Jump to content

Talk:Russian occupation of Crimea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality

[edit]

This article presents a very pro-Ukraine viewpoint, even as compared to other articles in this subject area. Examples: the use of scare quotes around "militia" or the use of phrases such as "so-called". Also, stating things like "An illegal referendum was held" as opposed to "A referendum, found to be illegal by [ ], was held" is also non-neutral. In the other articles I have read describing this, the Russian viewpoint (i.e. objecting to the label of annexation) is at least brought up. Bensci54 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, please join the editing. I will be very happy about it. Only I did not notice the "Russian viewpoint" (of course, within reasonable limits, so that it does not lead to the justification of illegal occupation, a referendum that contradicted the laws of Ukraine, and annexation that contradicted international law) in other articles on the occupation of other regions of Ukraine, in the editing of which I was mostly not involved. But I would really appreciate it if you could help fix these points. Uliana245 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely notice a bias towards Ukraine in the article, more so than can be found in other articles. With that being said, I am accustomed to other articles being swamped by pro-Russia or "centrist" editors, which eventually balances out with the pro-Ukraine editors (i.e. there are many articles about Russian-Ukrainian relations that lean in favour of Russia). Obviously, this article is going to carry a bias initially, having been created solely by one editor in a single edit (presumably over the course of several days before finally publishing it). The POV issue of this article should sort itself out in several days or weeks, after other editors notice this article, which was just created yesterday. The article is very important and hence should attract a lot of attention once people find out about it. I don't expect the POV issue to be solved by one editor alone; that's just not feasible. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bensci54 - In terms of presenting a more "neutral" stance, I don't believe that incorporating Russian sources into the article is going to be of much help, considering that Russia is currently launching a full-scale invasion of the entire country of Ukraine (albeit died down a little since the beginning, February 24), and Russian-state sources are much more academically compromised at this point in comparison to Ukrainian ones. Russian-state sources cannot be trusted to present anything factual outside of official decrees of the Russian government in an "opinion"-based context. The only way to make this article potentially more POV-neutral would be to incorporate more third-party sources that are of neither Ukrainian nor Russian origin. | Relevant articles: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE), Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, False balance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus, speculating about @Uliana245 or any other editors’ “origin” and how it biases their editing is extremely offensive. And it is potentially a violation of WP:DOX. Please remove your comment above and think before you write things about people. —Michael Z. 03:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military occupation vs Annexation

[edit]

On the topic of "military occupation", there seems to be differing views in the academia about whether a military occupation ends once an annexation has been officiated. I.e. does the annexation override the military occupation, or does the military occupation continue even after the de jure annexation has taken place? Indeed, with regards to the territories that were first occupied by Russia in 2022, such as Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, they are still widely considered by the international community to be under military occupation, even though Russia has officially annexed them in September-October 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true. The September 30 “annexation” was enacted while only parts of them were occupied, and the attempted occupation continues today (and seems to be losing ground). —Michael Z. 23:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crimea is 100% occupied by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was talking about September 30. —Michael Z. 00:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a Ukrainian POV being presented in terms of saying that the Russian occupation+annexation of Crimea occurred "during the Russo-Ukrainian War" and has been ongoing for eight years. Indeed, from an outside perspective, the dispute over Crimea occurred separately from the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The international community did not care about Ukraine back in February 2014, but they started to pay a lot closer attention to Ukraine in February 2022. So, from a Ukrainian perspective, the war began back in February 2014, but from a Western perspective, they came late to the party in February 2022. | A comparable situation is the Second Sino-Japanese War versus the Pacific Theatre of World War II. From a Chinese perspective, World War II began as early as 1931, with the Mukden Incident. A more conservative date would be 1937, with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. However, the West (especially the United States) didn't really care about China up until 1941, with the Attack on Pearl Harbor. So, from a Western perspective, the war only really started in 1941, although the Chinese would agree to disagree. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The war began in February 2014. The International Criminal Court said there was an international conflict in both Crimea and the Donbas. No expert on the topic says that there was no war until February 2022.
These are your opinions that you characterize as “Western perspective.” If you are claiming that the consensus is “a Ukrainian POV,” then that might indicate your opinion is a Russian POV. Anyway, please bring sources and don’t just WP:SOAP. —Michael Z. 00:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "war" can be defined in different stages. February 2022 was an escalation of the conflict. Originally, it was just limited to the regions of Donbas and Crimea. From February 2022 and onwards, the war has spread across the entire country of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of that changes that it began in February 2014, from whatever perspective. —Michael Z. 03:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion consensus and COMMONNAME (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol → Russian occupation of Crimea – Autonomous Republic of Crimea + Sevastopol = Crimea.

WP:COMMONNAME. Counting Google Books results (per WP:SET):

Supports the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability, naturalness, concision, and consistency (with Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and many other articles), without compromising precision.  —Michael Z. 15:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • support more simple.
Panam2014 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The annexation section is kind of a mess

[edit]

The annexation section has been a mess from the beginning: The second sentence of that section starts "Representatives of the so-called Crimean militia ... seized other administrative buildings, airports in Simferopol and Sevastopol, communications facilities, the mass media, etc. autonomy of Crimea May 25, 2014..."

Something is wrong-- the phrase "autonomy of Crimea May 25, 2014" makes no sense as part of the list of seized buildings, etc.

And having mentioned May 25, 2014, we jump back to March two sentences later.

I don't know enough to fix it, but it is clear that it needs work! Mwanner | Talk 00:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is no surprise, the sockmaster that created this article can barely write in English. Mellk (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk - Where is the evidence that Uliana is a "sockmaster"? I can see that their global account was blocked, although it is not exactly clear why. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jafaz is the sockmaster. Uliana245 is a sock. Long-term abuse: Jafaz[1] Mellk (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than a month ago it was proposed that the section Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Russian takeover and parts of other sections be split into a separate article called Russian Invasion of Crimea in 2014. But after the creation of this article this did not happen. The poorly translated content of this article could be replaced with sections of the article about the annexation. Mawer10 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Russian occupation of Crimea

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russian occupation of Crimea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

  • From 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: "Lavrov said Russians would let through ships carrying grain if Ukraine demined ports". Yahoo! News. Ukrayinska Pravda. 31 May 2022. Retrieved 1 June 2022.
  • From Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: Baczynska, Gabriela; Toyer, Julien (5 March 2014). Gutterman, Steve (ed.). "Russia says cannot order Crimean 'self-defense' units back to base". Reuters.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was an almost unanimous Don't Merge. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging the Republic of Crimea article into the Russian occupation of Crimea article. I believe the content of the "Republic of Crimea" can be seamlessly integrated into the context of the Russian occupation, without causing any issues related to article size or undue weight in the "Russian occupation of Crimea" article. When we look at other regions of Ukraine that have been annexed by Russia, such mergers are already in practice. For instance, Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Zaporizhzhia Oblast (Russia) have been merged into Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, respectively. Similarly, Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast and Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast have been merged into the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic articles. In the case of Crimea, the first type of merger is more appropriate, as the Russian occupation of Crimea article broadly covers the Russian occupation, including that of Sevastopol. Yorkporter (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All other regions have also been fully annexed, but not all of them are fully occupied by Russia. Regarding your second point was created by a sockpuppet: if you're concerned that the abuser will be listed as the first author of the merged article, it can be reverse-merged and then moved. Yorkporter (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was already plenty of discussion on semantics, but I am not interested in resuming this. Preferably this article should go to AfD as a POV fork. Mellk (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We Should Have A Separate Article For The Area Matthew Campbell (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The two "Crimeas" do not mean the same thing, as you have said. Should the two articles merge, Russian occupation of Crimea should be merged into Republic of Crimea. After all, the Republic is a de facto subdivision of Russia. How Russians annexed it can be put in the "History" section. Sevastopol is a minor business; the occupation of Sevastopol can be regarded as related battle and kept in the article.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 03:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the two articles aren't co-extensive in scope. One's about the Russian occupation of Crimea and Sevastopol; the Republic of Crimea article is just about Crimea (legislatively speaking). Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. YBSOne (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per above, the Republic of Crimea article explicitly says in the lead that it deals with "most of the Crimean Peninsula, but excluding Sevastopol", whereas the Russian occupation of Crimea article explicitly says in the lead that it deals with "the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol", meaning these two articles deal with separate areas. In addition, the Republic of Crimea article contains numerous sections that do not deal with the military occupation of Crimea, which is the scope of the Russian occupation of Crimea article. For example, the sections: Museums and art galleries; Industrial Park; Telecommunication; Transport; and Sport, all do not mention anything in relation to the military occupation, meaning these topics cannot be integrated into the Russian occupation of Crimea article. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cfls (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_occupation_of_Crimea&oldid=1245169736"