is just another name for the occupational administration and the term "Constitution" can not be applied to its document. That's why I promote the neutral wording: neither "the Constitution" nor "an occupational administration paper", but "the document, designed to be a basic law", which it basically is. AMartyn (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to mention the illegal occupation pretty often as it is the core point of the legal status of the subject, which should be covered in the article. AMartyn (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the article and it is pretty much sufficient. The rest is POV. If your position is that Republic of Crimea does not exist, than the article should not exist. If it exists, that it has a constitution, and this is its only constitution. It is mentioned in the article (in fact, in the lede) that most of the countries do not recognize Republic of Crimea as a federal subject of Russia. All information is available in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, this is a core point of the legal status of the subject. Every time we encounter a place of potential conflict, it has roots in the legal status of "the Republic of Crimea" - which is natural if you think about it, the legal status of the Repubic of Crimea defines the legal status of its constitution. The only way to resolve this is to mention every time, that as an occupied territory, it is viewed differently by occupying side and by the international community. I believe that this is the way to resolve these issues: to explicitly describe both positions clearly attributing them. The approach let's describe the Russian position in details, then mention somewhere that the Ukrainian government still did not accept this  is clearly lacking. AMartyn (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not my position that "Republic of Crimea does not exist". It is a common international position, that Republic of Crimea does not exist as a legal recognized body. Just like did not exist "Finnish Democratic Republic", "Wartheland" or "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". However, there is a common practice to create an maintain articles on this kind of formations. It is also a common practice to clearly indicate the legal nature of these bodies. AMartyn (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See below. You seem to totally miss the point.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "federal subject" issue. Again, here we have a Russian government's position and the international one. It is important to mention, that Russia takes Crimea as its federal subject. But it is also important to note that it is just Russian position, not supported or recognized by the international community. That's why misleading "federal subject of Russian Federation" should be re-worded to something like "which the Russian government considers federal subject of Russian Federation". It both reflects the Russian government's point and does not imply that this is something more then just a Russian government's position. AMartyn (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you miss the point. The Republic of Crimea is a federal subject of Russia. It just does not exist outside the context. Outside this context, it could be Crimean Peninsula, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, or anything else. But the Republic of Crimea is by definition a federal subject of Russia. An this is pretty well reflected in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be that way, if the Republic of Crimea was located somewhere withing the territory of the Russian Federation. However, being established on the occupied part of the foreign country, the republic sticks out of the context of Russia and becomes a topic of international relations. You can not limit the context of the subject to "Russian internal" when it becomes a topic of the UN resolutions. Thus, being proclaimed a federal subject of Russia is just a tiny part of the context, which also includes the occupation, the Ukraine-Russia relations, the Russian relations to other countries and international organizations as OSCE and the UN and many more - and that's what should be reflected in the article to make it actually informative and to avoid misleading gaps in the topic description. AMartyn (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article provides all necessary information already.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have indicated the points where it does not. You have addressed one of them, but there are more to go and you abuse your rights to prevent me from addressing them. AMartyn (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And the political status is supposed to be described in detail in Political status of Crimea.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. It does not mean, however, that other articles should use incorrect or misleading terminology. For instance, it should not refer to some territory as a legal political entity, while this is not generally the case. AMartyn (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What the article say is as far as I am concerned sufficient. Please file a WP:DRN request if you disagree.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not the way it works. You can not proclaim the article completely sufficient and seal it from further modifications, demanding editors to gain your permission for making modifications to it. AMartyn (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is exactly what WP:CONSENSUS say. You want to add material to the article, I object. One more revert will land you at WP:3RRN, as you perfectly understand. Now, you can talk about my "abuse of power", "pro-Russian POV" and all other junk but you have a limited number of options - get my consent (probably you already got as much as you could), get a consensus of editors in good standing at this talk page, for example by starting an RfC (and those should be established editors, not drivers by who have a few edits on our project), get me banned or seek mediation. I am willing to go by mediation. As simple as that.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "You want to add material to the article, I object." - you did not object. You abused the rollback function, as I already displayed: the annotated edits were reverted w/o proper reasons for that. That's not the way to consensus, but an abuse of power. AMartyn (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "One more revert will land you at WP:3RRN, as you perfectly understand." As you might easily see, I did not "revert" anything: I have tried different formulations and wording to address the issues listed in the most appropriate and neutral way. Multiple edits of the same article, intended to find the balance and neutrality, can not be considered "revert". AMartyn (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This has become a private conversation between two editors. We need to open it up bit to other editors.  Martin, which is your preferred version of the article?  Are you able to explain why each of the different changes you want would be an improvement?  Please bear in mind that the history paragraph already covers much of what you want.  It is only a two-paragraph article; styles appropriate to a 30 paragraph article are verbose in a two-paragraph one.--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I already mentioned, I just want this (and other similar articles) to use neutral language. To have entities with controversial legal status designated like that; one-sided loaded terms should be replaced with neutral ones. I want to remove controversial claims and replace them with balanced notes. I want to reflect the value of the topic in the wide international context where it actually sits, not artificially limit it to "Russian internal" so it produces a distorted picture of the topic. I want to properly categorize it too. AMartyn (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff to your preferred version of the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I afraid, there is no such thing as the ultimately preferred version - it takes some time and a number of iterations to improve an article and it a is never-ending process. I have outlined the major flaws of the article at the top of this page; I do not see any point in comparing wording etc, while these flaws are not addressed at all. AMartyn (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * One of Ymblanter's objections was that in your version it Wikilinked to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in two places in the first paragraph (in sentences one and three). Are you willing to concede on that one?--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. AMartyn (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * bump. Have you seen the changes? Are there any more matters to consider in the text? AMartyn (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am fine modifying the history part; comparison of the ledes IMO shows that my version is neutral whereas AMartyn's version is POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already outlined why your version can not be considered neutral and should be modified. zBsp, it refers to the unrecognized political entity as if it was legal: the statement the Republic of Crimea — a federal subject of Russian Federation is just untrue. AMartyn (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. The statement is true. The Republic of Crimea does not exist outside of this context.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should properly indicate the context. Without explicitly addressing that the "republic" is a non-existing pseudo-entity the article is biased. It is like if you described "advancements" of Phrenology as if it was a kind of science, without prior explaining that the very topic has no scientific value whatsoever. AMartyn (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The context is properly indicated in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not. E.g. "basic law" and "federal subject" are used as if it was really the basic law and a federal subject. This is not something you call "properly indicated". AMartyn (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a federal subject, and this federal subject only has one basic law.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to a UN resolution, it is not a federal subject, but something Russian government considers to be their federal subject. And being an unrecognized pseudo-entity it can't have any legal laws: neither basic nor advanced. It might have a document named "basic law" or "constitution", but it is in the name only. When you claim that "it is indeed a federal subject" you contradict international laws and promote the POV of the Russian government - which is as far from neutrality as only possible. AMartyn (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am too tired to argue with you any more. You resort to personal attacks instead of using logical arguments, and you are clearly a single-purpose account, most of your edits are at the talk page. Try dispute resolution.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not constructive at all. Just follow the Wikipedia rules and abstain from making up those of your own. AMartyn (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is great that when I ask you to follow the policies you call it unconstructive. Do you refuse to follow the policies and to try dispute resolution?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Constitution of the 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/20140318095051/http://pravo.gov.ru:8080/page.aspx?92062 to http://pravo.gov.ru:8080/page.aspx?92062

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)