Talk:Crimea

"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)


 * It was also illegal under international law, e.g. the Charter of the United Nations and various other treaties signed by Russia. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)

Russia recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine through the Budapest Memorandum, therefore the referendum and subsequent annexation of Crimea was illegal. Mawer10 (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be non-compliance with agreement or understanding. That does not make it "illegal". 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

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. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? — kashmīrī  TALK  08:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The Vogue is considered fully reliable per WP:RSPSS, and we are supposed to blindly follow whatever is officially branded as "reliable", no? — kashmīrī  TALK  21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Sure, expert. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A better response would have been asking "Who has counted the number?". 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * True. Just no sensible answer to an argumentum ad populum came to mind. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear IP and may I remind you of WP:NOTFORUM ? I don't claim to be an expert, but I've read something on the subject. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To violate WP:NOTFORUM is illegal, right? — kashmīrī  TALK  10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ENOUGH. Drop it with the snark and personal attacks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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?&#34;Pij&#34; (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023
I want to undo the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=next&oldid=1144913770 Lettres (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please feel free to make comments in the discussions on this topic above. Tollens (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The new short description sums up the scope of the article better. The old is purely geopolitical. small jars 17:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Location in infobox
I suggest the location be changed from "Ukraine" to "Ukraine (de jure) Russia (de facto)" Sng Pal (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

"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.

Otherwise, Crimea should be labelled "in Ukraine", just like the other four annexed regions. Karpouzi (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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. —Michael Z. 15:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oops, never mind. I see a note in the article already explains. I will bring it into the article text. —Michael Z. 15:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

German occupation should be added to the timeline of history
Germany briefly occupied Crimea from 1942 to 1944 or so.

172.98.147.246 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"Earlier war with Turkey" creates confusion
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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024
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)
 * ✅ ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo spotted, could someone fix? (Edit request)
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.

Edit: didn't know edit requests were a thing!

167.102.108.73 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅. Alaexis¿question? 20:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Occupied"
We should probably list it as annexed instead of "occupied" as that would be more accurate to the description of Crimea. BarakHussan (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We follow RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Many more pro-Russian protesters
@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

Also, please fix the code, sources are broken. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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 . Alaexis¿question? 06:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * I didn't realise the Straits Times article was about later events, thanks for fixing it. As to the tag, I think it can be removed. Alaexis¿question? 18:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The latest edit was an improvement giving reasoning 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * I think that we should rather expand the post-2014 section which now ends in 2014. Alaexis¿question? 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . 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)
 * 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)

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)