Template:Vital article

src nd rnw

quote ( After annexing Russia doubled payments to about 560,000 pensioners and 200,000 public workers (in Crimea).[74] Those raises were cut back in April 2015.[75]

In June 2015 The Economist estimated that the average salary in Crimea was about two-third of the average salary in Russia.[75] According to Russian statistics by March 2015 the inflation in Crimea was 80%.[76]

According to the Crimean authorities local food prices have grown 2.5 times since Russia's annexation.[77] Since then the peninsula now has to import most of its food from Russia.[77] Ukrainian news agency UNIAN claimed in June 2015 that many Crimeans travel to mainland Ukraine to buy groceries.[78] )
one , info should be updated ;
two , since when , unian (and the rest) , expecially since pla$tic mayidan , is a (at least) neutral , objective and professional source ?! 


 -~ rjp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.80.2 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2017

Requested move 18 June 2023

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

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

Occupation

@Kashmiri: denying occupation is a violation of NPOV. And we have Russian occupation of Crimea so the word is neutral. I support @Mzajac: Panam2014 (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's not occupation but annexation. Two, nobody denies it. — kashmīrī TALK 14:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crimea was occupied in February 2014 and remains occupied, and in 2022 became part of an active war zone. It was annexed in March 2014, meaning the RF claims it as part of its territory. These are two different things, both ongoing. Nobody denies it.  —Michael Z. 14:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read Annexation carefully. Lead section will suffice if you don't have time. — kashmīrī TALK 15:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The lead there describes exactly what I said: “forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory.” What’s your point?  —Michael Z. 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(It also says annexation is “a unilateral act where territory is seized and held,” which means the Russian “annexation” of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts is not even a real annexation.) —Michael Z. 20:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation is always intended to be temporary while annexation means permanent incorporation of (conquered) territory into another country. For instance, the formerly German province of Alsace–Lorraine was annexed by France in 1918 and became its inalienable part henceforth (Germany later attempted to recapture it, ultimately unsuccessfully). In contrast, after losing WW2, Germany was occupied by the Allies during 1945–1949, its military occupation always intended to be a temporary solution before the German state is re-created there in some form.
Understandably, Ukraine keeps repeating that Crimea is only "temporarily occupied". However, mere military occupation is not what Russia ever intended, because it soon officially announced annexation of the territory. So, today Crimea remains de facto annexed; it is territory that Russia controls and rules as its own with no intent of ceding it. Sure, most other countries don't currently recognise Russia's jurisdiction over Crimea. Still, this is completely irrelevant to the occupation–vs–annexation discussion, as the only factor that matters for it is intention.
More information is there under Annexation. — kashmīrī TALK 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you stop referring to the article you cited? Its lead does also say “Annexation can be legitimized if generally recognized by other states and international bodies.” But the United Nations has voted regularly to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine and condemn what it calls Russian “aggression against Ukraine,”[4] “attempted illegal annexation,”[5] and “temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine.”[6]
So, it doesn’t matter what the Kremlin intended. Wikipedia should not adopt the Kremlin’s intent over and above the internationally recognized situation.  —Michael Z. 21:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing things up, as usual. Nobody here (I hope) questions the illegality of Crimea's annexation. Still, it is annexation. Not "occupation", but (unrecognised as of now) annexation. Period. — kashmīrī TALK 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously Wikipedia should consider Kremlin's intent. It's the deciding factor here. We're not fighting Ukraine's great patriotic war here – we're presenting facts neutrally, just as they are defined by international law. Here, law explicitly wants us to consider intent. — kashmīrī TALK 21:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, RS use both terms, occupation and annexation. And please stop speculating about other editors' intentions ("fighting Ukraine's war", "advocacy"). Rsk6400 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So-called RS's (like, CNN and others) are not expert sources as regards legal matters, and general journalists cannot be expected to understand nuances. We're an encyclopaedia, though, not daily press clippings. — kashmīrī TALK 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free economic zone

I just removed the section "Free economic zone" again for two problems: (1) Sources: The "Investment portal of the Republic of Crimea" is (judging from the title and the URL) a promotional site. Even if TASS can be used for "uncontroversial" topics, figures on economy are highly political and therefore highly controversial. (2) Encyclopedic content: Facts without context (what does a "Free eco. zone" mean under Russian law ?, do the figures show success or failure ?, ...) are not encyclopedical. (3) Notability: To demonstrate notability, we need at least some discussion in reliable sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability refers to standalone articles. Various facts mentioned in existing articles don't need to be notable on their own (if they were, they would merit a standalone article). Primarily, however, economy is always politicised and despite that, we always source economic information from government sources. Thus, when describing the economy of France, we rely on French government data. Same for all other countries. Your removal of a Russian government source for the description of Crimea economy feels like POV pushing; an attempt to discredit Russian government sources simply because Russia started an armed conflict. — kashmīrī TALK 13:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No but they do have to be wp:v to wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, Russian government sources are indeed among the least credible government sources worldwide. The reason is that there are virtually no free media left that might counter government-sponsored disinformation. World Press Freedom Index 2023 has Russia at position 164 (of 180 countries), while France is at 24. I read rt.com (controlled by the Russian government) on a near-daily basis and I can assure you that's disinformation at its very best. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the deletion. Panam2014 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue

@Rsk6400 and Mzajac: The article is absolutely not neutral. It in no way refers to the occupation of the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. And he gives off-topic information that talks about Crimea and not the so-called Republic of Crimea. It reminds me of a leaflet from the Russian tourist office or it aims to legitimize the occupation. Text that is not sourced or that relates to Crimea in general should be deleted. And you need a paragraph on the occupation. For sports there is a lack of sources. Panam2014 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we have separate articles on Crimea the peninsula, and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the internationally recognized subdivision of Ukraine. This article should be specific to the Russian occupation administration during the Russo-Ukrainian War, and not a general article about a “province of Russia,” its museums, natural wonders, and pre-occupation history. We should determine whether the subject of the “Republic of Crimea” as such even meets WP:GNG.  —Michael Z. 14:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac: We must add a section on the occupation and refer for the moment to the detailed article. For the first sentence of the article it does not seem neutral enough to me Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, Panam2014: I totally agree. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this article is notable. If the scope should be changed that is another issue. I can be in favor of that. Though I'd also be in favor in including some of the peninsula's history prior to the Russian occupation as background. Right now the only info that could pass as background is In February 2014, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution that ousted the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych,. Super Ψ Dro 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s obviously notable, then it should be a breeze to demonstrate that by the standards of WP:GNG that “Republic of Crimea” is a notable subject separate from Crimea, annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and Russian occupation of Crimea, saving us a lot of discussion.
This article used to have something about an all-Soviet astronomy organization. IMO it didn’t belong here.  —Michael Z. 16:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is Russian occupation of Crimea the one that should be demonstrated to be a notable subject separate from this article and from the other two examples you've listed. The relationship between these two articles is being treated very strangely in the RM above and in adjacent threads. This article exists since 2014 while the other since 2022, the latter one is the content fork and it should be merged here. Super Ψ Dro 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus and Mzajac: nope. Per WP:COMMONNAME it is Russian occupation of Crimea. Not Republic of Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014, you're giving me WP:COMPETENCE impressions. Common name has not even been discussed up until this point. It has much less been proven to be the most common name. "Russian occupation of Crimea" isn't even a proper name. Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: false. Commons name is Russian occupation. Republic of Crimea is used mainly by primary sources. Panam2014 (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles MUST be named in accordance with WP:NC and geographic articles specifically have to follow WP:NCGN: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always. (...) If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (...) should be used.
The administrative unit of Russia is commonly called in English "Republic of Crimea". Commonly doesn't refer solely to publications about politics. It includes publications about geography, biology, marine life, agriculture, linguistics, arts and culture, etc. etc. You will have hard time to convince others that, say, marine biologists have commonly stopped writing "Republic of Crimea" and started writing instead "Russian occupation of Crimea".
Most importantly, "Russian occupation of Crimea" is not a name for a place. — kashmīrī TALK 22:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: Russian occupation of Crimea is a name for the Russian administration, like Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. Reliable sources use Russian occupation of Crimea or Crimea, not Republic of Crimea, which clearly is not the common name. Panam2014 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why are you trying to mislead? Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany is akin to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.
Republic of Crimea is akin to Reichsgau Wartheland. — kashmīrī TALK 22:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the official name is documented by historians, not here. Panam2014 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Super Ψ Dro 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do a search on the occurrences you will see that "russian occupation of Crimea" comes up more often than "republic of Crimea" Panam2014 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HITS. — kashmīrī TALK 00:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The search engine is a preliminary tool. Subsequently, by sorting the sources, it is clear that the Republic of Crimea is very much in the minority. We have to deal with it. Panam2014 (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation without any evidence.  —Michael Z. 01:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories