Misplaced Pages

The map is gone again! What happened to the map showing Crimea in light green? -A concerned Misplaced Pages user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.7.41 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody reading what I write? Crimea should not be light-green, it must be striped. I revert the edit please update the map to striped.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm Polish and all for Ukraine, but Misplaced Pages should show the facts on the ground and not politics! Crimea was taken by Russia and is a part of Russia at present, so it should be on the map of Russia and on the map of Ukraine as occupied. This is how it looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.254.49 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the Polish IP editor. We've got to ignore personal views here of whether this is seen as a good or bad thing. Also, I don't really see how the opinion of foreign Governments such as the UK, USA, EU etc has any bearing whatsoever of the reality on the ground. The simple fact of the matter is that Russia controls Crimea, it is now a subject of the Russian Federation, Ukraine has lost all control of Crimea, the autonomous Crimean Parliament has declared its self part of Russia and formal accession has been ratified. Crimea is now part of Russia, its a fact, not a grey area. Opposition to changing this seems to be based on other countries not agreeing with it, their disproval is having zero impact on the reality of the situation, as I have outlined. Hot air is just hot air. Owl In The House (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I support FutureTrillionaire's use of light green. It follows Misplaced Pages's conventions on orthographic maps. Regardless of whether Russia de facto controls Crimea, the legal legitimacy of that control is in dispute, and there is substantial opposition to it. Light green represents a claimed territory, claimed territories do not necessarily have to be territories outside of de facto control, but rather can be territories under disputed legal claims. I reject proposals to copy the Morocco map that shows Western Sahara in striped dark green because that map does not represent Misplaced Pages's conventions on orthographic maps.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Applying Morocco's striped concept wouldn't make sense, because not all of Western Sahara is under Moroccan Control. 19:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)~

I support Owl_In_The_House the reality is the Crimea is part of Russia if we like it or not Ukraine not longer controls it at all and I don't see why this map should be any differnt then the India map where it controls and owns a part of it's territory but china "claims it" but India is the one who owns and controls it so it's dark green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.155.144 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the orthographic maps of China and India do not follow Misplaced Pages's conventions on orthographic maps that describe what colours to use - light green for claimed territory, then those should not be considered as models to follow.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has not yet been formally annexed by Russia - while a treaty of annexation was signed by Putin, it still needs to get approved both by the Constitutional Court, and both houses. It's a foregone conclusion, how that's going to turn out, but for now, the legal fiction of Crimea being an independent state is still ongoing, and will probably continue for about a week. Until it is formally annexed, Crimea should not be shown as part of Russia on the map. Jmcanon92 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The treaty actually is applied from the date it is signed (i.e., March 18); that's according to the document itself. It needs to be ratified before taking full effect, but for all practical intents and purposes it allows Russia to treat Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation. And once ratified, the effective date will be March 18, not the date of ratification.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014; 16:56 (UTC)

"By 2 March, Russian troops had complete control over Crimea." The people in charge may want to delete or edit this information as there is no evidence that the troops in Crimea were the Russian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.97.19 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There's disproportionate coverage of the recent Crimean referendum. The recent events in Crimea should not have a section that is the size of the whole "Soviet Union" section of this article. 69.109.40.16 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Referendum

The section 'Russian parliament authorization for Crimea', contains the following line: 'A Crimean status referendum was held on 16 March 2014. In spite of protests of the Yatsenyuk Government and some Western politicians, the international observers from European countries (none of whom had official status) recognized the referendum as legitimate and agreeable to the international laws', the part highlighted in bold is not mentioned in any of the sources cited in that section, someone able to edit the article may want to double check, then remove, edit or leave as necessary. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This part of the article does need to be changed. The referendum wasn't recognized as legitimate by the EU, the US and various other countries. It is just simply incorrect to say the referendum was seem as legitimate when it was not. Only Russia recognizes the results of the referendum. The news article cited says in it that it the referendum was seen as illegal by the US and Europe and it has been condemned by the international community.

That is not right, there wasn't a condemnation by the "international community" this could be only done by the general assembly of the UN. --Wrant (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The UN is not equivalent to the "international community". Sam Tomato (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the citations provided said anything about the observers being unofficial. Removed uncited material as per policy and added a reference that did cite the number of countries sending observers. - Hoplon (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks better, though still shows no information on who the observers mentioned are, or what official organisations they belong to. Considering the OSCE have denied claims that they provided the observers, and stated themselves that they consider the referendum illegal, perhaps it could be updated in order to include that as well. http://www.osce.org/cio/116453 Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The uncited claims are back, added by User Caterham305, looking at the history it appears to be the third time this user has added that information, again with no sources. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to that section today were meant to make sure that the text in the article matches what the cited articles say. I don't know what distinction you are trying to make between "official" and "unofficial" observers. If the OSCE decided to send observers (they didn't) then those would be the "official observers of the OSCE". If three random Polish Plumbers decided to send observers then those would be the "official observers of three random Polish Plumbers". Not to put words in your mouth, but I think what is being asked here is whether the organizations or individuals sending observers are "recognized", not "official". But that would lead us back to the big question of who makes recognition decisions. Ultimately, we can't do any more than cite reliable sources. - Hoplon (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What it said was fine after the edit you made, just seeing as claims have also been made, and denied, that the OSCE sent observers, that the info could be included too, would it be considered relevant to the topic? (with reliable sources of course). I'd say yes but I'm not entirely sure, thought it better to bring up than not. Also, the same person keeps adding the following text (in bold), which is uncited, 'The election was attended by observers from 21 countries who found it legitimate and agreeable to international laws', the source cited does not state that at all, only that observers from 21 countries registered to attend, it says nothing about their decision on the legitimacy of the election, and I don't see how it could, being written 2 days before the election took place. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added the OSCE link and attempted to correctly characterize what it said. - Hoplon (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Have to disagree with the following line: "The election was attended by observers from 21 countries and was found legitimate and agreeable to international laws." This is an unconfirmed statement: only an Crimean spokesman said this (see article). The majority of the 15-nations UN Security council (currently China, Russia, USA, UK, France, Argentina, Australia, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Republic of Korea and Rwanda - http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/) have declared the referendum illegal, with Russia using its veto and China abstaining from voting.

Also - Ban Ki-Moon is going to Moscow and Kiev to talk about it. With the UN still moving around in the background, it's too early to declare Crimea a part of Russia, since the final word hasn't been said on it. Also, while Russia can veto in the Security Council, in case Ukraine decides to bring it as an case to the General Assemblee the outcome will be unpredictable. (It's possible to do so in case the Security Council cannot settle on agreement - which in this case will be very likely unless Russia decides to change the current circumstances regarding Crimea's status) MicBenSte (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits were just made to remove the uncited "who found it legitimate and agreeable to international laws" text, and to clarify who precisely made the "21 observers" claim. Regarding the UN, all we can do is watch and wait and report what happens as per reliable sources. - Hoplon (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The article says "United States and the European Union have stated they considered the vote to be illegal" but that implies that the vote is legal. I am not sure what would be more neutral but I think this section is somewhat biased. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be relevant to say whether Russia allows a subject to vote to leave the Russian Federation and would the subject be allowed to leave. In other words, does Russia allow the subjects that already exist in the Russian Federation to do the same thing that Crimea did to secede from the Ukraine that they consider to be legal? Sam Tomato (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Might want to notify me before deleting my post?Meevinman (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The international community

"condemned and illegal - international community", there are 193 states and only a fraction of the countries condemned the situation and said that the referendum is illegal. Even if the phrase is widely used in the press it doesn't mean that it's right. It's not an established term in this context and should not be used in the article. Only the UN can pass a legally binding resolution according to the international law. --Wrant (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point that even if widely used by politicians (and cited by the press) there is really no authority that can speak on behalf of "the international community". I would clarify that only the UN Security Council can pass binding resolutions; UN General Assembly resolutions by definition are non-binding. I question this statement "Only the UN can pass a legally binding resolution according to the international law". UN Security Council resolutions are only binding on UN members. They are not binding on non-members nor do they have any special place in international law outside of the UN itself. - Hoplon (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I agree with you. But wouldn't this mean that the resolutions from the UN security council could even breach the international law? For instance by accepting an intervention? --Wrant (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Could the UN security council breach international law? Sure, it's possible, but that isn't the matter under consideration. In this case there is a difference of opinion about whether something is legal or not under international law, and unfortunately there is no "supreme court" that makes final determinations on international law. Russia and Crimea have specifically made the case that this vote is legal under the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention, and a prior ruling from the International Court of Justice. I haven't read a specific explanation that states the case for this election being illegal, but I believe that argument would claim it violates the Helsinki Accords, the Ukrainian constitution, and the Budapest Memorandum. - Hoplon (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a pill or sound rude, but does any of this matter to the improvement of the actual article? Misplaced Pages uses the information given by the sources and occasionally the opinions of verified experts. Do our own interpretations of international law matter in this context? CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of the article, absolutely we can only use reliable sources properly cited. For purposes of discussion on the talk page intended to better the article, I feel such conversation is useful. - Hoplon (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're at now. Sorry, my view on these discussions has been coloured by the various screaming comments by IPs and overly emotional editors. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Map corrections needed

• The color of Crimea needs to be changed to dark green, now that Crimea has formally joined Russia.

• Kosovo is wrongly demarcated as an independent state on this map, even though Russia has made very clear that it does not nor intends to recognize the independence of Kosovo. Demarcating Kosovo as separate from Serbia is therefore not in line with Misplaced Pages policy and needs to be corrected to reflect the correct view of Russia.

Abvgd (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has only formally joined Russia in the eyes of Russia. As long as the status of Crimea is disputed, it should remain light green on the map. I don't know which policy you are referring to but Kosovo is recognized by 108 UN-member countries according to its article(a majority) so I don't see why it should be removed(again, without knowing the policy involved here). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Russia recognises a country's independence is not relevant to that map or any Misplaced Pages policy. The same way whether the US or UK recognises a country is irrelevant. I don't know how a decision is made on this kind of thing on Misplaced Pages, but it does seem to be recognition by a simple majority of UN-Members by default. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, Crimea still is internationally disputed territory therefore it's color on the

map of the Russian Federation should be not similar, but remarkably different.--Pirags (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Comprising 85 federal subjects" in the lead

Prior to the annexation of the entire Crimean Peninsula, it was 83. Now given the view most of the sources take with regard to Russia's actions I don't think that the 85 number should be represented as fact in the lead. There should at the very least be a footnote or bracketed statement saying that two of those subjects are under dispute as of March 2014. Something along those lines. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

At least, we can leave 83 until FedCouncil approval and presidential signing of two important laws - ratification itself and amendment to art. 65 of the Constitution (the latter one is FKZ, equvalent of Western organic laws). BTW, Russia already had territorial disputes before (A)RC and Sevastopol, but until now they weren't in a lead. A footnote is a good idea, anyway. 92.100.195.45 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently it seems, that in fact Russia controls Crimea. 92.100.195.45 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This we know, but according to the sources, not many countries recognise a de jure claim on the land. It can't be denied that the administrative divisions exist as that is a Russian internal matter, but it should be noted that they are in what Is considered occupied territory. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupation happens without joining territory into state. What we see is closer to annexation: (A)RC and Sevastopol are declared federal subjects of Russia (no different from other 83), and their population is excepted to acquire same rights, freedoms and duties as other Russian citizens (except those, who opt themselves out of RU citizenship). Yes, it's unilateral act (without consent of Kyiv government, just like Kosovo secession from Serbia); but it's not occupation. It's a territorial dispute. 92.100.209.187 (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Golan Heights and West Bank were both annexed to the State of Israel in 1967, but are considered occupied territories by the international community. I was not disputing the fact that the republic and the city have been annexed by Russia or that Russia has created administrative divisions for them. I am stating that the international community doesn't recognise the new territorial acquisition. Back to the original point though. How should it be presented in the lead, which is the first section most everyone reads? CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Current variant "...comprising eighty-five federal subjects (including the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, which are internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine)" seems pretty fine. It reflects both actual control by Russia and existing territorial dispute in a neutral way. 92.100.209.187 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't seen this new addition (editing via phone). It sounds good. The only change I would make is to put "the city of..." Before Sevastopol as it currently reads like the name of the entity is the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice this thread when making a change; sorry. It should actually be "federal city" (a regular city cannot be a federal subject). I'll correct. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 21, 2014; 15:48 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Russian President has signed accession laws: Подписаны законы о принятии Крыма и Севастополя в состав России kremlin.ru Template:Ru icon. Seryo93 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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.

Comments

• Adopt proposed map - I came here as an article reviewer for Ukraine and consider myself uninvolved. Given the recent vote in Crimea and the votes in Russia to annex it, while Ukraine still claims it as its own and much of the international community does not recognize the votes as legal, Crimea's status is clearly disputed. Per WP:NPOV, the proposed map accurately reflects the current dispute in a neutral, clear way and would be a useful addition to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Shade Crimea Dark Green - I have been involved in the discussion on the Ukraine page. My argument is consistent and unbiased: Misplaced Pages should represent the de facto situation regardless of which countries 'officially' recognize the situation. Noone has been willing to argue that Crimea is not, de facto, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Therefore it should be depicted as part of Russia and not as part of Ukraine. I concede that this position is inconsistent with the current policy on disputed territories being shaded. However, I would argue that there is no measurable way to determine what does or does not rise to the level of a dispute. I would also point to cases, like Korea, where this convention is not enforced and the de facto borders are displayed without shading.173.79.251.253 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion is happening in 2 different places and needs to be consolidated somehow. Talk:Ukraine#Request for Comment USchick (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Crimea is clearly a disputed territory and should be so shown on a map. Same goes for the map of Ukraine. We are not here to endorse one side over another; we are here to create an encyclopedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 21, 2014; 16:40 (UTC)
• Support proposal. Crimea may be de facto part of Russia, but internationally it's viewed differently from the rest of the country. It should be marked on the map, but in a way that distinguishes its status. The proposed map does this well. Bazonka (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Wouldn't there be disunity from general conventions throughout Misplaced Pages? I don't mind whether Crimea is shaded in light green or dark green, but this is something that might need to be thought over. Referring to the pages of India, China, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Israel, Pakistan, Argentina, Serbia and Japan, light green is only used if there is a claim, however there is zero de facto administrative control. China has no control over Taiwan or Aruchanal Pradesh despite claiming them as territory, hence the light green. If there isn't a universal standard on Misplaced Pages, wouldn't this give mixed and confusing ideas to readers? --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Shade Crimea Dark Green per File:Israel (orthographic projection).svg. The situation is not the same as with Ukraine: Ukraine only has a de jure claim, Russia has a de jure claim and de facto control. It is argued that thede jure status is disputed by NATO, EU, the "international community", Western media, of whomever. This is irrelevant. When zooming in to File:Israel (orthographic projection).svg I see the same coloring as in File:Israel Map by The Legal Status of The Territories-3.svg. The occupied West Bank is shaded light green but the de jure annexed Golan Heights are colored dark green – despite the fact that the annexation is recognized by no other country. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad example. See Talk:Israel#Coloring_of_location_map:_Golan_Heights. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wait and see: According to mandatory policy content has to reflect what best sources say, not on any de facto/de jure considerations of individual editors. The "annexation" is a very recent event, my suggestion would be to wait to see how high-quality sources will predominantly present the situation going forward. Obviously, the situation may change as the event is still unfolding. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Kosovo being snuck in. Looking carefully at the 2 maps: Current map shows a united Serbia. New map shows a separate Kosovo. I think this is a separate controversial matter and should be discussed separately. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Frenchmalawi: WP:AGF that is just an error and easily fixable. This RfC was just on the inclusion of Crimea in light green. But thank you for catching that error. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I questioned anybody's good faith thank you very much. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol you just questioned mine? I was not telling you to agf, just that I was. My bad for not spelling it out. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that got in there. Unfortunately, I'm busy this weekend, and won't have time to fix it. Someone should contact the Misplaced Pages:Graphics Lab to get it fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources when it comes to maps. There is no independent cartography source like National Geographic that has released a map yet. For Misplaced Pages to publish a map that has never existed before anywhere on Earth is Original Research and against policy. USchick (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• @USchick Shouldn't the sources regarding Russia's claims on Crimea be enough to allow us to show Crimea as a light-green contested area? It seems almost biased to ignore this and show Russia having no claims on the territory. LarryVlad (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• In an article about a disputed region, it's perfectly fine to show a map of the disputed region because it helps to understand the area being discussed. Like this 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. However, to create a map that has never existed before anywhere on Earth and then impose it on an entire country is original research and against policy. First a reliable source would have to create the map and publish it, and we would follow reliable sources and create our own version that doesn't infringe on their copyright. THEN we would include it in an article. No such map exists right now. The reliable source would be National Geographic in this case. USchick (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: but they plan to. From National Geographic:

Statement from National Geographic Society:

National Geographic Society’s cartographic policy is to portray to the best of our ability current reality. Most political boundaries depicted in our maps and atlases are stable and uncontested. Those that are disputed receive special treatment and are shaded gray as “Areas of Special Status,” with accompanying explanatory text.

In the case of Crimea, if it is formally annexed by Russia, it would be shaded gray and its administrative center, Simferopol’, would be designated by a special symbol. When a region is contested, it is our policy to reflect that status in our maps. This does not suggest recognition of the legitimacy of the situation.

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And we plan to follow them. Until then, it's WP:CRYSTAL. Even National Geographic is still waiting for " if it is formally annexed by Russia," so they are waiting also. USchick (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Russia claims this territory, and some countries accept that. That's enough for calling it dispute. Alex 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And articles about the dispute use the disputed map 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. However, using this map in an article about Russia or Ukraine is Original Research and against policy. USchick (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Dear users, sources please! According to sources Crimea is Ukraine. When reputable sources (i.e. books of geography) will start to indicate Crimea as disputed land Misplaced Pages will do the same. Supporters of the current modification are doing OR. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Silvio1973: See Talk:Ukraine#Request for consensus closure. Lots o' sources there. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hardly! You need source from a geography book/source if you want to publish a map.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs)

• Support That Crimea is a disputed territory claimed by Russia and Ukraine is sourced repeatedly. The mode of representation of this dispute does not have to be the same as in our sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea section

This section reads like everything is great, and there's no disagreement from the Ukrainian government or the international community, and there are no sanctions imposed against Russia at all. No POV here whatsoever, lol USchick (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic Plans to Show Crimea as Part of Russia on Maps

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/18/national-geographic-plans-to-show-crimea-as-part-of-russia-on-maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.38.118 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not annexation, accession 94.28.238.185 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea

Why is this a separate section? Shouldn't it be in the Russian Federation section, which discusses the history of modern Russia? More importantly, why is this section nearly the same size as the entire history of post-Soviet Russia? This is recentism and the History section of the article now fails WP:DUE. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a massive victory for recentism. Much pruning is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I think that the word "Annexion" isn't polite, because there is at least a lot of discussions whether it was an annexion or not. "Adoption" is more likely to be correct here.

The most correct term would be Anschluss (присоединение) of Crimea.--Pirags (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The direct English translation of присоединение is "attachment". Esn (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Military intervention in someone else's territory is not 'polite', either. Whatever any contributor's stance is on the matter, Misplaced Pages does not enter into discourses over whether a term is 'polite' (see WP:EUPHEMISM). The 'correct' (literal) translation is also irrelevant. What is used is the correlating English language terminology and, being a legal reference, lexicologically the corresponding term is 'annexation' or 'accession'. They are both neutral terms and apply to both legal or illegal actions. They neither condone nor condemn, as annexation or accession also refers to legal contracts therefore, from the Russian Federation's POV it can be understood that the contract was entered into by means of a referendum. Anschluss? I didn't realise this was German Misplaced Pages, nor that the Russian Federation is part of the Third Reich. Enough with the apologist silliness and the POV condemnation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian law question: On what date did Crimea become legally Russian territory?

Could persons knowledgeable on Russian law kindly help answer the above question. One editor says it was from when the accession treaty was signed; another editor says it was from when the accession treaty was ratified. Input requested at Talk:Republic of Crimea (country)#On what date did Reunification with Russia occur?. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't. USchick (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Under Russian law? Who knows. Under international treaty law? It hasn't because no one has recognized the annexation yet. JOJ 01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is not a sovereign state. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter if somebody has recognized it or not, de facto it is Russia that's it. If you want to visit Crimea you will need a visa for Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.199.209 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In view of the responses being off topic and irrelevant to the precise question, I suppose no one here had a clue. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If there were sources to support that Crimea became legally Russian territory, opinions wouldn't be necessary. Since there are no sources to support the claim, opinions abound. USchick (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Map corrections needed - Kuril Islands

Crimea, as a disputed territory that is de facto under Russian control is marked in a lighter shade of green on the locator map – and rightly so. But shouldn't the Kuril Islands be marked in the same way? It's the same situation here: a disuputed territory under actual Russian control. And as both Crimea and the Kurils are both very small in comparison to Russia as a whole and hence not well visible on the map, perhaps they should be explicitly mentioned in the caption? Something along the lines of:

Russian Federation – dark green.

Disputed territories (Crimea, Kuril Islands) – light green.

— Kpalion 19:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the Northern Territories should be light green. maybe some one will find time to fix that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea disputed Russian territory, fine for the most of users?

After two years and a modest 2,000 edits I realise that Misplaced Pages is perhaps not the place for me. I believed our task was only to gather the knowledge and not making OR. Indeed, this talk page seems to show this project does not work like that. Crimea is presented here as disputed territory without a support of a decent source (and by the way not like this in the article Ukraine). I am going to revert for the second (and last) time the current version. If for the most of the users this is fine, please explain me why because I don't get it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And on top of that now we include in the article also territory and population. From which source? This is honestly crazy. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Silvio1973. Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 159#Need help with the C Word (Crimea). Neither this talk page or the corresponding Ukrainian talk page are going to make decisions based on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I have already noted that issues surrounding WP:OR for changing stats is contentious at the least. Please read my comments on the Ukrainian talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The map is being used in this article inconsistent with policy WP:NOR. There is no such map and it never existed in the history of mankind. USchick (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal: Talk:Ukraine#Convenience_Break EvergreenFir (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Violation of policy has nothing to do with consensus. The policy of Misplaced Pages:No original research is still there. USchick (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no consensus that can be stroger than a Misplaced Pages's pillar. And there is no source supporting the current map, surface and population of Russia in this article. Honestly this entire thing is getting really out of hand. блин, эта статя не прямо как это... --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As already pointed out by EvergreenFir, please read Talk:Ukraine#Convenience_Break. All contentious issues are evaluated on a case by case basis. Rather than continuing to invoke the same policy over and over, please remember that another of the pillars is 'Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules', and that "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." (see WP:PRINCIPLE and RRULE - So how does the reasonability rule apply to Misplaced Pages?). Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Which states: "We should neither fetter our discretion, nor disregard policies and guidelines." The policy OR was completely disregarded because NO MAPS exist to support the map that was created out of thin air and adopted as the official map (by consensus) simply because editors felt like it. USchick (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

USchick is right. This article is the triumph of OR and RECENTISM. I would change my mind I could see a single source. I have not so far. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

It should be added to the end of the part titled "Crimean Crisis 2014", that:

The UN General Assembly on March 27th voted in favour of a resolution on Ukraine's territorial integrity. By a vote of 100 in favour to 11 against, with 58 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution, calling on States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any change in the status of Crimea or the Black Sea port city of Sevastopol, and to refrain from actions or dealings that might be interpreted as such. Among other things, the resolution underscores the invalidity of the 16 March referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It also calls on all states to "desist and refrain" from actions aimed at disrupting Ukraine's national unity or territorial integrity, including modifying its borders through threat or use of force. It further urged all parties to work for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, through dialogue.

The reference and footnote should be "http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2014/ga11493.doc.htm"

If possible it could also be good to add a picture showing the results of the vote. There are many photos and screenshots with voting result online.

This text could also be added to the Main Article about "2014 Crimean Crisis", and the paragraph "On March 27, the U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution 100 in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly that declared invalid Crimea's Moscow-backed referendum.".

J03y Fr33dom (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: WP:BALASPS for this article. Requester is welcome to take this to relevant current affairs articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

internationally recognised as part of Ukraine

Not from everybody. It's not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.216.42 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

But from majority (according to UNGA vote). "Recognised by most UN members" would be more correct through. Seryo93 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: map of Russia

NPOV issue with the new map of Russia (with Crimea) Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary about the non-neutral point of view for marking Crimea in light-green on the map of Russia

(only few, but not most statements, are sourced with links, to make the text lighter. Most events and facts mentionned are common undisputed knowledge, but of course, I'm ready to provide loads of sources).

• confusion between political statements, completely official, from governements and/or international organizations and juridical codes. Official statements from heads of governments and supra-national organizations are not laws, and even less enforcements (as they are not laws). Laws are always defined inside a given jurisdiction. In the case of Crimea, many nations and organizations made official political statements, about non-recognition of the crimean referendum. Among others USA and EU have labelled it as 'illegal', also a non-binging vote of the UN general assembly. But there is no universal valid jurisdiction for sovereignty matters. These statements about 'illegality' are therefore political in nature, of no 'legal' validity.
• In Crimea there was a de facto process: military presence and actual switch from ukrainian state servants, military and law enforcement authorities to russian ones. And a de jure process: an independance proclamation/secession from Ukraine by the local parliament, then a referendum, them application for re-integration into Russia. 'De jure' means just that: a legal process did happen, and in this case, relatively to russian sovereignty, as per both local self-claimed crimean rules and russian constitutional rules. Of course, that 'de jure' process is not recognized by some other nations. But again, it's only on the political level of official announcements. On the legal level there's nothing, because legality means jurisdiction and enforcement capabilities. And a foreign nation can't have its say on the national jurisdiction of another one (unless they are tied together by an upper level of commonly agreed jurisdiction, like for instance EU nations among themselves).
• not wanting to divert, but to give an idea: when some british colonies on the north-eastern coast of America made a secession in 1776 and proclaimed independence under the name of United States of America, it was done without any legality from UK. From UK pov, it was illegal, it was an act of terrorism and UK sent the military in. Also, the new state, USA, did expand dramatically by taking 'de facto' the land of formers nations, and by a massive ethnical cleansing, or by war with Mexico, so again 'de facto'.
• since the ratification in Moscow the 21 March 2014 (with action starting from 18 March 2014), Crimea is part of Russia, de facto and de jure ie. Russia has full plain control of Crimea and Crimea is plain Russia, status-wise. Not a separated status nor anything specific. It translates legally in the requirement for russian visa for travellers, in the usage of russian ruble, of russian phone prefix (+7), of russian postal service, of russian delegations of insurance companies (travel insurances, car insurances 'green cards', etc). For all practical purposes, from postal service to telephony to GPS and whatever, it's Russia. No foreign nation can do anything about it, unless by a war to take Crimea from Russia military. No nation can take sanctions against Crimea, because Crimea being plain Russia, there's no possibility to single it out. Sanctions must be for Russia as a whole or none. For instance a traveller who can enter Russia anywhere, say from finnish-russian surface border or by air, can afterwards travel to Crimea like no any other point of Russia. Only action is for Ukraine to keep its road, sea and train border closed to Crimea, so creating an annoyance for surface travellers and logistics. So the disputed status stays a political statement without any kind of juridical effect.
• the map of Russia has been officially corrected by Russia, as the state having sovereignty over Russia is ... the Russian Federation. Because it takes some times to swap the old ones, only few places have the new one. Yet books have already been reprinted with the updated map Производители начали печатать карты с российским Крымом. As well, the russian web search engine Yandex has updated its electronic map Map of Russia with Crimea
• while there is of course a great opposition from Ukraine to the loss of Crimea, historically the peninsula has been only for a very short time into ukrainian sovereignty. The former longest "landlords' of Crimea where: Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium, then Mongols, then Tatars, then Tatars under Ottoman reign, then Russia since 1783 to 1954 or 1991. 1954 if legitimacy is given to the former Socialist Sovietic Republic of Ukraine inside USSR, or 1991 if USSR socialist republics are given no validity, but only dissolution/independence from it. So Crimea has been then in Ukraine for 23 years, or 60 at most with 37 as a Sovietic Republic. Moreover the referendum hold in Ukraine in 1991 for independence was hold in what was then the Sovietic Socialist Republic of Ukraine, and it was about independence relatively to USSR, not about the status of Crimea relatively to the newly formed independent Ukraine. In the immediate aftermath, Crimea claimed a separated status. So, historically, there's a crimean specificity which predates since ever the current 2014 crisis, and clearly shows that it's not about a russian seizure or annexion coming out of the box from nowhere. What has happened is actually a re-integration of Crimea into Russia, like it or not, depending on personal tastes. That's no OR (original research) to exhibit an historical timeline of the sovereignties over a territory. (timeline easily backed by loads of academic data if needed in the body of the article).
• Before russian rule over the Ottoman in 1783, Crimea had never ever been part of Ukraine. For instance on historical maps: Europe in year 1800, Europe in year 1700, Europe in year 1600, etc. In fact Ukraine never had even a Black Sea side, before it became under russian control in the 19th century. Kievan Russia, as a Varanguian state ie. build along varanguian-like rivers control, had barely a domination of the Dniepr estuary, before the varanguian principalty was wiped out by the Mongols.
• there's no consistent policy on Misplaced Pages about map representation of disputed territories. For instance Gibraltar, which is clearly a small peninsular piece of iberian land and in no way near a british coast, is under UK sovereignty. Spain has been claiming sovereignty for three centuries. Yet the article and map of Gibraltar treats it like any sovereign country, in plain dark-green on the map.

About a couple specious arguments to mark Crimea in light-green on the map:

• Kosovo example: Kosovo is a self-proclaimed state not integrated to any other neighbouring state. Serbia doesn't recognize the secession of Kosovo but has no control over it. Editorial consensus on Misplaced Pages has been then to mark Kosovo light-green, relatively to Serbia. Crimea isn't a separate state like South Ossetia, itis plain regular Russia now, so relatively to Russia its status is clear. It's relatively to Ukraine that it is disputed. So on the Ukraine article it can well be marked in light-green as disputed. But in the Russia article, it's non-sense, Crimea isn't disputed, it's just part of Russia. Everyday many flights from Moscow fly over to Simferopol in russian airspace without entering ukrainian airspace. Any traveller with a visa for Russia can travel to Simferopol, by air or by ferry-boat over the 5 kms Kerch strait.
• the trick about 'valid sources'. Often pro-ukrainian editors argue that some sources must be dismissed as 'invalid'. Basically they mean russian sources. That's a politically biaised point of view. There's obviously a political conflict, so sides involved oppose and dismiss each others. From an encyclopedic point of view, what is important is the collect and assessment of all parts, as well as facts. Both Russia and Ukraine have their arguments. Culturally, historical, linguistically and demographically, russian arguments are very consistent and do weight a lot. Ukrainian arguments are mostly one: recent historical legalities since 1991 or maybe 1954 if USSR jurisdiction is accepted (but then beware of the same at other former soviet regions!).
• because the sovereignty shift of Crimea is very recent, most atlas, encyclopedias and cartographic editors haven't yet, excepted few ones in Russia, printed any new maps. Yet a map showing the territory of a country is only a pictorial view of the official borders, and what matters is the actual jurisdiction not what is printed on a map. Put in other words: if you take with you a map showing Crimea in Ukraine and you show yourself to the ukrainian-crimean (ie. ukrainian-russian) border, without a russian visa, you will not enter Crimea (ie. Russia), despite arguing as much as you want with the crimean (ie. russian) border police about Crimea not being on your map of Russia, or being marked as 'light-green disputed' :-) But if anyone is ready to take the actual test, try that and success, a report would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioB (talk • contribs)

@AntonioB: We just had an RfC about this (above at Talk:Russia#Request for Comment). Can you please succinctly summarize your concerns? There seems to be many concerns listed, but I am not quickly seeing a core argument. Do you want Crimea to be solid green? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: well an ultra light summary comes down to a couple core arguments: 1) the former RfC didn't see the difference between political statements like non-recognitions of the crimean referendum, and juridical facts according to existing national jurisdictions. Also it jumped over historical heritage. Political statements are NOT laws and have no effect unless direct action can be done on the ground. Basically, Russia has annexed or re-integrated Crimea (pick your wording according to which part to side with) and it's a done fact: Crimea is now plain Russia. It's not a distinct entity, not a special status, not an administration shared by different jurisdictions or with observers. It's not Kosovo, it's not Gibraltar, it's not even Tibet because crimeans are a majority of russians agreeing with the return to Russia, so unlike Tibet there's no ethnical resistance. Dissident Tatars weren't enough to overturn votation. Also crimeans have been scared by anti-russian linguistic laws from ukrainians, and drastic IMF imposed welfare cuts and commodities prices hike. Moreover russian heritage weights much more than formal legalities of ukrainian jurisdiction, historically recent. Of course the ukrainian opinion can't accept that. But the cake is baked and eaten. Done. 2) in the former RfC, there were some fallacious/specious arguments brought in. I tried also to summarize then -- Basically, I suggest Crimea as regular part of Russia, in solid green. But there's a need for a good section about Crimea in the body of the article, because it's easy to get confused about legalities/jurisdictions/political statements. The trap is: acknowledgement of the done fact and current status may appear to be a siding with the initial russian process in Crimea triggered back in february. On the other hand, to let Crimea in light-green is a denial of its current plain legal status: russian. As already mentionned: statements from heads of governements about non-recognition of crimean referendum ARE NOT laws, are backed with nothing because there's no universal jurisdiction, and can't even have diplomatic effects because Crimea isn't a separated entity like Kosovo, put plain Russia. Said in other words: get a russian visa, jump in a plane in Moscow, get down in Simferopol, and you notice no difference. just like you fly from London to Newcastle or Detroit to Boston. As for Tatars, there are millions of them in central Russia, in Tatarstan, capital Kazan. As for ukrainians, maybe there are more of them in Moscow than in Crimea... Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the shorter version. I think the issue is that the legality of the annexation is in question. We as editors cannot interpret the legality, only report on others' interpretations. De facto, Crimea is part of Russia. But Ukraine does not recognize the succession as legal and views the territory as their by law. Thus, the territory is disputed and the map reflects that. Part of NPOV is to reflect the reality of the situation, including the dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in fact both Ukraine and Russia view Crimea as them by law! Only that they don't refer to same laws. And there's no unique legal framework universally valid to decide. But relatively to actual law enforcement and actual jurisdiction, Crimea is now Russia. Law of Ukraine over Crimea has ended. See? It's not a partisan siding. We as editors can't decide about the legality, but also nobody can, because, as said, there's no central universal body about that. For instance the official annoucements of USA and EU about lack of legality, are based on nothing excepted the ukrainian claim itself. And U.N has voted a condemnation of the referendum but the condemnation is non-binding, and the statuses of U.N. clearly tell elsewhere that there's no rules about legality of self-proclaimed secessions and independances. When USA, EU and etc. state that they will not recognize the annexation/re-integration of Crimea it sounds very weird, because Crimea is now Russia anyway, so either they take it back or they stop recognizing Russia as a whole. Clearly the dispute is on a political level, not on a legal one. Besides, as pointed in my initial longer comment: there's no consistent behavior on Misplaced Pages . For instance, Gribraltar is disputed by Spain, yet Misplaced Pages doesn't reflect it in the map, where Gibraltar shows on its own (plain green). The article of China for instance doesn't show Tibet in light-green, yet sovereignty is claimed by 14th Dalaï Lama and Tibetan Governement in Exile. And tibetans have a distinct cultural, ethnical and linguistical heritage. See: no consistent editing policy. What brings consistency to the russian attitude is the russian heritage of Crimea, which was russian from 1783 to 1954 or 1991 (soviet or non-soviet times) and support from crimean russian population. And definitively, Crimea was never ukrainian before 1954 or 1991. We as editor can inform that the dispute is in the context of NATO expansion relatively to Russia. That's also an ongoing historical fact. It explains better the sources of the dispute and the political quarrel about what is claimed to be "legality" But these points, crimean russian heritage and NATO context, are not mentioned in the paragraph about the recent crimean crisis and make it appears like it's a conquest triggered by Russia out of nothing but some kind of expansionnism, while in fact a geopolitical explaination is that the Crimea operation is a way to freeze NATO expansionism, and therefore for Russia to protect itself from Brzezinski-like plans of breaking it, and that explanation is corrobored by Lavrov comments to Kerry. Maybe it's probably an editorial casus belli with no solution, because the color on the map isn't about legality. But also it provides very little background. Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, what you are proposing, Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. is an op ed thinly disguised as a legal and historical argument. The fact that there has been an escalation in squeezing the Russian Federation economically and politically by the US and the EU is a forum topic, not the topic of this article. If you wish to develop your own article on the subject matter (using secondary sources), that is entirely down to you. Dragging in 'historical' rights is far more convoluted than you would have it. It was part of the Ottoman Empire for far longer than it was part of the Russian Empire (not the Russian Federation)... and these empires are long since defunct. If you wish to elaborate on changes in the world economy from empires to current day nation-states, you have a lot more ground to cover than the WP:SYNTH (uncited and overtly simplistic synthesis at that) you've just offered. And before you continue on 'the Crimean Russian heritage', I would suggest you read this brief essay. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

not much an historical argument. Mainly a legal and methodological clarification. Sovereignty is about legal jurisdictions and actual control and enforcement capabilities. That's how nations work. Say you drive and come by a fence where it reads "Border", and you must show passport to drive over, and over it's a different nation. That's the case with Crimea. Before it had the name "Ukraine" over the entrance. Now it has the name "Russia". Formaly, it's not even like Kosovo, which was a part of a country before, and became after a country in its own. No, here we have a region sitting between two countries. It was part of the one before, and of the other after. Unless the sovereignity of the new country is challenged, which in international politics means basically do a war and win it, then it stays where it is now. These are plain facts. The legality here is the one of the umbrella over Crimea: Russia. European Union, United States and tutti quanti made official statements telling they don't recognize the annexion/reintegration process. Good. So what? International political statements aren't laws. Want to travel to Crimea? please get a russian visa on your passport. Simple. (Otherwise, and on the side, you didn't read my first comment, where I reminded of the historical landlords over Crimea since Ancient Greece. Facts are that Crimea was under russian sovereignity for a couple centuries before 1991 or 1954, was under controversial status between 1991 and 2014, and did not experience a sufficient ethnical cleansing of its russian population in the meanwhile, so it makes obviously for additional hints. Your link is of little relevance outside the british spinoffs (USA-CAN-AUS-NZ) and ethno-historical heritage does actually matter a lot in politics, because in most case there are centuries old continuities. Of course british spinoffs are different: colonists come from far away, plant the Union Jack on the ground and say it's UK, wipe the natives away or to remote deserts, take all the land, bring in more colonists, make secession from UK, and then say "oh! ethno-historical arguments are void!". Yep, we know that. That's not how things work outside USA-CAN-AUS-NZ. And that's not the matter here anyway. I focus on the actual facts and legalities about Crimea.) AntonioB Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@editor with longwinded user name - one thing that interests me and I have been trying to get input on: you seem to state Crimea became Russian (as a matter of Russian law) on 21 March. I would like as much input as I can get on the exact date having had a long but not very satisfactory discussion about it at Talk:Republic of Crimea (country)#On what date did Reunification with Russia occur?. All reasoned input welcome. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

well, it's very easy to confirm and source that Crimea is a part of Russia: for instance ITAR-TASS: Russian Federation Council ratifies treaty on Crimea’s entry to Russia or, directly on the site of the president of Russia: Ceremony signing the laws on admitting Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation and

How many words and how much OR. Indeed the issue here should be simple. Do we have valid neutral sources supporting a map with Crimea in Russia? I have not seen any so far. And Yandex.ru is not neutral (I live in Moscow, I know what I say). It is not a source indeed. When dealing with geography a source is a geography book. The real truth is that this article has been modified without any supporting source, which is normal because it is so recent that sources do not exist (not yet). Silvio1973 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

it's common in the english speaking world, that sources are dismissed as non-neutral is they are russian. So even is a map of Russia is available soon in a bookstore in Russia, with Crimea in it, the fact could be dismissed as non neutral source. But that's not even the key point by now. The key point is that Crimea is part of Russia since the 18 March 2014. To mention the fact is not to take sides, it is just that: to mention the fact. That's what encyclopedias area bout. Because the re-integration (russian pov.) or annexation (ukrainian pov) is so recent, most maps on paper support are not yet been reprinted. It's on the way. For instance (a french) tv report at a russian cartographic publishing house But it's not the map that is the proof of the fact. AntonioB Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's the other way around. In the first place, official statements from many countries tell that the crimean referendum is "illegal". But they provide no source about what jurisdiction and laws. Exactly as you write: "verifiable, reliable source". Something is illegal always relatively to a given jurisdiction and a given code of laws. In a trial people are told the articles of laws they break. And a trial is always in a given jurisdiction. Besides, legalities about crimean refenrendum plays no role here. You dont' get it: I'm not taking part, I'm not campaigning any political taste. I'm just observing a fact: Crimea is russian now. Call it whatever you want: robbery, crime, theft, evil, blablabla, it's anyway a fact. And legal on the russian side. Crimea doesn't even need any recognition from other nations, because it's plain Russia, not a new state. Ukrainians and n countries say it's illegal. Good, they go ahead and take Crimea back, and then encyclopedias can put Crimea back in the map of Ukraine. A map of Russia without Crimea in it is false, misleading. You can't drive from Ukraine to Crimea without crossing over the russian border. AntonioB Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

AntonioB, I understand your point of view. We all have viewpoints here, but we cannot include them. This is the argument you make above (whether or not it is a good or bad argument) is original research. To answer the question of how to neutrally convey a fact, we look to reliable sources. The viewpoint that you convey may very well be a significant minority opinion, in which case you can (and should) find a source that makes that argument, and include it in the relevant portion of the article, making sure you are not giving it any WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. If you have an article or other source that states your viewpoint, you could bring it up here. That would probably help editors discuss if and how it can be included. --Precision123 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

To hold an RfC on this subject would require that your point and other policy and guideline points illustrated in the comments above would be included in the argument, Precision123. Then, and only then, could there be an RfC and well thought out, policy-based consensus. This is why I have asked that AntonioB remove the RfC tag. At the moment it reads as WP:TL;DR WP:SOAP which is inappropriate for a talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct, @Iryna Harpy:. AntonioB, I encourage you to remove the RfC tag. It would be much better for you and other editors if you find a source and then we can discuss if the source is reliable and what parts of the source are relevant, and so on. Those are the policy-based arguments we look for. --Precision123 (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If there was a map from a reliable source, there would be no need for the RfC. USchick (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL! We could always use 'БУДЬ НА СТРАЖЕ' for the map, USchick. Apologies to everyone else for cracking an off-topic (but timely) joke.

In all seriousness, AntonioB, you're currently being asked very politely to drop the stick. Come back if/when you have a genuine case to be heard. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I find it interesting that in a different RfC, a crystal ball was used to determine that a reliable source would come up with a map "very soon." Now this RfC is asking for a reliable source before any discussion can take place. This circular logic is being used to create brand new history without any sources whatsoever. I hope someone is being paid very well by Putin to push this OR. There's no reason for AntonioB to remove the RfC tag until these issues have been addressed by the people who created the problem in the first place. USchick (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should end being that polite. User AntonioB is pushing against at least 3 pillars: POV, RECENTISM, FRINGE. Please note this user has just 50 edits and seems not to understand the basics of this project. I think he/she sould be ignored and if insists to disrupt be blocked. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: And you are not being WP:CIVIL and you yourself have a POV. Do not direct your attacks at users. The number of edits or how recent an account was made does not matter; they could be a long time IP editor. We had an RfC to have the current map added in the first place and the consensus was to add it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not work this way. Otherwise 15 or 20 people could create consensus againt WP pillars. Indeed this is what happened here. I do not attack anyone but I take very seriously edits without sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You did attack the user directly instead of the issue. And WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The consensus was reached not based the number of comments, but on the quality and interpretation of the policies. This poor poor horse. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian Federation

The current, and clearly recently updated, version of this article asserts without qualification that Crimea and Sevastopol are part of the Russian Federation.

Given the near global consensus that Russia's very recent acquisition of Crimea violates international norms, this unqualified assertion -- not even acknowledging that Crimea's status is controversial -- makes this entry highly partisan, misleading and inappropriate for Wikipedis.

Robert Gillette Washington, DC Wolfeboro, NH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.205.89 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

See the above conversations. Crimea is indeed part of Russia de facto and possibly de jure. There is qualification about other nations and the UN not recognizing the annexation. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume the subsection you are referencing is the Annexation of Crimea, Robert Gillette. It serves as a summary of the main articles and feature links to the main articles at the top of the section. The tone is neutral, explains the processes of the annexation, and notes the response of other international bodies and individual nation-states. I don't see any extraordinary claims or anything that could be construed as a WP:POV push. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes this a POV push is that the entire section supports the Russinan POV, and the last two sentences say that this is disputed. The annexation of Crimea began not on March 1, but precisely on February 27, 2014 when unknown gunmen seized the parliament Supreme Council of Crimea#In the wake of the Crimean crisis. They replaced the existing chairman with Sergey Aksyonov, who declared himself in charge of local police and military. And then he asked for Russian forces to take control. Of course, very conveniently, Russian forces were already in the building, with automatic weapons, waiving a Russian flag on the roof. Adding this information to the article, would provide much needed balance. Then if this section needs to be shorter, the rest of the story can be summarized in two or three sentences. USchick (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Section

This section is way to long in the history section, the history goes back thousands of years and yet we have this wall of text barely covering one month. It isn't even that important compared to some other events. It should be shortened or merged into a one or two liner under the Russian Federation... --Kuzwa (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It does suffer from some recentism. I would not be opposed to it being trimmed. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that a bit of a trim would be good. The detail is borderline undue, and the hatnotes provide links to the main current affairs articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent politics and international law infringement

These were not included and as I do include them I would be glad if I would not be interrupted by Russian editors. Thank you. --Aleksd (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Are you calling me a Russian editor? LOL. Please try to explain the reasons for your addition. And perhaps you could seek some help with your English expression. As you have written your addition so far its just not acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reasons: information. :) I think based on sources information about NATO and UN statements is very much acceptable, Russian editor. --Aleksd (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems you want to use the word "invasion". That is obviously a change to the POV of the article, and I imagine you realis it won't have universal support. It's probably the most doubtful part of your additions. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me you forgot to mension nobody accepts this as legal, only Russia itself. Strange, ah? :) --Aleksd (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that you simply made your additions again, BEFORE making that comment here, i.e. without continuing this discussion. That's unacceptable. I won't edit war, but I will clearly state that, IMHO, your edits are completely unacceptable. This is not the place to fight your personal war against Russia. It damages Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of the discuss portion of BRD, HiLo48, you haven't responded to the issue of the use of the word 'invasion'. Is there a problem with introducing it as part of a balanced account when there is a plethora of RS media coverage that can be cited? It doesn't need to be introduced as part of a neutral account, but I could certainly point the argument back at you if you think the current account is entirely acceptable. As I've noted below to Aleksd, the use of neutral language is not the equivalent of a neutral POV. This is not a place to fight your personal war for Russia. It damages Misplaced Pages. (P.S. I spent so much time trying to approach the subject as a neutral party that I didn't realise what an insidious piece of nonsense this subsection actually is until I re-read it this morning.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleksd Please read about "bold, revert, discuss", neutral point of view, assuming good faith, and the 3 revert rule. I agree with HiLo48 that your edits don't seem terribly neutral, but there does seem to be some useful and constructive info in your edits. Can we reach a consensus of how to incorporate it? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see I am not the only one who does not feel content with the previous "wording", I would say omissing of some major information in the article, see for example below user Volunteer Marek. I definitelly think many places of this section need additional information, in fact to say entirely different things. I only was able to improve a few for a short while. Consensus may be reached for the new wording but there definitely is no consensus on the previous one. --Aleksd (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the concern was over the length, Aleksd. I suspect that what was agreed on by a few of us is that it's too long already (as in WP:UNDUE), particularly in light of the fact that it's still a current affair (therefore WP:RECENTISM is a concern. Turning it into an article in itself is not the approach we had in mind. As it stands, if it incorporated all of the content you're trying to add it would be as long as the section dedicated to Imperial Russia.

Could you engage in the 'discuss' portion of BRD, please? While I didn't have any particular objections as to the content, or the presentation of the content before, on re-reading it I do see that it reads as using neutral language to give an account of the event from the Russian Federation's POV, with a little token lipservice to the fact that some (actually the majority) of the global community considered it a military invasion and don't recognise any part of the process as being legal tacked on. The step by step account currently in place definitely reads as if the Russian Federation calmly tried to protect the region (including the fact that it was at the behest of the 'legal' president of Ukraine) because Ukraine was, and still is(?), in a state of lawlessness. I'd also take issue with presenting the referendum and final 'discussions' with other nations and leagues of nations in 2015 as the final part of an unquestionably legal process. Ideally, per Misplaced Pages's policies, a balanced account is not a political tirade or indictment... but it certainly needs to be a little more balanced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording in Crimea annexation section

In that section though, these two sentences do seem POV:

"In late February 2014 the government of Ukraine collapsed as a result of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution." - the Yanukovych government collapsed, but the new government is there and is functioning.

"On 1 March 2014, Viktor Yanukovych, exiled President of Ukraine, requested that Russia use military forces to restore order and stability to Ukraine" - the "restore order and stability" is Yanukovych's and Russian government's POV and should not be stated in Misplaced Pages voice as fact. Order and stability have begun to return after Yanukovych fled.

Both need to be reworded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to reword. Used direct quote from Yanukovych letter. Still don't like the wording of "government collapsed". I know it means the current coalition fell apart, but the structure of the government was still there. The members were replaced, not the system. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The reworded version is definitely an improvement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

must delete

or call article ussr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrykoslovrussia (talk • contribs) 05:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You gave no reasons, so it's impossible to know your real concerns here. And we already have an article called the Soviet Union, which is a redirect from USSR. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Population

Sources in English reports the Population of Russia excluding the population of Crimean peninsula. Whoever wants to include the population of Crimea in the population of Russia needs to cite a source. Neutral and Verifiable. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@User EvergreenFir. If you want to include the population of Crimea in the population of Russia you need a source. A source saying exactly what you report. You cannot add "manually" the current population of Crimea from the Ukrainian statistics to the population of Russia from the Russian statisticis bureau. Also you need to provide a source from the English speaking-world. As the content of this article is in dispute it is paramount to provide bomb-proof sources which cannot be discussed about their neutrality. Pleaae also note that if you keep reverting without looking for consensus first here I will edit a report about your conduct. Thank you for your understanding. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in the lead

Reporting so much information in the lead concerning the contested annexation of Crimea is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Unless a reasonable number of secondary sources from the English world cannot be provided it should not be reported such information in the lead. This is even more inappropriate in view of WP:RECENTISM. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of federal subjects

Again an issue of OR. A source is needed to list the number of federal subjects of the Russian Federation. Any manual count is OR, we need a source here. And again not a Russian one. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot demand "not a Russian one". A population count from Russian officials is as RS as any. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)