Wikipedia

Talk:Republic of Crimea (Russia)/Archive 5

< Talk:Republic of Crimea (Russia)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Beshogur in topic On "Military occupation and annexation" tag
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Requested move 18 June 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago110 comments14 people in discussion
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: not moved. This is very clearly opposed by many community members. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea → Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea – unrecognized republic of Russia, like Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast Panam2014 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why move twice instead of merging first and the moving only once? Super Ψ Dro 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose. This is an article about an administrative unit, one that has a flag, coat of arms, anthem, government, and so on. Your proposed title is/would be about an act of military occupation. It's nothing wrong to have articles about military occupations (e.g. Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), but they must be kept separate from articles about administrative units (e.g., Iraq). — kashmīrī TALK 18:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
    Reliable sources do not seem to say anything about this anthem, and so on. Including it here is just repeating Russian advocacy of this occupation regime as a real administrative subdivision of Russian land, which is false. Doing so is not encyclopedic or following the sources, it is non-NPOV and Righting Great Wrongs.
    They must be kept separate? Says who?  —Michael Z. 13:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Opposed per kashmiri's reasoning. Killuminator (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri and Killuminator: it is false. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast is about the administrative unit too. Panam2014 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. — kashmīrī TALK 19:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: it is not a wrong. Panam2014 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
You wrote: "unrecognised republic of Russia". I'm sorry but countries (governments) are not in a business of "recognising" administrative units. In international law, countries can recognise only other governments (technically, other governments' jurisdiction over a given territory). However, international recognition is unrelated to the internal administrative division. Therefore Wikipedia tends to have articles on all the administratige divisions de iure (since they are notable), even if only one party exerts a de facto control. So we have both Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Taiwan Province, etc. — kashmīrī TALK 20:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: it is recognized by UN as a part of Ukraine. See General Assembly votes and UN's map of Ukraine. Panam2014 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Show me a UN source please. As far as I know, the UN is not in a business of recognising administrative units. Off-topic: the UN doesn't even have powers to recognise countries. — kashmīrī TALK 20:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
[1] Panam2014 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The passage talks about territories (actual land), not about administrative entities (a legal construct). Besides, you wrote about the UN, and I've asked for a UN source. — kashmīrī TALK 20:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Besides, UNGA resolutions are not binding on anyone. — kashmīrī TALK 20:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 Panam2014 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It's nonbinding, too. Meaning, it's not law. — kashmīrī TALK 21:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The Russian “republic” is defined as tied, “legally” in the Russian constitution, to land where Russia’s constitution has no jurisdiction or right. This has received international non-recognition and condemnation. What Russia calls the “Republic of Crimea” is actually legally the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the UN has explicitly said so.
The UNGA called upon members “not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.”[2]
The violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international integrity is definitely a crime against international law.
Is his all directly relevant to the question? Not sure, but it does contradict all of Kashmiri’s arguments.  —Michael Z. 13:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support (and/or merge). Arguments that renaming would create two identical articles are obviously spurious. The article subject and content don’t change by renaming: if there is a content fork that needs to be resolved, renaming doesn’t affect that. The proposed move resolves an in-WP:consistency, in treating Russian occupations and territorial claims as such, but this one as an ordinary administrative division nothing to see here.  —Michael Z. 13:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support (or merge). Since we already have Crimea, this article should only cover the Russian administration and its consequences, i.e. tourism, life expectancy and similar things belong to the Crimea-article. If we reduce the article to that, why not name it properly, i.e. "Russian occupation of ...". The difference to Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia is that the name Danzig West-Prussia was only used by the German occupants, so "German occupation of Danzig West-Prussia" would make no sense. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose these moves are starting to get ridiculous. It is obvious that the current title is more easily recognizable and shorter. It already fulfills precision requirements. And we already have an article about the Russian occupation of Crimea. There is zero need or reason to perform this move other than WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
And comparison with occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts is not appropriate as those are barely existing and badly defined administrations unlike the Crimean one which has had eight years to mature and develop. To call Kherson and Zaporizhzhia just other Russian provinces, in practical terms, is pretty inaccurate, but Crimea is indeed basically just another Russian province at this point. Super Ψ Dro 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: the situation in Kherson and Crimea is exactly the same. Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast have been merged into Donetsk People's Republic and Kherson Oblast (Russia) have been deleted. Republic of Crimea have been created when we have not an article about occupation. Panam2014 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No, obviously not. Crimea has been under full Russian power for nine years while "Kherson Oblast" in Russia isn't even properly geographically defined. And keep merger discussions separate from this requested move, they're separate procedures. Super Ψ Dro 20:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: It's not a question of procedure, I'm in favor of the renaming and the merger. And you haven't proven how Crimea is fully integrated. Obviously there are no difference. Panam2014 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Recognizable? Because everybody knows the differences between the seven entries in Republic of Crimea (disambiguation)?
Just another Russian province, like Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) was just another couple of provinces of Germany and the Soviet Union? Egregiously non-NPOV statements are examples of RGW. The accusation of RGW is out of line.
Fortunately there are thousands of articles about Crimea written in the last nine years, and we can easily confirm or refute assertions that they usually call it “Republic of Crimea” instead of referring to Russian occupation, or that its coverage is like just that on just other provinces.”  —Michael Z. 13:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) is not an article about a human settlement. But Reichsgau Wartheland is, and is (rightly) a separate article from the one about occupation of Poland. — kashmīrī TALK 22:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you just not see the different nuances that appear when comparing administrations that have existed practically unscathed for nine years with some that have existed for over one year and always on the frontline of an active war? Super Ψ Dro 15:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Backwards logic. When the Russians “annexed” land they don’t control in September 2022 they made its status exactly the same as Crimea’s, showing that the “nuance” is nothing. It is all legally occupied Ukrainian territory, all based on sham referendums, all merely empty claims imposed by force, all an imposition of Kremlin will on Ukraine, all equally fake.  —Michael Z. 13:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
And “practically unscathed” is not unscathed. All five “annexed” regions and their Russian occupation régimes are now part of one war zone with varying degrees at different times and locations of kinetic warfare, of physical destruction, and of atrocity crimes.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Example: “Russia’s attempt to annex Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk has undermined its claim on Crimea.”[3]  —Michael Z. 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
No such thing has been shown. Panam2014 has serious WP:COMPETENCE problems. Super Ψ Dro 12:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
And the RM is for Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea, so I am not sure why they are now mentioning "Russian occupation of Crimea" instead of "Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Mellk (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mellk:it changes absolutely nothing, the two articles are destined to be merged. Republic of Crimea is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME. Panam2014 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This message is unfounded and was posted on my talk page by an opponent. This is unacceptable and I could have posted the same message on your page. Panam2014 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This is called a contentious topics alert. There is nothing "unacceptable" about placing such an alert. For example, it says: When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation. Calling me an "opponent" is not a good idea, though. Mellk (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mellk: We do not place a banner on the page of a contributor with whom you disagree. See WP:NOTINVOLVED. Not arguing on the talk page and being aggressive is not a good idea. Contradictor or opponent is not problematic, the editorial conflict is real. Panam2014 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTINVOLVED is for administrators. This has nothing to do with acting as an administrator. Mellk (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mellk: Not just for administrators. You are not the right person to deliver this kind of message. Panam2014 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
You may want to actually read the pages again. Where does it say you cannot place CT alerts if you are not the right person to deliver this kind of message? Mellk (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The spirit of the rule is clear. Your message is unwelcome and only helps to strain the discussion. Panam2014 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Try to see it as just a notification and move on. We’ve all received them.  —Michael Z. 14:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac:His message is unwelcome since he did not send it to the other participants and before that he behaved aggressively with me. Panam2014 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Nevertheless.  —Michael Z. 14:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The other participants are already aware, either with Template:Ds/aware or they have already received an alert before. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: it have been shown. Rather than attacking me with links that have nothing to do with the discussion, just argue your position with reliables sources. Or it proves that you have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Your rhetoric is untenable, many of us agree with me with arguments @Mzajac, Rsk6400, and Volunteer Marek:. Panam2014 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding my position. I think that this should be considered with lnd/dnr as they're all related in terms of occupation etc... I have not voiced support for this move—blindlynx 13:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Blindlynx: In this case you can give an opinion on this case or a global opinion. It does not change anything that, compared to my opponent, wrongly invoking WP:COMPETENCE and pretending that I am alone against everyone when we are divided is problematic.. Panam2014 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I have not been following this discussion closely. This probably is the venue for discussions of competence. Further, a wider discussion around the scope of this article and Russian occupation of Crimea would probably be more helpful than just a RM—blindlynx 13:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
compared to my opponent are you referring to me, Panam2014? Are you aware of WP:BATTLEGROUND? You're close to crossing several lines. Super Ψ Dro 13:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: You used WP:COMPETENCE in a completely devious way. Which doesn't hold up unless you consider that the other three contributors are just as incompetent. Definitely not, having another opinion than you does not make us incompetent. And take the example of @Kashmiri: who speaks calmly without aggressiveness. Saying that you are my opponent is not problematic. We just have opposing views. Your aggressiveness is totally inadmissible and know that it in no way intimidates me. Panam2014 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE refers to you needing to know Wikipedia policies in order to edit properly. You show a lack of understanding of policies such as WP:COMMONNAME otherwise you would not invoke them when zero effort to prove there is a common name in the first place has been made. You show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's common procedures otherwise you would not be advocating for strange and unorthodox proposals such as first renaming then merging then renaming again nor would you be mixing the process of merging articles with the one of renaming them as you've done here. You show a lack of understanding of proper Wikipedia etiquette otherwise you would understand referring to people you disagree with as "opponents" as you've done with in fact several people is not allowed. To pretend I'm trying to intimidate you is also against WP:AGF. And I have not called you nor any group of editors incompetent.
But with each comment this matters less and less. With your repeated replying to each and every single of the comments of the opposing side (WP:BLUDGEONING) you're only sabotaging your own requested move. Closers like it when there's not paragraph after paragraph and when the indentation does not cover a third to a half of the screen. But you probably weren't aware of that. At this point I will quit responding to your comments because it has become a petty back and forth. Good luck and have a happy editing. Super Ψ Dro 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: No, you are the one having the problem with WP:COMPETENCE. Republic of Crimea is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME. And you were unable to prove it with reliable sources. What's strange is that you didn't dare to question other people's skills, like @Mzajac:.I didn't sabotage anything at all the proof half of the editors agree with me. Falsely invoking WP:COMPETENCE + your aggressive behavior are problematic. And I don't confuse merging with renaming since I support both. Panam2014 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kashmiri, Super Dromaeosaurus and others above. This page is about the administrative unit of the Russian Federation. The Ukraininan administrative unit is at Autonomous Republic of Crimea. More than 50% of international borders are disputed, we're here to state the de facto situation and explain the dispute in the apposite pages, not to take sides: this is a neutral encyclopedia. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Est. 2021: Except that Crimea is the only entity that has its article bearing the official name apart from the People's Republic of Donetsk and the People's Republic of Lugansk, but for those two it's because it's the common name in eight years of war. Reliable sources never speak of the Republic of Crimea. And especially how to explain that Kherson and Zaporijjia do not bear the official name of the entity? Besides, regardless of how the articles are named, the articles on Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhya deal with both the entity and the occupation. As Kashmiri says, harmonizing the articles is necessary Panam2014 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    Pretending that Russian aggression is one equally valid side of a dispute is not compatible with a WP:NPOV. It is a rather extreme example of a false balance. Firstly, there was no dispute before the invasion: Russia recognized Crimea as Ukraine and Ukraine’s land and sea borders in binding treaties. Secondly, there is not even a border between Crimea and Russia, there is a body of water that Russian invasion troops had to cross to enter Ukraine in 2014.  —Michael Z. 23:33, 25 June 2023 (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.

Accuracy of "Military occupation and annexation"?

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments5 people in discussion

@Panam2014: I have been directed to the talk page over removing "Military occupation and annexation" in the infobox and do not wish to cause an edit war. I removed the term as it is inaccurate; Wikipedia has pages for both the occupation and annexation. I do not see how it is controversial, as it is inaccurate to conflate these terms.

I restored my changes to the about template, as it makes no sense to solely say that the Russian administration is on "illegally annexed territory"; the Ukrainian republic is on the same territory that was also annexed by Russia. Furthermore, I do not see how it is political. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@GLORIOUSEXISTENCE: it is not inaccurate. Russian occupation of Crimea is about both Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. But Republic of Crimea's territory is under Russian occupation.
It is used for both People's Republic of Donetsk and Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. Furthemore, I see no reason to remove the fact that the annexation is illegal. @Rsk6400 and Mzajac: your opinion is needed. Panam2014 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Even if Crimea is occupied (which is a different subject that I do not want to get into as it is irrelevant), it is a different topic to the Republic of Crimea. If Wikipedia were to recognize Crimea as occupied, which it does, it would be fit to label the Republic as a "disputed republic of Russia internationally recognized as occupied territory of Ukraine," which I did by linking to Political status of Crimea.
I am aware that the term is used on the articles for the other regions annexed in 2022. Those regions are obviously different, considering that they are an active warzone (and subject to the fog of war), while Crimea is not (barring minor exceptions, of course). GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Heh, “barring minor exceptions.” Crimea has been fully occupied by Russian forces since the beginning of the war in February 2014. Ukrainian forces have been striking military infrastructure there for a year. The Russian navy has evacuated naval submarines and ships from there to Russia because they don’t do well in an active war zone.  —Michael Z. 04:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by inaccurate and conflate? As discussed above, Russia occupied Crimea with its military and continues to occupy it, and it annexed it. Saying it’s both is not conflating the terms. I recall in another discussion someone strongly implied that the occupation ended when the annexation was declared, but declined to provide any evidence of sources saying that is a real thing.
I’ll admit the use of annexation is weird, because Russia claims it didn’t annex it but “reunited” or whatever, while the rest of the world says Russia only attempted to annex it, implying that the action is incomplete without international recognition. I think it would be more neutral to consistently to refer to all of the Russian “annexations” using scare quotes or simply saying that Russia considers it annexed or claims it is part of Russia.  —Michael Z. 22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac: until 2022, Crimea was not in warzone but now it is a part of it, despite not located on frontline (it not change anything, all Kherson oblast is not in frontline). Panam2014 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
By international law it is occupied and subject to the laws of war, including the Fourth Geneva Convention on treatment of civilians and their protection during wartime. Kinetic operations there were undertaken in 2014, and since February 2022, when Russian forces used it to attack the rest of Ukraine with open land invasion, naval actions, and missile and air strikes. Ukraine has been striking targets there since at least July 2022.
it has been a war zone for over nine years.  —Michael Z. 04:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
By "inaccurate" and "conflate," I mean that even if Crimea is occupied, that it is inaccurate to describe its political apparatus as the occupation, as while they are connected, they are different topics.
I think the usage of annexation to label the process of Russia initially claiming Crimea is accurate (see Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation), but it is inaccurate to label the Republic of Crimea itself as an annexation; it joined Russia by being annexed, but it was never itself an annexation. I don't believe that the rest of the world says that Russia only claimed to do so, plenty of reliable sources say that it's annexed (at least according to me Googling it). Furthermore, I see "claiming to annex" as oxymoronic provided that the annexing power actually has a degree of territorial control over the land in question (it would be a fair term if I suddenly annexed Crimea), as it is a unilateral act. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@GLORIOUSEXISTENCE: nope they are not different topics. Republic of Crimea is part of Russian occupation of Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
That's how subtopics work. The current infobox inclusion is odd both informationally and grammatically. Occupation and annexation are not a status of the administrative body, but of the peninsula (recognition also a strange inclusion as other states and international bodies generally don't confer recognition towards any subnational entities). A better framing of the relationship between the two topics is that the civilian administration is a function of the occupation, but this should be conveyed clearly through text rather than confusingly through the infobox; see for example Golan Regional Council. CMD (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The “political apparatus” is precisely one of the two aspects of the Russian military-political occupation administration.
Attempted annexation is also correct. To annex means to add to one’s territory. And how is a state’s territory defined? Without international recognition, the addition is not fully successful. Under the UN system state borders and territory are sacrosanct, and are not annexed just because some warlord says so. (Nor is it “oxymoronic” just because you say so, as it is the opinion of the UNGA.)  —Michael Z. 04:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree. If this is categorized as military occupation and annexation, then territories of Pakistan or India in Kashmir should be as well. Or the Golan heights in Israel. Under no circumstances is this label consistent with other articles on similar topics on Wikipedia. Ahnaf.eram (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency of the Military Occupation and Annexation label

Territories controlled by Pakistan or India in Kashmir, or the Golan Heights in Israel are not labeled as military occupation and annexation despite their limited recognition abroad. Why is Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory the exception? Ahnaf.eram (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add Template:Pp-extended to the article. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 00:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the listing as level-5-vital article

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note that I just suggested to remove this article from the list of level-5-vital articles. You may add your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Remove_Republic_of_Crimea_and_Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Banks operating in Crimea

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are more banks operating in Crimea than indicated. Information needs to be updated.

Which banks opened in Crimea in 2014-2023:

Sberbank https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/russias-sberbank-start-operations-crimea-2023-01-18/
Bank "Rossiya" https://theins.ru/korrupciya/137605
https://www.banki.ru/news/lenta/?id=6687079
Promsvyazbank https://www.retailbankerinternational.com/news/promsvyazbank-crimean-operations/
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/78946/ — Arinbard (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We have an article called Crimea with an extensive section on economy. In my view, much of our article is a content fork of that article. So I'd suggest simply to delete the sections on banks, tourism, transport, and similar ones. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
May be. But it is better not to delete, but to add information from authoritative sources. Ukraine has not governed these territories for 10 years, but people live there and economic development continues. This article is about a specific subject of the Russian Federation. But the article about the Crimean Peninsula is no better. Many statements about the economy are outdated, insufficient and basically sound like lines from the news. From the category of “they are going to build such and such in Crimea.” — Arinbard (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

On "Military occupation and annexation" tag

Latest comment: 1 year ago29 comments8 people in discussion

I know this is a sensitive issue, however we should take this as npov. We should label it as Republic, whatever (like other republics) since it is a de facto part of Russia. This name is not appropriate per infobox template. It's already mentioned that it's annexed, disputed, etc. Beshogur (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You probably mean non-NPOV, “non-neutral point of view.” Disagree.
Your argument is self-referential or unreasonably restricted. But like other Russian occupations, it is de jure part of Ukraine, and it’s already mentioned that it’s a Russian republic – facts just as real as the ones you cited. You haven’t given any rationale why your chosen facts are the only ones to be considered.
The following is a rationale: Illegal military occupation and crime of aggression is what it is considered in neutral sources, under international law, and according to most of the world (e.g., in several UN General Assembly resolutions), while “republic of Russia” is what it is attested to be by the aggressor and a handful of states beholden to it. The former is neutral, the latter extremely prejudiced. If you disagree, then please explain why do you want to use Russia’s opinion on its invasion, and not Ukraine’s, much less the rest of the world’s?  —Michael Z. 16:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not the first occupation in the world. Follow wikipedia guidelines. Beshogur (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Which guidelines are you referring to? Rsk6400 (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The infobox template and of course WP:NPOV. People should stop acting like this is the first and only military occupation. Crimea is occupied by Russia but "Republic of Crimea" is an administrative division, not "military occupation and annexation". Wikipedia is not the United Nations. Beshogur (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Regarding NPOV, you have already been given an exhaustive answer. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see "an exhaustive answer". While the lead is mentioning it is a republic of Russia, this answer is just a way to dodge it. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill: sorry to bother you. Can you share your views? Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the status quo is reasonable, although other articles about territories in analogous situations do have a less "occupation-forward" infobox, such as Judea and Samaria Area, Republic of Northern Cyprus, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), and these descriptions also seem reasonable as alternatives. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to say. This is the only like this, also got changed after 2022. Beshogur (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It should change, it looks forced, likely due to being a misapplication of the infobox field. settlement_type is for "City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation"; neither "Military occupation" nor "annexation" are administrative entities (or even nouns). CMD (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox political division uses the same thing. For example Hong Kong:
|settlement_type = Special administrative region Beshogur (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Also it's incorrect that Ukraine is de jure owner of "Republic of Crimea". Ukraine's one is Autonomous Republic of Crimea. People who made these edits either have no clue or do not know how to edit. Beshogur (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea are one place. Just look at a map and tell me what it says.
Are there corresponding articles for Judea and Samaria, Northern Cyprus, and Jammu and Kashmir, that make them an analogy for this one?  —Michael Z. 00:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
They are not. They are a separate subdivisions of two countries. Autonomous Republic of Crimea pratically doesn't exist anymore, but on paper. Moldova and Georgia have also similar situations to this. De jure autonomous governments with no de facto power. Beshogur (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
They are also geography, not paper; the same geography, so the statement “separate subdivisions” and assertion that part of Ukraine “doesn’t exist” asks us to reframe reality with a Kremlin POV. And as entities of law, sovereignty, and human rights, one is rightful and the other is criminal.
It’s especially important when this affects people’s rights. You can see the UN OHCHR[4] and HRW reports on human rights in Crimea, that Russia’s imposition of an illegal regime in Ukraine violates Ukrainian law, international humanitarian law and war crimes law, and denies people in Crimea and displaced many of their rights directly and indirectly, including right to nationality, the right to own property including their homes, the right to work, etcetera.
Some things that continue to exist within the borders of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea: inalienable human rights, Russian crimes, and culpability for them. The evocation of “power” legitimizes “de facto” crimes and denigrates laws “on paper.”
The argument is remarkably similar to the USSR’s and Russia’s false claims that Poland “didn’t exist” when the USSR joined the Nazis in invading it at the start of WWII, a justification for mass murder and ethnic cleansing in Poland.  —Michael Z. 16:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Stop distorting my words, it's clear what I meant. Beshogur (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill: this is not the only one with alternate governments:
Not to mention there were breakaway republic of Artsakh had alternate subdivisions. Similarly Northern Cyprus has Girne District opposed to Kyrenia District. None of them uses this terminology. Ukraine shouldn't be an exemption. These users acting emotional. It's already mentioned that it's occupied. Republic of Crimea is not de jure part of Ukraine, but Autonomous Republic of Crimea is. These are separate governments. Of course Crimean peninsula is de jure Ukraine, that's something else. Sevastopol is one page, thus the method used there is correct. Beshogur (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
My sense is that DRN or an RfC is the best way to resolve this at this time. Accusing other editors of being emotional on an article talk page is unlikely to be productive; if there is a persistent pattern of disruption, you know how to file a report at WP:AE. As we operate off of consensus, not precedent, arguments based on analogies to what has worked for the presentation of other conflicts are informative and persuasive, but not a priori decisive. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill: It's not only about this article. Other Ukraine related articles are in the same situation. Always the same users patrolling the articles, and enforcing their views. As I showed, this is not the only de facto/de jure situation. Look also at Kashmiri (talk · contribs)'s comment.
Mzajac (talk · contribs) also accusing me of "Kremlin POV" by distorting my words claiming I said that part of Ukraine “doesn’t exist” while I said these are separate subdivisions, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea doesn't exist pratically, but only in paper. It's pretty clear. Beshogur (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It wasn’t an “accusation,” but I am surprised you’re doubling down on the statement after I pointed out its implications.  —Michael Z. 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
So you've put this sentence randomly here to everyone? Beshogur (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Everyone discussing edits surrounding this subject should be aware of this issue.  —Michael Z. 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Beshogur, I 100% agree with you – this article is not about any Ukrainian entity. I have pointed it out several times, also specifically to @Mzajac in response to their POV pushing elsewhere, and tried to explain to them that, say, Warsaw District was not an administrative unit of Poland. Unfortunately, they fail to understand and keep pushing this nonsense idea of the Republic of Crimea being an administrative unit of Ukraine, lol. — kashmīrī TALK 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Kashmiri, please respect WP:TPG. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
No reason to change infobox. Per Michael Z. Panam2014 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I expect that anyone who actually read the discussion can see Kashmiri’s straw-man argument and personal attack for what they are, and that they that are pushing a non-neutral POV that Crimea is not in Ukraine.
This article is a child article of the broader subjects of Ukraine and Crimea whose histories are open-ended, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea which goes back to at least 1921, representing a recent aspect of their histories. More permanent Crimean topics in article sections like Geography and Transport should be moved to the parent articles where they belong.  —Michael Z. 19:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The settlement_type parameter is self-explanatory, which is why it was left at "republic" for almost 9 years. Mellk (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you. There was no dispute until the invasion. The body already mentions the situation + added a tag about autonomous republic. Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(Russia)/Archive_5&oldid=1225577742"