Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zihao Wang(Clement) (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of section "Russian Occupation (2014–present)"[edit]

"Disputed" means there is a meaningful dispute about something. In this case, the condemnation of the Russian actions by the international community and by experts on international law is very clear. Also, the section tells the story of the annexation in a way very close to the Russian narrative. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All occurrences of "disputed" have been removed from the section and other edits have made it less close to the Russian narrative. Nurg (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, less POV doesn't mean NPOV. The whole idea of starting with demonstrations against the ousting of the president and not mentioning the session of the Crimean parliament under threat of Russian arms is still too close to the Russian narrative. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of section "Politics"[edit]

The section presents the elections under Russian occupation as meaningful, while in fact they were far from free. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to solve the problem by deleting all text which I think would not be selected by a neutral observer. I know that most of the text I deleted was sourced, but the NPOV also obliges us to be neutral in our choice of the details we include. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of the lead ?[edit]

@JeromeWillettID: I removed your POV template because you didn't give a reason here on the talk page, and I couldn't see anything pro-Ukrainian in the lead section. Please explain what you think is pro-Ukrainian, but please remember that neutrality for WP means neutrally reporting what reliable sources say. It doesn't mean having a position in the exact middle between two parties. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rsk6400: These are the reasons why I add the POV template: the very first paragraph of main lead and the infobox currently only display the de jure status of Crimea, being controlled by Ukraine. However, these omit the fact that Crimea is currently de facto annexed by Russia since 2014, although it appears in the last paragraph of main lead. Because of this, I say these details on that first paragraph and infobox as biased of Ukraine. I suggest to accommodate the views of both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian supporters, one should add the fact that it is also currently annexed by Russia. —Jerome Willett 13:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, see WP:DUE. The stress is on reliable sources, the footnote there stating explicitly that the views of WP editors or the general public are irrelevant. So, the view of both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian supporters, as you called it, are irrelevant. The problem of pro-Russian people is that there are simply no reliable sources supporting their point of view in the conflict with Ukraine. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end of the day, only 9 UN member states (including Russia) recognize Crimea as part of Russia and not as part of Ukraine. This means that 184 UN member states (including Ukraine) recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. When only 4.7% of states say that Crimea is part of Russia, and 95.3% of states say that Crimea is part of Ukraine, the neutral point of view is not going to be giving equal weight to both opinions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The old misunderstanding that NPOV means that WP should always maintain a "neutral" whenever there are opposing views is probably the most common misunderstanding there is here - but a misunderstanding nonetheless. NPOV certainly does not imply neutrality between two different views when one view is clearly the more accurate one (for two obvious examples, we don't pretend there's any NPOV issue is saying that flat-earthers or creationists are flat out wrong). This situation is rather similar: WP,based on reliable sources, certainly does not pretend that there is some form of equal validity between the aggressor and the victim in the war in Ukraine. Crimea is legally a part of Ukraine, and that's not a POV statement, simply a sourced fact. Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of neutrality[edit]

I removed the statement of "Crimea is a peninsula in Ukraine" in favour of "Crimea is a peninsula in Eastern Europe", despite the fact that the territory is claimed and fully controlled by Russia since 2014.

Crimea is legally a part of Ukraine, and that's not a POV statement, simply a sourced fact. But, in the other hand, it is also legally a part of Russia under that country's law. Internationally, it is recognized as a part of Ukraine, but as I said, its control falls under Russia, so this short description should remain neutral. LUZ Y FUERZA (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think three editors, including myself, already answered to this in the previous section. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not neutrality. That's placing undue wait on the Russian position, which is a fringe position. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's a little silly to call the actual material conditions in Crimea a "fringe position." it's been defacto part of russia for 8 years. Aachenshinto (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what we are discussing. The idea that Russia is occupying Crimea is not in dispute. The idea on whether it is legally part of Russia, rather than legally part of Ukraine, is. De jure, not de facto, is what we are discussing. It is absolutely a fringe position that Crimea is de jure a part of Russia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how this is the topic of discussion, as no text has been proposed that states Crimea is legally part of Russia. CMD (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposed text is to remove the fact that Crimea is in Ukraine, with the justification being WP:NPOV. However, removing the claim that it is in Ukraine is not an action of neutrality, it is giving undue weight to the fringe position that Crimea is in Russia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's simply not interpreting the word "in" in a very specific and legalistic manner. Perhaps worth noting again that the current text opening with that quite blatant legalistic interpretation is a recent insertion, replacing a long-stable lead. CMD (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. I proposed the current wording as a compromise in the preceding thread, but I agree it's not optimal by any measure. I think it's best if the first sentence introduced the peninsula as being in Eastern Europe, then (maybe after another sentence about its overall geographic location), lay out three facts: 1) that it has been occupied/annexed/controlled by Russia since 2014, 2) that this situation is mostly not recognised internationally, and 3) that the international recognition is of it as part of Ukraine. – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is mostly about geography, politics should be secondary here. I see any attempt to find a compromise between the position of the international community and the propaganda of the Russian government as false balance. So, I'm clearly in favour of "in Ukraine". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could steer clear of the politics if we talked of Crimea as only being in Eastern Europe, but the moment we tried to say which country it's in, the politics become impossible to avoid. And by the way, what exactly in the introduction I propose above do you see as reflecting the "propaganda of the Russian government"? – Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say that anything in the first sentence is propaganda of the Russian government. I said that avoiding the statement that Crimea is in Ukraine would be a compromise with that propaganda. And therefore, we can't avoid politics by keeping silent. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it wouldn't be, and the content of Russian propaganda should be ignored rather than factor into the writing of this article. CMD (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what some contributors are trying to achieve here but it is not achieving a WP:NPOV. There is nothing wrong with User:LUZ Y FUERZA's proposed "Crimea is a peninsula in Eastern Europe", which is a fact. That statement should be immediately followed by the statement that "Crimea is claimed by both Ukraine and Russia", which is also a fact. Further discussion about what is legal and what is not, what is recognised and what is not, who recognises it and who does not, is almost irrelevant to these first two undeniable facts. Wikipedia does not take sides. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear IP, please read WP:NPOV before linking it. „Does not take sides“ is a claim often made by propagandists of fringe theories. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall quote to you from the top section of WP:NPOV:

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

"Articles must not take sides." I also note that your user page flies the Ukrainian flag while we discuss the neutrality of this article. You have insinuated that I am providing propaganda or fringe theory because I query the article's neutrality; I recommend that you cease doing that, and remind you that your comments are open for the world to read and for others to review. My proposal is in good faith - you might like to inform yourself regarding WP:AGF.
Now back to the issue without further obfuscation on your part, are the two statements factual or are they not? If they are not factual then you are cordially invited to identify in what way. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest you read a little more. The section WP:GEVAL is roughly in the middle of WP:NPOV. I proudly fly the Ukrainian flag because Russian propaganda creates a lot of fringe theories. I'm not going to discuss with you further. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uanfala and Kashmiri: The version which I restored ("Crimea is a peninsula in Ukraine") has been stable since at least the end of December last year (I didn't check further back), so please don't change it before achieving consensus here, see WP:BRD. Kashmiri, I also randomly checked two other articles on peninsulae and they don't support your theory that a geography article should not start with politics (which I understand as should not mention the country the peninsula belongs to): Kamchatka Peninsula and Peloponnese. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have checked further back. The peninsula in Ukraine version was inserted on 3 November here, shortly after the #Location discussion above was started, with the discussion continuing since that point (up to now it appears). The version before that with Eastern Europe was inserted on 12 April 2017 and was stable since then, with previous versions just having the Black sea part. CMD (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bridge attack[edit]

@Jjpachano: The attack on the Russian-built bridge was added to this article in this edit. That's two and a half months ago. According to WP:NOCONSENSUS, the stable version should remain until consensus is reached. To reach consensus, you should give good reasons why you want to change the current text. Since the attack was broadly covered by media around the world, it is surely notable. It was also used by Putin as a pretext for his attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2023[edit]

In this section, there is a sentence that says "Russia then claimed to have annexed Crimea, although most countries still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine." Can this be edited to remove the "claimed" word and make it clear that Russia has in fact annexed Crimea? The source provided for the UN General Assembly voting to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine is fine, but the word "claimed" is strange here, as it implies that Russian control of Crimea is uncertain and doubted. My suggestion is to just remove the word like this:

"Russia then annexed Crimea, although most countries still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine." JasonMacker (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De jure, it is absolutely disputed. The annexation has not been de jure recognized by most countries in the world. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no dispute that Russia has de facto annexed Crimea. I have no objection to noting that this annexation is unrecognized by the majority of the international community. My edit request clearly has a clause saying that Russia's annexation is unrecognized. But the annexation has happened. The Republic of Crimea is under Russian Federation control. It's not a "claim". Russian annexation of Crimea is condemned by many western leaders. So it has happened and is not in dispute. JasonMacker (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done for now: Yep, no consensus for now, and this is a complex topic. Lemonaka (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This particular instance is pretty clearcut. The annexation happened, the annexation has not been recognised. The word "claimed" there makes no sense, as JasonMacker notes. Without the annexation, there is nothing to not recognise. CMD (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ahistoric use of Russia in the first paragraph[edit]

this is biased: "Russia was often the target of slave raids during this period."

Until middle of XVIth century Russia did not exist. Territories attacked were under control of first Lithuanian state, then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and only partially at the end by Russia.

If ahistoric apporach is taken Russia should be replaced by Ukraine in this statement.

If historic - it should be reformulated either to include all states or, if we limit to the one that was most impacted, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth— Preceding unsigned comment added by JacekPliszka (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done using text from Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe small jars tc 10:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Illegal referendum"[edit]

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

It was also illegal under international law, e.g. the Charter of the United Nations and various other treaties signed by Russia. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is the case then the article should reflect that, citing WP:RELIABLE sources, rather than some nebulous legal opinion about "Ukrainian law". Please initiate if this is so. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

That's not for us to decide. If reliable sources call this illegal, than that is what we have to say here in Wikipedia in our articles. If they don't say it is illegal, then we don't either. However, it is not up to editors' personal interpretations of international law to decide whether we say it is illegal or not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only when they are reliable for legal matters, which in this case would be mostly academic publications. Or do you have an unlimited trust in Vogue? — kashmīrī TALK 08:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there is something between academic publications and Vogue which can be normally seen as reliable, even in legal matters (from BBC to NYT, and many others) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a so-called reliable source says that something is illegal, and that is disputable, then we need to look at the expertise of the writer who is claiming it. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Vogue is considered fully reliable per WP:RSPSS, and we are supposed to blindly follow whatever is officially branded as "reliable", no? — kashmīrī TALK 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These types of media are badged as "reliable", yet they are only a conduit for journalists. The question then becomes "Is this journalist a recognised expert on the topic?" As per WP:REPUTABLE, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors....". That does not mean the magazine per se. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kashmiri, apart from your suggestion being against WP rules (as OuroborosCobra pointed out), I don't think that a single expert on international law would agree with you. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Off-topic
Sure, expert. — kashmīrī TALK 08:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A better response would have been asking "Who has counted the number?". 182.239.148.72 (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. Just no sensible answer to an argumentum ad populum came to mind. — kashmīrī TALK 21:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear IP and @Kashmiri: may I remind you of WP:NOTFORUM ? I don't claim to be an expert, but I've read something on the subject. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To violate WP:NOTFORUM is illegal, right? — kashmīrī TALK 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ENOUGH. Drop it with the snark and personal attacks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop using bold lettering - we are not "deaf" and therefore there is no need to WP:SHOUT. No forum happening here - other editors refuse to discuss the issue which I raised but instead dismissed it. The matter of WP:UNCIVIL is enough; the matter of the improper use of "illegal" in this topic is not enough, and has yet to be addressed. 182.239.148.72 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Power Generation[edit]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023[edit]

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

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit extended-protected)) template. Please feel free to make comments in the discussions on this topic above. Tollens (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new short description sums up the scope of the article better. The old is purely geopolitical. small jars tc 17:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Location in infobox[edit]

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

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

"is a peninsula in Eastern Europe"[edit]

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

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

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

It's worth thinking about just what this article is about versus what the other articles are about. This article is specifically about the peninsula (a geographic feature that exists no matter what its political status is at any given time), as opposed to an administrative division. The articles you have linked to are specifically about administrative divisions, and not merely geographical features. You linked to the Donetsk Oblast, the Luhansk Oblast, etc. The equivilents administrative division article for Crimea would be the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea (or, if you feel like breaching international law by recognizing an illegal annexation, the Republic of Crimea controlled by Russia). We have similar articles for the Russian occupied administrative divisions, such as the Donetsk People's Republic. That's the counterpart to the internationally recognized Ukrainian Donetsk Oblast. This article, however, is not about the political administrative division. Now, since the history of the region and political/military actions did occur in the peninsula of Crimea, it gets some short summaries of those topics in this article, but to learn more, you have to go to the other articles for the specific administrative divisions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add a little more, I realize that in most other articles, there isn't so much of a need to distinguish between the geographical area and the administrative division (e.g. we only have the article on California, and not separate ones for the geographic area and the administrative division of the state itself), but due to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, we have to do something a little different here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question regarding lede[edit]

The lede currently has these sentences:

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

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

Now that I think about it, another option is to remove the second part of the first sentence entirely, and leave the political claims to that third paragraph. So something like:
"The region has a population of 2.4 million." (first paragraph)
And then leave the sentences of the third paragraph alone.
Given that the previous section (of this talk page) points out that this article is primarily about geography, wouldn't it be better to leave the political stuff out of the first paragraph of the lede, and relegate it to just the second & third paragraphs? JasonMacker (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tavria name[edit]

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

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

German occupation should be added to the timeline of history[edit]

Germany briefly occupied Crimea from 1942 to 1944 or so.

172.98.147.246 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories