Talk:Crimea

"Illegal referendum"

The article states that the 2014 referendum was "illegal", however the cited source states that this was illegal under the Ukrainian Constitution. The article needs to state this to maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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

If that is the case then the article should reflect that, citing WP:RELIABLE sources, rather than some nebulous legal opinion about "Ukrainian law". Please initiate if this is so. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

 Comment: I suggest that all editors refrain from using the term "illegal", unless they understand well its meaning. The only universally binding laws in the area of international public law are Security Council resolutions (with the caveat that they are binding only on the UN Member States). Besides, it's sometimes accepted that the UN Charter is legally binding on UN members. However, violation of a provision of some international agreement is not in itself "an illegal act": just as states have a power to enter commitments at any time, similarly they have a power to remove themselves from these commitments at any time. The only "law" that makes countries to adhere to commitments is... custom, codified in the form of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (esp. the accepted principle Pacta sunt servanda). Nothing "legal" or "illegal" about it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. If reliable sources call this illegal, than that is what we have to say here in Wikipedia in our articles. If they don't say it is illegal, then we don't either. However, it is not up to editors' personal interpretations of international law to decide whether we say it is illegal or not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Only when they are reliable for legal matters, which in this case would be mostly academic publications. Or do you have an unlimited trust in Vogue? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is something between academic publications and Vogue which can be normally seen as reliable, even in legal matters (from BBC to NYT, and many others) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If a so-called reliable source says that something is illegal, and that is disputable, then we need to look at the expertise of the writer who is claiming it. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

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

These types of media are badged as "reliable", yet they are only a conduit for journalists. The question then becomes "Is this journalist a recognised expert on the topic?" As per WP:REPUTABLE, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors....". That does not mean the magazine per se. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri, apart from your suggestion being against WP rules (as OuroborosCobra pointed out), I don't think that a single expert on international law would agree with you. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic

Sure, expert. — kashmīrī TALK 08:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC) A better response would have been asking "Who has counted the number?". 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC) True. Just no sensible answer to an argumentum ad populum came to mind. — kashmīrī TALK 21:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Dear IP and @Kashmiri: may I remind you of WP:NOTFORUM ? I don't claim to be an expert, but I've read something on the subject. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC) To violate WP:NOTFORUM is illegal, right? — kashmīrī TALK 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) ENOUGH. Drop it with the snark and personal attacks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Please stop using bold lettering - we are not "deaf" and therefore there is no need to WP:SHOUT. No forum happening here - other editors refuse to discuss the issue which I raised but instead dismissed it. The matter of WP:UNCIVIL is enough; the matter of the improper use of "illegal" in this topic is not enough, and has yet to be addressed. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Power Generation

I have tried to clean up the paragraphs regarding power generation to improve readability and clarity. I am not, though, familiar with the content, and may have inadvertently distorted the intended meaning. Could somebody familiar with the topic please check those paragraphs?"Pij" (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

I want to undo the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=next&oldid=1144913770 Lettres (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Please feel free to make comments in the discussions on this topic above. Tollens (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The new short description sums up the scope of the article better. The old is purely geopolitical. small jars tc 17:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Location in infobox

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

That has been discussed extensively. Which facts do you feel are missing from the previous discussions to start a new one? Jeppiz (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"is a peninsula in Eastern Europe"

The first sentence describes Crimea as "in Eastern Europe". The rationale given on this talk page is that Russia also claims it, so it's disputed territory.

Why then are the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia articles not labelled the same way? The editors who argue this should go to these articles and label them accordingly.

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

It's worth thinking about just what this article is about versus what the other articles are about. This article is specifically about the peninsula (a geographic feature that exists no matter what its political status is at any given time), as opposed to an administrative division. The articles you have linked to are specifically about administrative divisions, and not merely geographical features. You linked to the Donetsk Oblast, the Luhansk Oblast, etc. The equivilents administrative division article for Crimea would be the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea (or, if you feel like breaching international law by recognizing an illegal annexation, the Republic of Crimea controlled by Russia). We have similar articles for the Russian occupied administrative divisions, such as the Donetsk People's Republic. That's the counterpart to the internationally recognized Ukrainian Donetsk Oblast. This article, however, is not about the political administrative division. Now, since the history of the region and political/military actions did occur in the peninsula of Crimea, it gets some short summaries of those topics in this article, but to learn more, you have to go to the other articles for the specific administrative divisions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to add a little more, I realize that in most other articles, there isn't so much of a need to distinguish between the geographical area and the administrative division (e.g. we only have the article on California, and not separate ones for the geographic area and the administrative division of the state itself), but due to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, we have to do something a little different here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding lede

The lede currently has these sentences:

"The region has a population of 2.4 million, and has been under Russian occupation since 2014." (first paragraph) "In 2014, the peninsula was occupied by Russian forces and annexed by Russia, but most countries recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory." (third paragraph)

These seem redundant and could possibly be combined. I was thinking of removing the second sentence entirely, and changing the first sentence to: "The region has a population of 2.4 million, and although most countries recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory, the peninsula has been occupied by Russian forces and annexed by Russia since 2014". But then I was wondering what should be done with the other sentences in the third paragraph. What do you guys think? JasonMacker (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, another option is to remove the second part of the first sentence entirely, and leave the political claims to that third paragraph. So something like:

"The region has a population of 2.4 million." (first paragraph)

And then leave the sentences of the third paragraph alone.

Given that the previous section (of this talk page) points out that this article is primarily about geography, wouldn't it be better to leave the political stuff out of the first paragraph of the lede, and relegate it to just the second & third paragraphs? JasonMacker (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Tavria name

Was the name Tavria/Tauria/Taurica re-introduced during Catherine’s Hellenization of place names in the late 18th century? Or was it already in use on the ground since classical antiquity (which seems unlikely to me)? This would be a clarifying addition to the “Name” section.  —Michael Z. 15:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

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

German occupation should be added to the timeline of history

Germany briefly occupied Crimea from 1942 to 1944 or so.

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

"Earlier war with Turkey" creates confusion

This phrase linking to a war between Russian and Ottoman Empires in the 18th century can be misleading because the use of the word Turkey is misunderstood as the Republic of Turkey, which was officially founded in 1923. Although the war is known as the Russo-Turkish War, the country was rarely called Turkey by its citizens. Therefore, the phrase should be replaced with "Earlier war with the Ottoman Empire" in order to be more accurate and to avoid the quite likely confusion with the modern country of Turkey. 78.173.65.26 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

This is an edit for clarity and proper grammar. Edit the following sentence at the end of 2nd paragraph: (Current) "The USSR transferred the oblast to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1954."

(edited) "In 1954, the USSR transferred the oblast to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1654." Badattitudebob (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)