Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Still Ukranian ?

I cannot help thinking that this article now has become a lie. Even Ukraine has no thoughts to get the republic back. It's a simple fact, that this former part of Ukraine is turned in to a historical parentheses. It was Russian until Nikita Chrustjev (of Ukrainian origin, even if born inside Russia close to the border) ordered "Highest Soviet" (or what ever it was called) to give Crimea as a gift from Russia to Ukraine in 1954. And now - whatever opinion one may have of Russia or Putin - Crimea has returned to Russia. Whatever president Obama says, there is nothing left that is Ukranian in this republic. Also the referendum spoke for itself. And there has been no allegations of any cheet. Watching Ukranian soldiers - walk stright from the Ukranian army into the Russian one. If they so want. Indeed an unusual event. And Putin isn't Stalin. Further, the Ukranian people cannot hope for a brighter future with the EU, just watch how EU has managed to help the far smaller Greece ! It also seems like many Ukranians have nothing against Russia (and I'm not talking about the Russians within Ukraine). All the Obama sanctions only puts himself in a corner, it seems like he doesn't know that - for instance all German neuclear power plants (after Fukuyima) are about to be replaced with gas (not petrol/gasoline, but fluid gas that can be used for water heating and electricity) - a huge pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany was opened in 2012. It will replace 39 reactors. And Russia is the largest territory on Earth, and is not really depending of much import and export. But western Europe needs the "Gasprom gas". And who will send people up to the international space station now, when America has scrapped the Space Shuttle and Russia will be sanctioned ? Why the United States seem to see Crimea as a kind of defeat, is rather unclear to me. European borders have always changed once in a while, especially in the east. Fact is Crimea is now a part of Russia (again), like it or not. Boeing720 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So what is it you're suggesting? CodeCat (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Once Ukraine formally accepts Crimea's secession/accession, in a constitutional or legislative declaration, then the political entity will cease to exist. As of now, as far as I'm aware, the autonomous republic is de jure around. Just like Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is an entity on paper even if PRC doesn't currently have (and in fact never had) control over that territory.
Let's remember that two countries can have sub-regions over the same territory - hence why it's disputed. Abstractematics (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Boeing720, saying that Crimea is still a part of Ukraine is like saying that World War I did not officially end until October 3, 2010 when Germany made the final payment on the bonds. The treaties have been signed the annexation has gone through and unlike Taiwan Crimea is not a country. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Germany acceded to Treaty of Versailles and isn't disputing the date of WWI. Also, "Taiwan" by itself isn't a country, but a territory/province of the Republic of China, which officially claims all of China and more.
What we can do is date the end of the 2014 Crimean crisis once it dies out, even if Ukraine continues to officially claim Crimean say, decades later. This is done with Chinese Civil War even though no peace treaty or agreement formally ended the war on mutual terms. But we still have articles on claimed territories. Abstractematics (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If it still exists de jure, we should have a current article for it, as its structures exist in law. This is no different then Province of Kosovo. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The OP's post seems to be more about why the international community should recognise the Russian annexation, rather than anything to do with WP (WP:NOTFORUM). Having said that Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (and to a lesser extent Province of Kosovo) is more about the term (I.e. the conceptual nature of the entity) and the dispute rather than presenting it as a fully functioning de facto entity, which this article still does - if you take out the bolted on references to the Russian annexation. But I suspect that will evolve over time if the current situation persists. It's still too early - no one really knows how this is all going to play out so, per WP:CRYSTAL, this article is about right as it is at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, that's because that province never functionally existed, as the PRC never had control over Taiwan, which has always been controlled by the RoC as Taiwan Province, Republic of China. RGloucester — ☎ 20:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Article

What is the point of this article's continued existence now that Crimea is part of Russia? --109.246.151.191 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

To document the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in Ukraine, of course. CodeCat (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Same as any other article about history? Also, the territory is contested so... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Crimea is in a sense part of both Russia and Ukraine. I wish the surge of editors in the past month would understand that already. Abstractematics (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The territoria of the Crimean Peninsula is still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Russian occupation of Crimean peninsula continues to be viewed as illegitimate. So, it is still correct to place Crimea within Ukraine. It is still Ukrainian territory by international law. Goliath74 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Even so, Crimea is now a disputed territory. In order to follow wikipedia guidelines on remaining unbiased, Crimea needs to be treated as if it was controlled by both countries. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Time Zone

The time zone is an excellent example of the absurdity of this article. Time zone should be the actual time people are using in their daily lives, not the theoretical time of a virtual entity with no reality 92.132.232.250 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please give WP:RS that there is a difference between the official time zone and the de facto time zone. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimea sets clocks to Moscow time. [1] USchick (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to remove this section from the infobox now that the Republic of Crimea has made a change not reflected in the laws of the defunct Autonomous Republic of Crimea. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is not about the Republic of Crimea. USchick (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Is the time zone actually included in Ukrainian law the same way that the AR itself is? I suppose it could be included if it says "de jure only" or something like that. CodeCat (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. But it's downright inaccurate to say Crimea is in a different time zone than it's actually in. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has switched to Moscow Time on 29 May, 2014, however that change is still no updated on the map of the Time in Europe. Can someone please update the map as soon as possible. 99.225.193.121 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Currency

Crimea entirely stopped using the hryvnia on June 1, 2014.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhyHellWhy: source? Guessing they went to the ruble EvergreenFir (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they switched to ruble right after their annexation but since June 1 hryvnia is no longer used [2] [3] --WhyHellWhy (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, this fact we can not just ignore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way to state that the Ukrainian hryvnia is the de jure currency of the Ukrainian autonomous republic but the Ruble is the de facto currency since Crimea is a de facto republic of Russia in the infobox? --WhyHellWhy (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted your change to the currency per this edit, WhyHellWhy. It doesn't serve as a reasonable solution to represent the hryvnia as being some form of official currency when it simply isn't now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It's official under the Ukrainian law. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the premises behind this conversation. There is no currency in use in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as the Autonomous Republic no longer exists as a thing that currency can be used in. It doesn't make sense that the field is filled at all. At a stretch, any parallel government-in-exile would presumably use the hryvina. CMD (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Good call, CMD. I was thinking that the best way around it is to simply not allude to the currency in the infobox. If it's in doubt, throw it out. It isn't an essential field, therefore I'm removing it now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Economics

I think there may be some benefit to discussing this, since it may provide insights as to its high demand to Ukraine/Russia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Currency

(Previous archived discussion)

Article lede:

The Autonomous Republic of Crimea ... is internationally recognized as an autonomous republic of Ukraine, located in the Crimean Peninsula.

De jure, as far as recognition by the UN and most of the world's governments goes, it still exists.

De facto, in practice, it is mostly controlled by Russia, and the only currency recognized by the controlling authority since June 1, 2014, is the Russian ruble. (References here.)

Therefore I am removing the Ukrainian hryvnia from the Currency line of the infobox, correcting the modern English spelling of "Russian ruble", and de-italicizing that.

To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

New Infobox

Who even made this new infobox? It doesn't provide any information as the previous one, and it is kinda messy and unprofessional. The previous one should be returned, as it was more accurate and had better information. Like in the new infobox, religion is stated "Orthodoxy and Muslim", where is that officially stated in AR Crimea Constitution? Legislature State Council of Crimea? Where dates of establishment? Highly inappropriate new infobox and wasn't discussed before being applied. A.h. king • Talk to me! 23:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it now. Someone made it back in January. Thanks for reverting. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian POV

Why does this article is now holding Russia's POV of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the event surrounding Crimea in 2014, the republic exists and IS an autonomous republic within Ukraine. These edits should have been thoroughly discussed before being implemented. The word "annexed" is not even used once in the whole article, while there is a whole separate article on the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So you are complaining that "the republic exists and IS an autonomous republic within Ukraine" and yet the article says clearly at the start that "This article is about the autonomous republic in Ukraine." You also complain that "the word "annexed" is not even used once in the whole article" and it says in the introduction "and annexed the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia.[7]" So what exactly are you complaining about this article that you think is not neutral? Identify anything and we can discuss it to try to get a more neutral version. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I added the word "annexed" in the introduction (the word "admission" was used instead) and did other edits. And the article used to say This article is about the autonomous republic in Ukraine 1991-2014, which I changed back. For example, the section of "events of 2014" has multiple issues as it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. And there is not a single word there regarding the UN General Assembly resolution. Just I think the article needs to be more neutral and explain more regarding the autonomous republic (as with previous versions of this article) and not just about the annexation process and make people feel that it is some ex-entity that has been dumped away especially with the use of the past tense in many section "was" instead of "is". A.h. king • Talk to me! 22:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry A.h. king • Talk to me!, I owe you an apology. I read the article after I read your comment and couldn't see what you were going on about. My mistake. :) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

'De Jure' or 'Exile'

Just to be clear, 'de jure' means that it exists legally speaking even if it does not exist in practice as the territory is now administered as part of the Russian Federation. 'Exile' would be an appropriate word to describe a government that existed but met outside the boundaries of the territory - but not to describe a republic. A republic can't be in exile. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Referendum

"official results showed had popular support by a large majority" is not correct, Official results from the rigged referendum still only showed barely 15% in favour of annexation. And that was with most Crimean's boycotting the poll.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail in history section

The history section is far too long. All that is required is a summary of key events as there are more detailed articles that cover the same information mre fully. This almost reads like a diary extract with a day by day account of the events of 2014. All that is required is a general summary of information and links to the main articles. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

POV edits

Please stop changing "ousting" to "overthrow". Most sources refer to this as "ousted". To change this you need to establish consensus here first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Under armed guard and with the doors locked..."

I have absolutely no problem with that phrase being in the article if there is a source to support it, but it has been tagged 'citation needed' for two years now. Unless someone provides a source, the statement should be deleted. I tried to remove the words but was reverted by an editor who simply stated that "this is something well known to anyone familiar with the subject". In that case it should be easy to provide a reliable source. Qaz1984 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qaz1984: While it's appreciated that you are trying to tidy several articles, as a new editor you are doing so by making unanimous decisions about articles that have undergone severe edit warring over a few years. Whatever you did as an IP is your own business, therefore other editors can only gauge your editing skills and behaviour based on what you are doing right now.
Any WP:BOLD changes you've been making to long-standing (ergo default WP:CONSENSUS) content doesn't actually need to be made at the speed at which you've been trying to do so. Leaving WP:ES as to what you're doing is not a substitute for talk page discussions and consensus, particularly as you activities are currently those of a WP:SPA. If there are tags asking for sources, etc., don't simply remove the information as you have not been involved in the entire development of the article. The practice is WP:BRD, not telling other editors that you have the right to delete it because it hasn't been attributed to your satisfaction, nor does it give you the right to put other editors under pressure to find a reference on the spot because you've decided to take on WP:OWNership of articles surrounding Crimea. Please read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and understand that other editors are not under obligation to to jump at your command because this is what you want to do right now. What you should do is try to find sources to WP:V that which has been tagged. In fact, had you gone to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article, you would have found multiple sources attesting to the circumstances. I'd merely reverted it to the tagged version as a reminder that it's best to have the content cited here as well, not just on the other article.
Understand that I don't mean this to be a reprimand, but am trying to help you to understand that this article - as well as the other Crimea/Sevastopol articles - are by no stretch of the imagination long ago abandoned articles desperately in need of being fixed, and with no one but yourself around to try to improve them. Please slow down as this 'redaction' and 'but this is the NPOV way to present encyclopaedic articles' has been tried before and inevitably leads to redaction to the point of removal of the most pertinent features of an event, and has forced the hands of other editors to roll back to much older, consensus versions of articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your observations. As a new editor I was under the impression that claims marked with a tag stating 'citation needed' could be deleted at any point without further discussion as discussion should have occurred following the addition of the tag in the first place. If a tag has been in place for two years, I think editors have a cheek to complain about being put under pressure to find a reference at short notice! As for being a Single Purpose Account, yes I have a knowledge and interest in all things Crimean and decided to sign up to Wikipedia to improve Crimean articles. But I'm sure you must agree that my edits are neutral, just trying to set out the factual position. For example, you reverted my recent edit when I made clear in the hatnote that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is 'de jure' and the Republic of Crimea is 'de facto'. Why is that not helpful to the article? It is a neutral statement of fact and helps provide clarity as to why there are two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaz1984 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why I improved the introduction

I have tried to improve the introduction and A.h.king has kept reverting my improvements. He now sent a friendly message asking me to explain on the talk page so I'm going to try to explain and then make the changes again. I think the onus is on A.h.king or anyone else who thinks my changes are not an improvement to explain why in the same way I have explained why they are.

Firstly, the Autonomous Republic currently exists only 'de jure' and the first paragraph gives no recognition of this fact. Reading the first paragraph would give the impression that the events of 2014 hadn't happened. All my change does is continue to assert that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea continues (present tense) as a republic of Ukraine but ends the paragraph by pointing out that it has been administered by Russia since 2014. I then moved information from within the introduction to follow the opening sentence as it made more logical sense at this point.

Secondly, the second paragraph in the version A.h.king prefers suddenly mentions a referendum on 'reunification with Russia' but nothing earlier in the article has informed the reader that Crimea used to be part of Russia previously. My change therefore adds some context so that the reader may understand why the referendum was on a 'reunification' and not just a 'unification'.

I think my changes were informative, helpful and neutral and cant understand why they would be opposed. I will therefore make those changes and would challenge anyone who thinks they are not an improvement to explain why. Thanks Lin4671 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. My counter-arguments: First, this article is about the autonomous republic of Ukraine, and that it is administered by Russia is present in the second paragraph of the intro, no need to repeat that in the first paragraph of the intro. What happened during the annexation and "Russian Crimea" is explained in the Republic of Crimea, meanwhile this article was agreed years ago that it should maintain the status quo that it had till 2014. Second, regarding that Crimea was part of Russia, is also not needed in the intro as it is clearly mentioned in the article and there is also a Crimea article which elaborates on all of this. Hence, the introduction I believe should be as of 18 June 2017, as it gives the sufficient info about Ukraine's Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and there are two other articles including Republic of Crimea and Crimea, no need to pile up every info in the intro of this article. A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi A.h.king. Thanks for replying. My main disagreement with you is the idea that this article should continue to 'maintain the status quo that it had till 2014". Articles change because things change and the idea that people are trying to maintain this article in a way that no longer reflects reality seems strange to say the least. What next...should the Kosovo article begin by describing Kosovo as a part of Serbia, ignoring everything that has happened? I don't think so - the Kosovo article should, as it does, reflect the reality of the situation. Similarly, this article should be absolutely clear - without any equivocation - that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is part of Ukraine that has been administered as part of the Russian Federation since 2014. That should all be stated at the outset (1st paragraph) with further context and detail in the second paragraph.
So how do we move on from our different opinions? Do we wait and see if others join our discussion or what? What does consensus mean - does that require us all to agree? Thanks - I'm learning :) Lin4671 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We can try to find common ground by discussing here and anyone is welcome to join. How about instead of "administered by the Russian Federation..." we use "though it was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014"? A.h. king • Talk to me! 19:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. I think that's a good suggestion. Cheers :) Lin4671 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding my second objection, the use of "Crimea had been part of Russia for most of the 171 years preceding its transfer to Ukraine in 1954." sentence before talking about the annexation looks like a justification for the illegal annexation. The history of Crimea is included in this article and in other 3 article, I just believe we should put 1 sentence about how the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was formed through a referendum in 1991, and then regarding the annexation. Rather than going back hundreds of years in the intro. A.h. king • Talk to me! 11:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi A.H.king. I disagree with you on this. I think it is necessary to have comment about Crimea previously being part of Russia to provide context for the idea of a referendum on 'reunification' with Russia. To deliberately omit a direct reference to this historical fact looks like an attempt to bias the article against the idea of reunification with Russia. However I can see why you may think the reference to 'most of the 171 years preceding its transfer' could be too strong. How about the second paragraph becomes: "Crimea had been part of Russia prior to its transfer to Ukraine in 1954 and, following the Ukrainian revolution in March 2014, pro-Russian separatists and Russian Armed Forces took over the territory and held an unconstitutional referendum on the issue of reunification with Russia; the official result was that a large majority of Crimeans wished to join with Russia." Lin4671 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The historical reference of where Crimea belonged before is clearly stated in the article in the "background" section, my point is that the introduction should focus on the Autonomous republic itself, mainly how it was upgraded from the Crimean Oblast through a referendum to an autonomous republic, and then how it was annexed by Russia. Like this: "Following a referendum on 20 January 1991, the Crimean Oblast was upgraded to the status of an autonomous republic within the Ukrainian SSR. However, in March 2014 following the Ukrainian revolution and the takeover of the territory by pro-Russian separatists and Russian Armed Forces.....". A.h. king • Talk to me! 06:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. I still think something of the historical link to Russia is required in the introduction to provide context for the 'reunification' referendum. However, taking your points on board, how about: "The Crimean Oblast was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 and later, following a referendum on 20 January 1991, it was upgraded to the status of an autonomous republic within the Ukrainian SSR. However, in March 2014 following the Ukrainian revolution and the takeover of the territory by pro-Russian separatists and Russian Armed Forces, an unconstitutional referendum on the issue of reunification with Russia was held; the official result was that a large majority of Crimeans wished to rejoin Russia." Lin4671 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. A.h. king • Talk to me! 08:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Nice discussing things with you :) Lin4671 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on neutrality

Acknowledging that this is a thorny issue ...

I tend to think the article as written is still a bit non-neutral. IMHO WP articles should skew toward focusing more on "de facto" realities than "de jure" realities. That is not to say that "de jure" realities are not important to discuss, but the truth is that "de jure" realities are always more subjective than "de facto" realities. That is, "de jure" realities depend both on how one interprets the law and whom one considers as having authority as saying which laws take precedence. One can argue, for example, that the U.S. revolution was an illegal insurrection (and certainly the U.K. did and actually technically still does). But it became a de facto reality and the U.K. eventually acknowledged it. By contrast the secession of the Confederate States of America was similarly viewed as an illegal insurrection and, because it failed, it still is mostly interpreted that way. It's hard to be sure how the Crimean situation will finally play out but it seems likely that Russia's control will never end up being seriously contested. Either way, the de facto reality right now is that it is a part of Russia and the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" as part of the Ukraine is only theoretical (an important theory to be sure but still ...). I tend to believe the article should be written from this perspective. It is difficult to write an article like this one from a "de jure" perspective while still maintaining neutrality. In other words, it is hard not to "take sides" to a certain degree which this article is rather doing.

-- MC

P.S. One can argue that the pro-Ukraine perspective has far more support among world leaders but we are supposed to write articles based on scholarly consensus, not political consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to make edits that will improve the article. Lin4671 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

adding date of annexation to infobox

I notice an IP editor added details of Russia's annexation of Crimea into the info box but this has been reverted without comment. I do not think the IP's edit was intended as destructive as he/she had also removed destructive edits by a different IP editor (who had added a Russian flag). However, it occurs that the annexation of 18th March 2014 is a significant event in the story of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and should be included in the infobox - it is already in the article itself, so why should it not be in the infobox. The fact that the annexation is disputed is not an issue as that fact can be made clear. However, I would agree with the IP that that fact that Russia annexed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on 18th March 2014 should be included. I have not re-added the relevant information (amended by the addition of 'disputed') as I do not want to get into an edit war. However, a discussion about why such relevant information would not be included should be discussed and a consensus reached. Lin4671 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral position in the introduction

If the article were to state "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an autonomous republic of Ukraine encompassing the territory of the former Crimean Oblast that was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014 and is now a matter of international dispute", we would tilt the article too much towards the Ukrainian point of view.

If the article were to state "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was an autonomous republic of Ukraine encompassing the territory of the former Crimean Oblast that was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014 and is now a matter of international dispute", we would tilt the article too much towards the Russian point of view.

Therefore the neutral approach is - as the article currently does - to use neither 'is' or 'was' and merely state: "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea, an autonomous republic of Ukraine encompassing the territory of the former Crimean Oblast, was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014 and is now a matter of international dispute". Lin4671 (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop Changing the Article

This article is about Ukrainian territorial unit ARK.

There is a separate article about the Russian territorial unit Republic of Crimea, that was created after the occupation by Russian government. It reflects current reality. All russophiles should just got there and write about 'current' situation only there.

This article is about the Ukrainian territorial unit. It should only state that is it illegally occupied by Russia while retaining all the information as before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.9.69 (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Status

Crimean are Autonomy organizations. Independent State of Crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.34.187.142 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Crimea is in Russian Federation composition. Niks Ķuzis (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

background

Crimea first came under Russian control in 1783 [..] Thereafter, Russian rule in Crimea spanned a period of 171 years

And prior it was Tatars established Crimean Khanate, a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, ruled for over 300 years. Crimea has a long history of being a strategic plaything among regional powers. The above being the only thing remarked in the background section is NPOV suspect in the context of 2014 Russian annexation --Jakey222 (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence does seem unnecessary, but on the wider point, where are you suggesting the Background section start? The transfer to the Ukrainian SSR? CMD (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll let others decide the when, I mainly concerned about the paragraph [4] seemingly covering only 'Russian control' instead of what you find in Crimea history e.g. Counting the years of vague 'Russian control' (Russian empire, USSR) but not after 1954 under USSR administrative changes, with seemingly skipping major events. My hope that some more experienced editor in such things can give it a polish. --Jakey222 (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: a background mention of the 1783 annexation works well in the Republic of Crimea article about Russian subdivision (where it is), where it is described as the origin of the historical Russian claim, which later culminated in the 2014 annexation (and, accordingly, very establishment of that entity), but it hardly works in this article, which is about Ukrainian autonomous subdivision. So, I'd rather drop that paragraph here. I'm still unsure where to start background (from establishment of the early Soviet Crimean autonomy in 1921, or from late Perestroika), but 1783 annexation is certainly irrelevant here, in AR Crimea article, and if no further objections appear here, I'm going to remove that paragraph. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that the article covers Ukrainian administrative unit and the existence of Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimean Oblast and the content there in. I am not sure that background here should cover anything beyond 1954 as part of Ukrainian SSR, linking to those articles instead. --Jakey222 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I have moved it to the history of Crimea page. probably more appropriate there. Avica1998 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Government in exile

The infobox currently states that there is a government in exile. This is, as far as I can tell, untrue. No sources I can find say there is one, one suggests creating one, but this does not seem to have happened. CMD (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Jjpachano says this is mentioned in the body[5] but there is no mention of a government-in-exile. As far as I am aware, it was dissolved by the central government during the annexation.[6] Mellk (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: @Chipmunkdavis: please reread this article. This is according to it's situation even the category is also included. Jjpachano (talk)

This is not a WP:RS (see WP:NOTSOURCE). And the only reference for that item in the page is a link to the website of the presidential representative.[7] Mellk (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The thing it should be keep status for a moment since Crimea is under control by other administrative

Jjpachano (talk)

Why does that mean the infobox should invent a made-up government in exile? CMD (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: How wonder why you have to ask about the status on infobox? Do you understand what is the situation in Crimea? Do you understand what the status means to you? or else you should need to understand better - Jjpachano (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand it fine, please provide a source that there is a government in exile. CMD (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

crimea is russia 146.212.57.5 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Legally speaking, this is not the case. The intricacies are already discussed in the article. Tollens (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
See the de jure and de facto status of Crimea. Wikipedia is only stating the view held by most UN countries. If this changes then the de jure ruler of Crimea will also be changed in the page Imperium Australis (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

Change Capital and largest city : Simferopol to Capital and second largest city: Simferopol Click the link to simferopol to see that it's the 2nd most populous city. 70.53.254.228 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

After looking Sebastopol is not part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Do not modify. 70.53.254.228 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea/Archive_7&oldid=1181131742"