Wikipedia

Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea/Archive 2

< Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Latest comment: 10 years ago by 2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 in topic This article is now outdated and needs urgent attention
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Why exactly was Crimea transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article mentions the fact, but I think the reason behind it should be included. -- megA (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

See History_of_Crimea#Post-war_Soviet_history Hcobb (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! -- megA (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What will happen in March, 2014 ?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As history evolves, this article can also record what happens (sooner or later) as Russia moves to take over the peninsula.

Headlines: "Leader Asks for Help" & "Prime Minister: Ukraine on Brink of Disaster"

  • Online WSJ: [1] (48 min ago)

"Arsenic Kenyatta said that Ukraine was "on the brink of disaster" and blamed Russia's Putin for bringing the two nations to the verge of war. He called on the international community to rein in Putin." — "Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Sunday that his country was "on the brink of disaster" and personally blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for bringing the two nations to the verge of war. Speaking to reporters at the Ukrainian parliament, Mr. Yatsenyuk called on the international community to rein in Mr. Putin and pressure him to remove troops from the Crimean peninsula, where a majority of residents are ethnic Russians but have Ukrainian passports."
— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Crima parliament have made a statement saying that from today Crimea is part of russia should the page be changed to reflect this?

Crimea/Crimean peninsula

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I just got Redirected from Crimean Peninsula, suggesting that this would tell about the peninsula. However, even the map excludes Sevastopol, which is on the peninsula, but does not belong to the republic.
It appears that most of the lead and history are about the peninsula, but otherwise article seems to deal with the republic. 85.217.15.230 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, this merger is 100% wrong. The lead talks both about Crimea and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as if it were one thing. But nearly all other languages have a separate article about the peninsula vs. the autonomous republic.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:C48C:FCD4:9EEE:A0EE (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it would/could/should be done like Ireland/Republic of Ireland, where the republic and the island are usually called both "Ireland".
Hey, I just noticed you said "merger". So there have been separate articles for them? 85.217.15.230 (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but they were merged a very long time ago - the label above says September 2004.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:C48C:FCD4:9EEE:A0EE (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, I never noticed that until now. 85.217.15.230 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Give more stats on religions.

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you click on 'Reader comment' at the top of the article here (or the TALK here) you will see just one reader comment from a day ago:

  • "Give more stats on religions."

What is the status of giving a breakdown of statistics on the demographics of religion? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 
Crimean Tatar population in 2001
Religion goes with nationality for the most part. Info box: Ethnic groups (2001) - 58.32% Russian, 24.32% Ukrainian, 12.10% Crimean Tatars. Russian and Ukrainian population is Eastern Orthodox Church, Tatars follow Sunni Islam. See the map of Tatars in Crimea. However, since religion is not mentioned in the article, that should tell you how important religion is to the people who live there. It's not. This is a post Soviet region where religion was allowed only recently. USchick (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible deletion (hasty writing)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Currently, the last statement of the current crisis (or what to call it) is

"As of March 3, the head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet gave Ukraine a deadline of dawn on the 4th to surrender their control of the Crimea, or face an assault by Russian troops occupying the area. [50]. However, Interfax news agency later quoted a fleet spokesman who denied that any ultimatum had been issued. [51]"

But the entire deadline-thing seems to have been rumours only. Of course even rumours may be vital at occations. But Wikipedia shall not be a newspaper. Perhaps these rows was written a bit too hasty ? And that the centances really will stand for a longer time, seems unlikely to me. But I put it to You all. 83.249.162.90 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, written by Boeing720 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe KGB-Communist Putin or his spokesman when they say they are not lying? UK Telegraph chronicles it all [2] I do not mind waiting, but remember, the Russian army has the Ukrainian army under lock and key, they are barricaded in. Nothing hasty is needed — (just wait three hours) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in following and contributing to the following two new Wikipedia articles:

Some day after 'things resolve' these two article might be merged, but not now, IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — (In My Opinion)

To Charles Edwin Shipp. I fail to see what connection there is between Daily/Sunday Telegraph as a very reputable source and Putin. If the newspaper cites Putin is just giving him opportunity to give his version, just as I'm sure of that f.i. Kerry or Obama are cited aswell. Do You really suggest that the Telegraph is taking Putin's side ? But anyway Wikipedia shall not be a news agency, hence history-wrighting of the current events ought to be limited. And a minimum time between news and wrighting about it here, should be atleast 48 hours. Both in order to avoid edit warring and to ensure true facts. And above all keep the NPOV in mind. People with strong feelings of this subject should avoid editing even far longer than the 48 hour. If not then the article must be reverted one week and locked. But in my mind that would be a failure for Wikipedia. I myself have not edited anything about the current situation, by the way. Boeing720 (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine 6th March

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At 6th March, Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote "The State Department in Washington has a top ten list of falsehoods published, broadcast by the Russian President from an American perspective. It is a document of mistrust - which also shows how great is the fear of the United States from defeat in the propaganda war" (Org German. Das Außenministerium in Washington hat eine Liste der zehn größten Unwahrheiten veröffentlicht, die der russische Präsident aus amerikanischer Sicht verbreitet. Sie ist ein Dokument des Misstrauens – das auch zeigt, wie groß die Furcht der Vereinigten Staaten vor einer Niederlage im Propaganda-Krieg ist.) [1]. Anyone that believe that the government of United States only tells the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth ? Boeing720 (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

THIS IS PROPOGANDA AND THIS WHOLE PAGE SHOULD BE LOCKED TO PREVENT ABUSE BY EITHER SIDE UNTIL THE SITUATION IS SETTLED... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottThinks (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. This is bullshit, where is Wikipedia going with this level of standard? Where did you find anything else than allegations that "Russian" soldiers occupied buildings? 60% of Crimea speaks russian... This has to be removed this is false information and polution of the Internet.bclabots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.74.46 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Facts are facts and the past is settled. WP standards are to include multiple reliable sources, there are many. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should decide what the article here should say before we start adding what has happened:

History is moving fast. Maybe we should document the 'propaganda'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

    • I'm not really sure of what user ScottThinks reffers to, but Wikipedia shall not be a newspaper. Reguarding American Fox News, this cannot possibly be anything else than very unreliable, subjective and often pure propaganda. Better sources (in general) are f.i. British Telegraph and Guardian aswell as the BBC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk/

or German Frankfurter Allgemeinde (now available in English aswell)

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/source-profile/555-frankfurter-allgemeine-zeitung or French Le Monde (also available in English)
http://mondediplo.com/.

All indeed very well-known and reliable sources. But I would recommend to wait a few days before making edits. Boeing720 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is now Russia.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

in the 5th of march, Crimean parlamient declare the inthependence of Ukraine and the integration in the russian federation. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.133.236 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The international community has widely condemned

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&action=historysubmit&diff=598419799&oldid=598419510

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-ukraine-russia-crimea-standoff-20140305,0,7943627.story

Exact phrase used by running dog capitalistic lackey imperialist puppet, so can we at least credit the term to Ms. Williams? Hcobb (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Greek castles?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"as well as picturesque ancient Greek and medieval castles."

I do not believe the ancient Greeks built castles. GeneCallahan (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Castles are not a uniquely Medieval idea. Fortresses and Redoubts were around back then and still are now.--74.95.177.147 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The map and the names of the localities are not properly superimposed in the "geography" section. As so many will consult the page, somebody needs to fix this immediately so that the locations (the so-called extreme points) show properly on the map in the section not separately werldwayd (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion
RESOLVED:

Given that the consensus is to split, I've put Crimean peninsula back to its original (non-redirect) state so that it can be split. -- Fuzheado

The following discussion 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.
 
Republic of Crimea
 
Peninsula of Crimea

The peninsula of Crimea is the entire area. The Republic excludes Sevastopol (the tip on the left). The maps need to be reversed, but I din't want to do it without discussion in case I'm wrong about something. USchick (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. You're right, but it should be noted that the infobox has the title Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the map shows just that. Though it was discussed above, and maybe republic and peninsula should have separate articles.
Just checking: Finnish wiki has separate articles, and its peninsula article points to 94 other-language articles, including this. While its republic article points to 30 other-language articles, but none here. 85.217.15.230 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is very confusing, especially since the article goes back and forth about the peninsula and the republic. It's like a foreigner dumped a bunch of information together because it's "all the same over there somewhere." Not very encyclopedic. USchick (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So there was a separate article for the republic earlier today, but then it got moved? Was there a discussion? USchick (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Just my two hryvnias worth—this split is long overdue. Mixing up a political and a geographical entity on one page never yields in anything but confusion in the long run. A good analogy is Kamchatka in Russia—Kamchatka Peninsula, a geographical entity, is separate from Kamchatka Krai, a political entity (which is further separate from Kamchatka Oblast, a historical political entity), even though all three concepts share the same territory. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 6, 2014; 13:09 (UTC)
  • Support the gist anyway; I'm not familiar with the facts but agree there should be separate articles for the peninsula and the republic if indeed the maps are not a perfect match. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Similar to Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the peninsula and the autonomous republic are two different things, as Sevastopol is located on the peninsula of Crimea. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support 3bdulelah (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this is about whether the Ukrainian government recognizes the current government in Ukraine, that does not mean that the Ukrainian government does not accept the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, rather it does not accept the current government in power. Provide sources that the Ukrainian government no longer recognizes the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as an entity as being associated with Crimea, and then maybe I could change my mind. We call the People's Republic of China, "China" even though it does not include Taiwan and other small coastal islands held by the Republic of China that is called "Taiwan". People referring to the government in the Autonomous Republic are regularly referring to it as "Crimea" or the "Crimean government" - including in Western press. Even the Kyiv Post calls the parliament the "Crimean parliament" not the "parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" ([3]).--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    Umm, what does the current political situation have to do with separating geographical material from political/administrative information? China is neither a peninsula like Crimea (or Kamchatka) nor even a distinct region like Tibet. And it really doesn't matter what political entity/entities currently exist/s on the territory of the peninsula—indeed, that the political situation may change makes separating geographical aspect into a separate article even more compelling! We already have separate articles for all political entities which preceded the current autonomous republic, yet it is the current republic that does not have an article of its own. That's not logical at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 6, 2014; 18:23 (UTC)
  • Support — There should be different articles for the peninsula and the political entity. By the way, even leaving Sevastopol aside, the territorial scope of the two differs; while Arabat Spit is part of the peninsula, its northern portion is part of Kherson Oblast. Apcbg (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Ezhiki. But we have to make sure that this is done in a structured way, so as to not have the same information on both pages.   DDima 20:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment:. I closed this discussion as a non-admin but reopened since some people believe we should not split the article. Let's let it run for several days and let an admin properly close it afterwards. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support In other languages the articles are separate. In English, this article reads like it was written by a foreigner who has no idea what the difference is, and doesn't care, because "it's all the same over there somewhere." USchick (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose All proposals so far have been duplication. Wikipedia:Merging notes a large overlap is reason to merge article, and as it stands no-one has been able to explain how the proposed split articles would not be duplications of each other, either here or in the discussion at Talk:Crimea/Archive 1#Requested move 2013 (made during a much calmer period), and all attempts to create a separate article so far have covered the same topic area that this article does. The examples given, Kamchatka Peninsula and Kamchatka Krai, demonstrate the issue, being two half-articles. Kamchatka Peninsula doesn't include any political information other than the link to Kamchatka Krai. Kamchatka Krai doesn't cover geography at all. Creating half-articles does not help readers understand the subjects in question. Furthermore we have subarticles covering a good deal of further information, such as History of Crimea and Demographics of Crimea, which would be almost identical for both articles as well. An article covering just the political side of the Autonomous Republic would duplicate Politics of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. I could see a possible split (sort of) if a Crimean peninsula covered just Geography, but in that case it would take the place as a main article in lieu of an article under the title Geography of Crimea (currently a redirect) or something similar, rather than being a split from this article. CMD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if they are similar at this time. Wikipedia evolves and as time passes by each article will gain its own identity. It is very very important that we distinguish the two subjects as Sevastopol is not part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (a national subdivision) but is part of the Crimean peninsula (a mass of land). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If no-one can say how they will gain their own identity, there's no reason to assume they will, especially with the very high degree of overlap. The Sevastopol situation is explained in the prose, and isn't further elucidated by having two highly overlapping articles. CMD (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no reason to assume they will not either. Wikipedia works through bold editing where changes don't need to be justified before implementing them as you imply. Furthermore, overlapping information is fine as long as the subjects are intrinsically distinct which happens to be the case for the peninsula and its subdivisions. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (made at the same time as the above) There is currently an RM on this talkpage covering very similar ground. Given that it has the RM tag, I suspect many are going to post there rather than here. This conversation should probably be merged with the RM. CMD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I reverted back in line with the consensus that was formed in 2013, the last time this matter was raised, and in line with the longstanding situation before that. CMD (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change (see WP:CCC) proof of that is this very same discussion. The last time this matter was discussed was on January 2013, in which you were involved, and in which the parts involved didn't reach a consensus (see Talk:Crimea/Archive 1#Other articles). The discussions you are referring to were about renaming articles, not about splitting the subjects into two different standalone articles. Once more, I encourage you to revert back the redirect to a stand alone article as this discussion has clearly demonstrated a consensus towards a split. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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.

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion
NO ACTION
(1) Consensus against move. (2) The discussion about splitting the article doesn't appear to be over yet. The split has been reverted by a user. Discussion about renaming original and split articles should be done after the discussion about splitting the article is complete.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This article is about the republic, not the peninsula. Usually, not the republic but the peninsula is simply called Crimea/Крим/Крым/Qırım, so the article about the Crimean peninsula should be moved to Crimea. Just take a look at the lemmas of the peninsula and the republic in other languages. Komischn (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Per nom. As an example, most sources don't make a distinction between "Crimea" and "Sevastopol" as wholly separate geopolitical entities. "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" is unambiguous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (strongly). Although it is true that "Crimea" refers to the peninsula in Ukrainian and Russian, this is the English Wikipedia. In English media "Crimea" always refers to the republic. When English media refers to the peninsula they explicitly state "Crimean peninsula".
Examples where the republic is called simply as "Crimea" by English media:
  1. CNN: [4]
  2. Reuters: [5]
  3. The Wall Street Journal: [6]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [7]
  2. Fox News: [8]
  3. The Huffington Post: [9]
Therefore, based on WP:EN, it is my opinion that what is best for the English Wikipedia is NOT to move the articles and leave them where they currently reside.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh,... History of Crimea isn't a redlink as expected, there's a substantial article. Another reason to have a dab - a lot of history links to the geography or modern (does modern start from "On March 21, 1918, the Sovnarkom proclaimed the formation of the Soviet Republic of the Crimea"?) Crimea should be heading for the History of Crimea not the current republic. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any Crimean Peninsula article will be almost a complete duplication of this page. It'll cover history, geography, demographics, economy, etc. in almost the exact same way this page will. The alternative would be duplicating a subarticle, say a potential Geography of Crimea. The only difference would be politics and sevastopol, which is easily dealt with notes in the prose of this page. As for a separate article on just the political period in question, these aren't usually created until after that period ends, so the topic scope is clear. CMD (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The geographical entity should definitely have an article separate from the political entity (per consensus in the "Split" section above), and I agree with In ictu oculi that "Crimea" should be a disambiguation page. Some moving around will thus be necessary, but not necessarily in a way that's suggested by the nom. As for "duplication" concerns, if the articles are split properly, the duplication will be minimal. Doing things this way is not that unusual: wit Kamchatka Peninsula vs. Kamchatka Krai, Tibet vs. Tibet Autonomous Region, or Kola Peninsula vs. Murmansk Oblast. Political entities change and evolve, but the geographical core remains largely the same (and shouldn't be tossed around every time political status changes).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2014; 13:46 (UTC)
Would the geographical core not be covered by a potential geography and other similar subarticles? How would the article split so as to not duplicate the scope of this one? CMD (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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.

Greek castles?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"as well as picturesque ancient Greek and medieval castles."

I do not believe the ancient Greeks built castles. GeneCallahan (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Castles are not a uniquely Medieval idea. Fortresses and Redoubts were around back then and still are now.--74.95.177.147 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The map and the names of the localities are not properly superimposed in the "geography" section. As so many will consult the page, somebody needs to fix this immediately so that the locations (the so-called extreme points) show properly on the map in the section not separately werldwayd (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion
RESOLVED:

Given that the consensus is to split, I've put Crimean peninsula back to its original (non-redirect) state so that it can be split. -- Fuzheado

The following discussion 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.
 
Republic of Crimea
 
Peninsula of Crimea

The peninsula of Crimea is the entire area. The Republic excludes Sevastopol (the tip on the left). The maps need to be reversed, but I din't want to do it without discussion in case I'm wrong about something. USchick (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. You're right, but it should be noted that the infobox has the title Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the map shows just that. Though it was discussed above, and maybe republic and peninsula should have separate articles.
Just checking: Finnish wiki has separate articles, and its peninsula article points to 94 other-language articles, including this. While its republic article points to 30 other-language articles, but none here. 85.217.15.230 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is very confusing, especially since the article goes back and forth about the peninsula and the republic. It's like a foreigner dumped a bunch of information together because it's "all the same over there somewhere." Not very encyclopedic. USchick (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So there was a separate article for the republic earlier today, but then it got moved? Was there a discussion? USchick (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Just my two hryvnias worth—this split is long overdue. Mixing up a political and a geographical entity on one page never yields in anything but confusion in the long run. A good analogy is Kamchatka in Russia—Kamchatka Peninsula, a geographical entity, is separate from Kamchatka Krai, a political entity (which is further separate from Kamchatka Oblast, a historical political entity), even though all three concepts share the same territory. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 6, 2014; 13:09 (UTC)
  • Support the gist anyway; I'm not familiar with the facts but agree there should be separate articles for the peninsula and the republic if indeed the maps are not a perfect match. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Similar to Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the peninsula and the autonomous republic are two different things, as Sevastopol is located on the peninsula of Crimea. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support 3bdulelah (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this is about whether the Ukrainian government recognizes the current government in Ukraine, that does not mean that the Ukrainian government does not accept the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, rather it does not accept the current government in power. Provide sources that the Ukrainian government no longer recognizes the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as an entity as being associated with Crimea, and then maybe I could change my mind. We call the People's Republic of China, "China" even though it does not include Taiwan and other small coastal islands held by the Republic of China that is called "Taiwan". People referring to the government in the Autonomous Republic are regularly referring to it as "Crimea" or the "Crimean government" - including in Western press. Even the Kyiv Post calls the parliament the "Crimean parliament" not the "parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" ([10]).--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    Umm, what does the current political situation have to do with separating geographical material from political/administrative information? China is neither a peninsula like Crimea (or Kamchatka) nor even a distinct region like Tibet. And it really doesn't matter what political entity/entities currently exist/s on the territory of the peninsula—indeed, that the political situation may change makes separating geographical aspect into a separate article even more compelling! We already have separate articles for all political entities which preceded the current autonomous republic, yet it is the current republic that does not have an article of its own. That's not logical at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 6, 2014; 18:23 (UTC)
  • Support — There should be different articles for the peninsula and the political entity. By the way, even leaving Sevastopol aside, the territorial scope of the two differs; while Arabat Spit is part of the peninsula, its northern portion is part of Kherson Oblast. Apcbg (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Ezhiki. But we have to make sure that this is done in a structured way, so as to not have the same information on both pages.   DDima 20:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment:. I closed this discussion as a non-admin but reopened since some people believe we should not split the article. Let's let it run for several days and let an admin properly close it afterwards. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support In other languages the articles are separate. In English, this article reads like it was written by a foreigner who has no idea what the difference is, and doesn't care, because "it's all the same over there somewhere." USchick (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose All proposals so far have been duplication. Wikipedia:Merging notes a large overlap is reason to merge article, and as it stands no-one has been able to explain how the proposed split articles would not be duplications of each other, either here or in the discussion at Talk:Crimea/Archive 1#Requested move 2013 (made during a much calmer period), and all attempts to create a separate article so far have covered the same topic area that this article does. The examples given, Kamchatka Peninsula and Kamchatka Krai, demonstrate the issue, being two half-articles. Kamchatka Peninsula doesn't include any political information other than the link to Kamchatka Krai. Kamchatka Krai doesn't cover geography at all. Creating half-articles does not help readers understand the subjects in question. Furthermore we have subarticles covering a good deal of further information, such as History of Crimea and Demographics of Crimea, which would be almost identical for both articles as well. An article covering just the political side of the Autonomous Republic would duplicate Politics of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. I could see a possible split (sort of) if a Crimean peninsula covered just Geography, but in that case it would take the place as a main article in lieu of an article under the title Geography of Crimea (currently a redirect) or something similar, rather than being a split from this article. CMD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if they are similar at this time. Wikipedia evolves and as time passes by each article will gain its own identity. It is very very important that we distinguish the two subjects as Sevastopol is not part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (a national subdivision) but is part of the Crimean peninsula (a mass of land). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If no-one can say how they will gain their own identity, there's no reason to assume they will, especially with the very high degree of overlap. The Sevastopol situation is explained in the prose, and isn't further elucidated by having two highly overlapping articles. CMD (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no reason to assume they will not either. Wikipedia works through bold editing where changes don't need to be justified before implementing them as you imply. Furthermore, overlapping information is fine as long as the subjects are intrinsically distinct which happens to be the case for the peninsula and its subdivisions. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (made at the same time as the above) There is currently an RM on this talkpage covering very similar ground. Given that it has the RM tag, I suspect many are going to post there rather than here. This conversation should probably be merged with the RM. CMD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I reverted back in line with the consensus that was formed in 2013, the last time this matter was raised, and in line with the longstanding situation before that. CMD (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change (see WP:CCC) proof of that is this very same discussion. The last time this matter was discussed was on January 2013, in which you were involved, and in which the parts involved didn't reach a consensus (see Talk:Crimea/Archive 1#Other articles). The discussions you are referring to were about renaming articles, not about splitting the subjects into two different standalone articles. Once more, I encourage you to revert back the redirect to a stand alone article as this discussion has clearly demonstrated a consensus towards a split. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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.

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion
NO ACTION
(1) Consensus against move. (2) The discussion about splitting the article doesn't appear to be over yet. The split has been reverted by a user. Discussion about renaming original and split articles should be done after the discussion about splitting the article is complete.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This article is about the republic, not the peninsula. Usually, not the republic but the peninsula is simply called Crimea/Крим/Крым/Qırım, so the article about the Crimean peninsula should be moved to Crimea. Just take a look at the lemmas of the peninsula and the republic in other languages. Komischn (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Per nom. As an example, most sources don't make a distinction between "Crimea" and "Sevastopol" as wholly separate geopolitical entities. "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" is unambiguous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (strongly). Although it is true that "Crimea" refers to the peninsula in Ukrainian and Russian, this is the English Wikipedia. In English media "Crimea" always refers to the republic. When English media refers to the peninsula they explicitly state "Crimean peninsula".
Examples where the republic is called simply as "Crimea" by English media:
  1. CNN: [11]
  2. Reuters: [12]
  3. The Wall Street Journal: [13]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [14]
  2. Fox News: [15]
  3. The Huffington Post: [16]
Therefore, based on WP:EN, it is my opinion that what is best for the English Wikipedia is NOT to move the articles and leave them where they currently reside.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh,... History of Crimea isn't a redlink as expected, there's a substantial article. Another reason to have a dab - a lot of history links to the geography or modern (does modern start from "On March 21, 1918, the Sovnarkom proclaimed the formation of the Soviet Republic of the Crimea"?) Crimea should be heading for the History of Crimea not the current republic. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any Crimean Peninsula article will be almost a complete duplication of this page. It'll cover history, geography, demographics, economy, etc. in almost the exact same way this page will. The alternative would be duplicating a subarticle, say a potential Geography of Crimea. The only difference would be politics and sevastopol, which is easily dealt with notes in the prose of this page. As for a separate article on just the political period in question, these aren't usually created until after that period ends, so the topic scope is clear. CMD (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The geographical entity should definitely have an article separate from the political entity (per consensus in the "Split" section above), and I agree with In ictu oculi that "Crimea" should be a disambiguation page. Some moving around will thus be necessary, but not necessarily in a way that's suggested by the nom. As for "duplication" concerns, if the articles are split properly, the duplication will be minimal. Doing things this way is not that unusual: wit Kamchatka Peninsula vs. Kamchatka Krai, Tibet vs. Tibet Autonomous Region, or Kola Peninsula vs. Murmansk Oblast. Political entities change and evolve, but the geographical core remains largely the same (and shouldn't be tossed around every time political status changes).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2014; 13:46 (UTC)
Would the geographical core not be covered by a potential geography and other similar subarticles? How would the article split so as to not duplicate the scope of this one? CMD (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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"? In title?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

why? 174.19.174.204 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Somebody moved the article. We are trying to fix it but Wikipedia's server are extremely slow at the moment. Just sit tight and everything should be back to normal in a couple of hours. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimea is very commonly still called in English "The Crimea". That has been noticeable in news coverage in recent weeks. The statement that "Crimea was often referred to with the definite article, as the Crimea, until well into the 20th century" is incorrect.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems like Ukraine and Crimea have only recently lost the definite article. i.e. since the recent media attention. Maybe it's because slavic languages don't use them?1812ahill (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea etymology

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think what you write as etymology in Crimea is wrong. You insist that it may derive from the kirim word. But "ea" in the end of the word clearly depicts that "Crimea" comes from Ancient Greek, because "ea" is the ancient greek suffix for female toponyms. So, if it comes from Old Turkish, it shouldn't have a suffix at all. I propose that Crimea comes from the ancient greek word "Κρημναια" (Crimnea), which means in ancient greek: "Land of the cliffs". So, eventually "Crimnea" became "Crimea", more simple. This is my theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.108.163.61 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea as a "gift".

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This article states that Crimea was a "symbolic gift". In fact, when Ukraine was saddled with Crimea, it received a rock with no water or infrastructure, but arable habitable land were taken from Ukrainian territory on the east, and added to Russia. Russia received Ukrainian territory, thrice the size of Crimea. Ukrainian Wikipedia talks about it: [17] Yet, English Wikipedia is pending out that Crimea is some kind of a "gift". I find this racially offensive. I think that it's done on purpose to create tensions and racial hatred towards Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrancisici (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it factually correct and NPOV to state it was a "gift"? JDanek007Talk 03:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Should the tag for {{misleading}} be appended/applied? Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Misleading JDanek007Talk 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Afrancisici, as far as I can recall some parts of Sumy Oblast and Harkiv Oblast were transferred from Ukraine to Russia in 1954, but do you have any sources confirming that their surface area was comparable to that of Crimea or indeed "thrice the size of Crimea" as you claim? Apcbg (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This got me interested. Now, I don't have a reliable source explicitly comparing the territories transferred back and forth, but here is some original research (this is just to satisfy the curiosity of others; it obviously does not qualify for inclusion into any articles).
According to the 1947 reference book "Украïнська РСР. Адмiнiстративно-територiальний подiл", the area of Sumy Oblast was 24,400 km2 and the area of Kharkov Oblast was 51,300 km2. This is before the 1954 transfers, obviously. The 1979 reference book "Украинская ССР. Административно-территориальное деление" (after the transfers) gives the area of 23,800 km2 for Sumy Oblast and 31,400 km2 for Kharkov Oblast; the total decrease of (24,400-23,800)+(51,300-31,400)=20,500 km2. The same 1979 book gives the area of Crimean Oblast at 27,000 km2. Is this, in raw numbers, a comparable exchange? Pretty much. Was the territory taken from Ukraine "thrice the area of Crimea"? Hardly (but I'm assuming that Sumy and Kharkov Oblasts were the only ones in play, of course). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2014; 13:26 (UTC)
Dear Ëzhiki, many thanks for your thoughtful posting; it helps indeed. Best, Apcbg (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the Current Event Banner be applied?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Seems to me the {{Current related}} banner should be applied to this page. No?

I think under the current circumstances yes it should. So I'll do so and if someone feels that it shouldn't please discuss it here on this talk page first before making any changes. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Strongly support to apply the banner. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I am perhaps too bold but after having checked the Web traffic on this page I am even more convinced. I apply the banner. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  DoneIt has been previously removed, but I restored it as Crimea is prominently displayed on the current events portal today...--Truther2012 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is blank

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I cannot open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea, it's completely blank. All other wiki pages are fine. 206.116.78.104 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution won't display either. Tested on latest Firefox & IE, Win8.1. 206.116.78.104 (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Both of them work for me just fine, using Firefox on Windows XP. Savemonkeys0 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Article works just fine for me (Iceweasel, Kali linux 1.06) and also with Android 4.12 and Firefox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean independence

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Can't be illegal as much as lgbts in majority Muslim or Christians community which hates lgbts has no right to stop them. Any state can secede and or. Join a larger state. There are seceded countries like Singapore which are smaller that seceded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.168.103 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

On March 11, the Crimean parliament declared itself the Republic of Crimea, independent of Ukraine. (RT)

~CalAvery (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is still a disputed declaration of independence, so let's wait a little before changing names in infoboxes. A.h. king • Talk to me! 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The information in the article needs to change because the article is outdated, "Crimea" no longer automatically refers to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", it is now being used to refer to "Republic of Crimea". Republic of Kosovo is another example of a disputed declaration of independence. The Kosovo article provides an example of how to address the issue, have an infobox that makes no national claims about Crimea, while having an article on the Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (assuming that the Ukrainian government still claims that such an entity legally exists on paper).--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the disputes of recognition that are occurring, it may be best to have this article focus on the Crimean Peninsula with the Crimean Peninsula article redirecting to "Crimea". While separate articles exist for the Republic of Crimea and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  Note: they have not declared themselves independent. They only adopted a bill where they show their intention to declare themselves independent if-and-only-if the people approve to do so through the upcoming referendum. Here are your sources: Al Jazeera, Euronews, Associated Press This is why RT should never EVER be considered a reliable source. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

WRONG. Wikipedia should not choose which media sources are "reliable" and which are not. If there are 2 sides in conflict, the biggest mistake would be to consider the media of one involved side "reliable", the media of of other involved side "invalid"... Your choosing of media sources (which is reliable and which not) clearly shows that you share the view of one side and want to inforce it to Wikipedia, which shoud remain neutral, reliable ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop being so personal - saying "Here are your sources" - and yelling in caps, all you needed to do was say it was incorrect and show the sources that demonstrate that it is incorrect.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This declaration is a so-called 'delayed status' (similar to Gagauzian independence in case Moldova lose it's independence) - it will only effect in independent state (which will thereafter apply for membership in Russia per art. 3 of the Declaration) only if the Crimean referendum, 2014 passes first (Russian federal subject) option as a result:
"1. В случае если в результате предстоящего 16 марта 2014 года прямого волеизъявления народов Крыма будет принято решение о вхождении Крыма, включая Автономную Республику Крым и город Севастополь, в состав России, Крым после референдума будет объявлен независимым и суверенным государством с республиканской формой правления.". Note bold words (and wait for a referendum). Seryo93 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Future of this article

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Since the move of this article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea got rejected, I wonder what will be the future of this article? Because the Autonomous Republic of Crimea will soon cease to exist - it will join with Sevastopol and together become a federal subject of Russia. Without renaming, people who want to know something about Crimea will be directed to an article about a subdivision that de facto no longer exists.

Why not make it the same as in other Wikipedias? The article about "Crimea" should deal with the peninsula, not with a subdivision that was created only in 1991! Who cares if the media use it? It's factually absolutely incorrect and it isn't in accordance with contemporary English usage of the word either - when we talk about Crimea in the context of the Crimean war, we always mean the peninsula. That goes for most other contexts as well. -2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:29CE:978A:72E:36A2 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The move request was only rejected because the request was submitted before the poll on splitting the article had been closed. Now that the consensus to split the article has been reached, all that we are waiting for is someone's willingness to put time into making sure that the Crimean peninsula, the Republic of Crimea, and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (yet to be started) articles are properly organized and include appropriate sections from this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2014; 19:49 (UTC)
There's written that it was also rejected because there was a consensus against move.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:29CE:978A:72E:36A2 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be about the Crimean peninsula and that the article titled "Crimean peninsula" be merged to here while content on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be in an article of its name.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The Kosovo article shows a way to handle the competing claims - it is about the region of Kosovo while two articles exist for the two legal entities claiming it - the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (this entity now exists only in name but is still recognized by Serbia). Ukraine may not abandon claim to the existence of an Autonomous Republic of Crimea, but rather claim that its government was usurped by pro-Russian separatists. So legally-speaking that entity could exist for some years like the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

August 1992 referendum

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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#August 2nd, 1992 referendum. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is now outdated and needs urgent attention

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The 16 March referendum accepted the secession from Ukraine of what is now titled the Republic of Crimea. There is no acting government in Crimea that currently represents the Autonomous Republic of Crimea because they recognize the new Republic of Crimea. Probably Ukraine and the Presidential Representative of AR Crimea still loyal to Ukraine, and international supporters recognize the Autonomous Republic's continued de jure existence. However it is de facto no longer existing.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To avoid NPOV disputes over claims of legitimacy of control over Crimea given now that it is disputed territory, I strongly believe that this article should be about the Crimean peninsula as a region while an article on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be created. The article on the Crimean peninsula should be merged here, while content on the Autonomous Republic should be merged to an article titled: Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The article on Kosovo, a similarly disputed region, talks about the region and doesn't legitimize either claims by the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia to it - that is a good model for an article on Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that. It seems no end to this territorial dispute is in sight, so it would be prudent to take this action now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Just do it already, for god's sake. Anyone.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.faz.net/
  2. ^ http://www.publico.es/internacional/506200/el-parlamento-de-crimea-aprueba-por-unanimidad-su-secesion-de-ucrania-y-anexion-a-rusia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea/Archive_2&oldid=1087174582"