Talk:Sevastopol/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Accuracy, no original research

The correct term and the one used by sources is “occupied”. Somebody invented this “de facto” nonsense and now it’s being used by some accounts to push Russian nationalist POV. Volunteer Marek 17:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You are supposed to assume good intentions with your fellow editors. Present how you think it should be, and give us sources. perhaps we'll agree with you on some points. Right now the city is in Russian hands, is controlled by Russia, and administrated by Russia. Yet the article does not say Crimea, Russia. The Tibet article also does not say Tibet, China. There are complex issues here and our editors are usually just trying to present the info as best as possible without necessarily being pro Russian Nationalists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I see a semblance of a source for the "de facto" wording has been found. This. The phrase used in a ... photo caption.

And look, this isn't how it works. I *don't* have to provide sources to remove unsourced text. There's no sources for this "de facto Russia" nonsense. And the fact that it's in Ukraine is not actually debatable. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Like, I'm sorry but it's simply fucked up (which is to say, extremely POV) that Russia is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede, but Ukraine, where this city is located, has to wait until the second paragraph. Volunteer Marek 19:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

And this source you just added also does not say "de facto Russia" (it says Russia has "de facto control of Kerch strait"). Please stop it with the original research and WP:SYNTH. There are literally hundreds of sources which instead of using this POV "de facto" language, just simply say "occupied" which is what it is and which is what we should use. Volunteer Marek 19:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Putting this in the lede is POV too: "The city's population has an ethnic Russian majority, with a substantial minority of Ukrainians." since it doesn't explain WHY it has a "ethnic Russian majority" (because they killed, expelled or deported most non-Russians). Volunteer Marek 19:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple sources for the entire region and that it is under defacto Russian control. Russia claims it as it's own. Ukraine claims it as its own and has dejuer backing from most of the international community. I think Syria is the only country to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. This is really looking like "I don't like it" rather than a discussion on the best way to word things. Russia has controlled the area for eight years now. No one may like it, but it's a fact. As for the lead mentioning the Russian population, you act like it was different before 2014. Reuters in 2008 says the same thing. The best thing would be to write out here the exact wording you would use for the parts in question and see if others agree with you or not. Using a battering ram to change things against standing consensus when you should have stopped after one try, rarely works at Wikipedia. And casting aspersions that people who disagree with you must be pro-Russian is not the best course either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Some Russian politicians claim that Alaska is Russian. Are you sure you accept all Russian claims? Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) You have omitted 'terrorized by Russia', 'murdered by Russia', 'censored by Russia', 'indoctrinated by Russia'. We should not be biased, should we? Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Again, no one's disputing that Russia is occupying these territories nor that they are claiming them as their own. What is being disputed is that this is "de facto Russia" <-- no sources says this, not even the ones you've tried to add. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

As for "my wording" there's nothing complex here. Just use the word that sources use. "Occupied". Volunteer Marek 21:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We see things differently. Crimea as it has stood for eight years IS defacto Russia and sources have been saying so for eight years. The ones since the war in March are a different matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) I'm afraid he will wait a little while after not responding on the talk page to revert just like on Simferopol. Really a topic ban is needed at this point. Mellk (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. They definitely have a biased POV and are openly not accepting commonly used terms like "de facto" and "de jure". Michael60634 (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Or, you're the one with the POV. These "commonly used" terms "de facto" and "de jure" are unsourced, particularly when they're used to say that a territory is "de facto Russia". As I've indicated, "de facto controlled by" means the same thing as "occupied", which is the term sources use, and which is non-WP:WEASELY.

For future reference, please keep personal attacks, commentary out of this. And stop referring to other editor's edits as "vandalism". Volunteer Marek 06:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. You might want to check what you wrote again. You don't get to claim that everything is unsourced when the fact is you clearly don't like it. It's Wikipedia's job to be neutral, and not take a side. Russia does control Crimea, and Ukraine claims it. Those are the facts of the situation. Wikipedia needs to reflect that. Reflecting the on-the-ground reality is not taking a nationalist point of view. If I was trying to push a Russian nationalist POV as you seem to be implying, I would be removing any mention of Ukraine's de jure claim to Crimea, and I would go to articles such as Zaporizhzhia and changing the article to say it's part of Russia. But I'm not doing that.

You'll also note that I didn't personally attack you, and that I called one of your edits vandalism because you removed census data. Of course census data is coming from a primary source. It's a census. That's how they work. Michael60634 (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Strange. There were sources provided on Talk: Simferopol but VM did not respond to those (and they do not simply say "de facto controlled"). Mellk (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t respond because someone else had already provided you with a appropriate response. And there are far more sources which say “occupied” (virtually all of them) than those which say anything about “de facto”. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, the "right response" was to just dismiss everything because an obvious sock called everything propaganda and didn't even discuss the sources. Mellk (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT was the "appropriate response". Mellk (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I was referring to this. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That is precisely what I was referring to. Basically "I don't like it". Thanks for clarifying. Mellk (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And since that is clear now, there is no need to pretend those sources don't exist (also sources provided by User:Ostalgia, which again you did not respond to, or the other account). Mellk (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not about to dive into this discussion or this article, but since I was pinged I'll just confirm that throughout a month of discussions he proved absolutely impervious to sources. Ostalgia (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

And this is with him continuing to make edits on that article. Mellk (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The responses here is just textbook WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Mellk (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources for "occupied" rather than this invented "de facto Russia"

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

And so on and so forth (plenty more where those came from). Sources use "occupied" not "de facto Russia". Please cut it out with the irredentist original research. Volunteer Marek 06:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click) No, sources DO NOT use "de facto Russia". And none have been provided here. You guys just revert and revert and revert and as a result this article is chuck full of nationalist Russian POV and disinformation.

And let me be 100% clear. We are not talking about sources which say "de facto CONTROLLED by Russia" (that is true). We are talking sources which explicitly state that this is part of Russia. Sources use "occupied". Stop removing it. Volunteer Marek 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit just straight up removes SOURCED text and replaces it with UNSOURCED text. How is this inline with Wikipedia policies? How is this anything but POV? Volunteer Marek 07:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I've provided them in the past. Stop edit warring to your POV. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see them anywhere here. And no, you need to stop edit warring, since you're the one removing SOURCED text, and replacing it with UNSOURCED text. Volunteer Marek 07:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That's too bad for you. Stop edit warring. You've been warned countless times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What's "too bad for me"? That I'm asking for sources and you are refusing to provide them? No, that's "too bad for you". YOU stop edit warring and show us the sources. I just listed nine of them, all of which use "occupation". Volunteer Marek 07:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So, User:Fyunck(click) you’ve had plenty of time to provide sources to back up your contention that Crimea is “de facto Russia” and you haven’t. You’ve had plenty of time to provide a diff where you “provided such sources in the past” and you haven’t (because in reality you never did). You’ve had plenty of time to provide diffs of versions of this article which, according to you, supposedly contained such sources, and you haven’t (because they never existed). Rather than edit warring you should either back up your statements or simply stop making false claims. Volunteer Marek 06:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What on earth is "de facto Russia"? Who invented that? As far as I know illegally annexed Crimean Peninsula is still described by RS's as being under the Russian occupation or Russian-controlled - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) - With this edit you removed sourced information replacing it with the unsourced text of your preference.

Your edit summary states - quote: Sources do use the terms. Can you clarify your action? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There were sources that were removed by the edit warring of one editor. No one is saying it isn't occupied territory, but it has been controlled defacto for eight years by Russia. Until the events in March I don't think you find anyone who though it would change for the next 80 years. It would be like Tibet. We aren't talking about what has happened in the current war over the last 6 months, this is about what was illegally annexed and controlled for eight years. This is a very classic case of defacto/dejure and sources show it. Defacto control of Crimea is Russia per article after article... Human Rights articles, State country reports, International law studies, it's endless and common knowledge. How can you revert that and only template on person in a warning? Stunning to say the least. Have you looked at this series of discussions where one editor is being constantly disruptive? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec) There were sources that were removed by the edit warring of one editor. Oh yeah? Let's see the version with sources then. Here is the version before my edits - no sources. Here's your first revert of me - no source. Here is Michael's first revert - no sources.

There have NEVER been sources for this. Until you can show us a version with sources then your claim above is just plain false. Same goes for this claim: "This is a very classic case of defacto/dejure and sources show it". Just saying "sources say it" means nothing. You have to PROVIDE these sources.

So let's see these three sources you provide above.

This one. Doesn't say "de facto Russia". It says "Crimean Tatar people have been deliberately targeted by the de facto local and Russian authorities" Nobody doubts that the people persecuting Tatars in Crimea are the Russians and this isn't the subject of the dispute. It just happens to use the phrase "de facto".

This one. "De facto" is used in the following sentence "de facto restrictions on access to occupied Crimea limited its effectiveness" What does that have to do with this dispute????

This one. " Crimea will remain de facto under Russian control". As has been repeated endless times (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) "de facto control" and "de facto Russia" are not. The. Same. Thing. Nobody is disputing that Russia is in control of these territories. What is disputed is that these territories are "de facto Russia".

I'm sorry but it looks like you just googled "de facto" and "Crimea" together and then threw some links onto this page without even bothering to read what you were linking. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, that template isn’t a warning. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Then again... why only plop a "friendly" notice on my talk page and not the person who has been edit-warring and disruptive? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to be knowledgeable about it. Standard notice, nothing unfriendly. I have one, VM has one, most people active in this topic area have one. That’s all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see @Fyunck(click) participating in countless edit wars and disruptive editing. The "de facto" and "de jure" terms have been in use here since the annexation took place. Then everything suddenly needs to change because one disruptive editor decides that they don't like the words. So said editor changes everything to what can be seen as having a POV. "Ukraine (part of)" and "Russia (occupied by)". Seriously? That is absolutely not WP:NPOV. Plus, said editor did not leave any talk messages about their changes until I said they should do so. Big changes to wording in pofia tically sensitive articles sh orutemplate ld not be made without prior discussion. Michael60634 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Michael60634 The term "de facto" and "de jure" isn’t sourced. This issue might need attention of more editors I think - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It was and would be if we didn't have a disruptive edit-warring editor on our hands. That's the issue. He simply doesn't like any source that mentions defacto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

One more time. Let’s see the version where it was sourced. Repeating false claims doesn’t make them any less false. And sorry but the disruptive edit warring - restoring unsourced POV text - is coming from you here. Volunteer Marek 20:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry friend, you are mistaken. I think you need to check the revision history. It's you that's making big changes without talking to anyone about it, and edit warring if your edits are reverted. And it seems you have a history of this on any politically sensitive article related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Michael60634 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Show. Me. The. Version. Where. This. Is. Sourced. It’s a simple request. Please stop deflecting with personal attacks. Where is it sourced? Volunteer Marek 20:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your vendetta towards editors and this topic is ridiculous. The items above are sources you simply don't like. We show them, you spit on them. My time is now being wasted by your intransigence and non-ending edit-warring. You simply take a short breath and then start it up again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet one more time. Show me the version where this is sourced, rather than trying to deflect from a simple request with personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS. Simple request.

The items above are NOT sourced. This is a false claim. It’s not that I “don’t like it” it’s - this is a false claim - it’s that reliable sources don’t support it. I didn’t spit on anything. Another false claim. One reason why I didn’t spit on anything (not that I would) is that you haven’t even “showed me” - another false claim - anything I could spit on. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it's been on this article since the annexation happened. It doesn't need to be changed without discussion because you and a certain disruptive editor do not like these terms. Michael60634 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t care how long it’s been in here and neither does Wikipedia policy. All that means is that while most people weren’t paying attention, some pro Russian nationalist editors sneaked in and POVd these articles with irredentist nonsense. Now that there’s another war on, more people are paying attention and trying to undo the damage that’s been done since 2014.

Wikipedia policy says unsourced text can be removed at will. Restoring this unsourced text is “disruptive behavior”, not removing it.

Likewise, your constant attempts to remove any mention of “occupation” from the article are highly POV. Are you disputing that Russia is occupying Crimea? Volunteer Marek 20:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: Wikipedia is neutral. Even if I did have a POV, it would be wrong to voice it here. Just because you personally don't like the wording of something doesn't mean that longstanding consensus needs to be changed. Just deal with it and move on. You don't get to say something is unsourced because you don't like the words. Nor can you say something you disagree with is original research. Or that census information cannot be on Wikipedia because it's primary research. Of course it's primary research, it's a census.

I do not dispute that Russia is occupying the Crimea. But, and this is important, Wikipedia is neutral. Saying Crimea is part of Ukraine and occupied by Russia is taking a side in the conflict. Michael60634 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god. So apparently “Russia is occupying Crimea” but we must never never never ever actually write “Russia is occupying Crimea” in any article … because… that … would be non-neutral??? Even though that’s how sources describe it? This is the flimsiest excuse for POV pushing I’ve heard in a long time and believe me, I ve seen some flimsy ones. Volunteer Marek 20:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And I sure as hell get to “say something is unsourced” if … wait for it… wait for it… wait for it… it’s unsourced!!!! Volunteer Marek 20:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Michael60634 This is becoming ridiculous. You reverted to this version yet again. Where is term "de facto" in the Reuters source that is being used? I can’t see it. Can you give me a quote please? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Michael60634 - I can clearly see in the article phrase --> In Russian-occupied Sevastopol but I don't see "de facto" anywhere. Do you mind self-reverting to the sourced version or provide a reference with quotation for your "de facto" entry? Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

But we even have a Ukrainian official in Reuters saying that Crimea is Dejure Ukraine but as far as Defacto, Russia controls it. Or another Reuters article with Amnesty International. This is pretty common knowledge by now after eight years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

He said Russia “de facto controls it” not that its “de facto Russia”. The distinction has been explained a dozens of time so please cut it out with the obfuscation. Volunteer Marek 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Very common knowledge that you won't accept, refuse to accept, or are unable to understand... not sure which. There are so many sources on dejure and defacto for Crimea, you just can't see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You repeat the same words. Please wuote some sources, try to convince us. Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I did just above and have done so many times. At least you are cordial about it, but I'm not sure I can keep adding sources that will say something else other than defacto and dejure. If you don't accept the sources above why would you accept more sources of the same? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see one source - a 2008 Reuters text. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

??????? Five posts above this are two Reuters sources from 2022 and 2015. Yesterday I gave three more sources from Human Rights articles, State country reports, and International law studies.... all recent. You know this is getting a bit crazy here for me. People aren't reading posts and yet condemning. People are reading posts and ignoring them. Considering all the difficult articles I work and help out on, this one was longstanding and appeared like a slam dunk when I saw one editor edit warring over and over and over. And yet here we are. This one may not be worth my time and effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2015 was 7 years ago. The world has changed. Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read your sources? “there have been thousands of human rights violations documented, including hundreds of house raids by Russian security forces, 14 abductions and 120 political prisoners. But that’s really only the tip of the iceberg.” Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? It's horrible what's going on. I have blood relative Polish and Ukrainian relatives, but that doesn't change Crimea and the fact it is defacto Russian controlled territory. That doesn't change the fact I have to address my mail to Sevastopol, Russia or it won't get delivered. Yes I read the sources but you said the only source was from 2008, before the illegal annexation. That was not true. For eight years Crimea was simply turning into Tibet in much of the world's eyes. Even when we see shaded war maps on tv, Crimea and the cities therein, are handled differently than what has been going on since March. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've been told by the admins that I can't edit here anymore. So far it seems that everything here other than pro-Ukrainian propaganda will be blanked. The infobox has already been partially blanked and attempts to restore the obvious vandalism have been called POV pushing and disruptive edits. Michael60634 (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead and infobox, Crimea or Crimea, Ukraine?

For awhile now the article has said Sevastopol is the largest city in Crimea as opposed to Sevastopol is the largest city in Crimea, Ukraine. In the infobox it is also currently listed as a disputed country; Ukraine (de jure) and Russia (de facto), as opposed to simply the country of Ukraine. Since there seems to be a dispute, should this change or should we leave it as is? I'd probably leave it as is since it seems more accurate to the current situation, but perhaps others feel differently? I didn't see any major discussion on this here so I'm starting one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be left as it was. Michael60634 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes we know what your opinion is. You still need sources. And you still need to stop removing the (sourced) fact that it's occupied. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think was replying to you. Also, you might want to reread what you wrote. I didn't remove anything that said it was occupied. Note that saying Sevastopol is de facto controlled by Russia is not saying it isn't occupied by Russia. If you want to add anything constructive, by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, you've made your point. Michael60634 (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well discussing is apparently pointless when instead you can wait a couple weeks to re-revert and hope that you can tire others out eventually. That's the impression I get. Mellk (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the word "Ukraine" from the article? Why shouldn't the lede sentence explicitly state the country this city is part of? Volunteer Marek 02:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean I keep removing it from the article? The lead does say it is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. Mellk (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean. "Internationally recognized as part of Ukraine" is being relegated to 2nd paragraph. But it should say that is part of Ukraine right at the start, since the first sentence introduces the subject. Volunteer Marek 03:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Far from it. Absolutely most nations recognize it as part of Ukraine, but seven nations recognize it as Russian and heaps of others de facto recognize it as Russian. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If you’re denying that it’s internationally recognized as part of Ukraine we’re pretty much in WP:NOTHERE territory. That is blatant, transparent, obvious Russian nationalist POV. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been told this before. The situation is not comparable to most other city articles. Maybe it can be changed to something like "...is the largest city in Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014 but remains internationally recognized as part of Ukraine..." if there would be consensus for something like that. If no, then rather than waiting a couple weeks to repeat this and again, I would suggest an RfC. Mellk (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No, come on, you know that’s even worse, even more POV. The city is in Crimea, which is in Ukraine. That’s what the first paragraph needs to say. I would suggest you stop trying to edit war Russian irredentist POV into the article. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This is already way past bludgeoning. I would suggest starting an RfC because it is clear you will keep saying the same thing over and over. Mellk (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What does "internationally recognized" really mean to our readers? That it has universal international recognition? It does not. There are what, 7 or 8 nations that recognize it as Russian? And heaps of nations that give their visas as Crimea, Russia or do all their paperwork as Crimea, Russia (de facto) without officially saying it's Russia. Isn't it best to simply lay out to our readers that most nations accept Crimea as part of Ukraine? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says - that the international community does not recognize Russia’s illegal occupation and claimed annexation. I think it’s self explanatory and I feel like you’re trying to play semantic games. So what if 7 (out of 198) rogue countries recognize’s Russian claims? That is a very flimsy pretext to hang on to and you know it. Regardless, we simply follow what reliable sources say. And if they Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine then that’s what we say. For example: “ Sevastopol, along with the rest of Crimea, is internationally recognized as being part of Ukraine.” Like I said, claiming that Crimea is not internationally recognized as part of Ukraine is clearly WP:NOTHERE territory and you’re really letting the mask slip with these kinds of assertions. Volunteer Marek 06:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Before you said you didn't have an issue with the annexation label, now you're trying again with the fringe "claimed annexation". Mellk (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And now you are already trying to accuse someone else of WP:NOTHERE? This is not the place for more accusations, go to ANI instead please if you think this is the case. Mellk (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sevastopol is the largest city in Crimea that is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. In 2014 Russians seized control, organizing an illegal referendum but politically, Crimea is recognized as part of Ukraine by almost all members of the international community. What’s the problem here @Fyunck(click)? I don’t get it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about how the lead was written. It had said "Sevastopol is the largest city in Crimea that is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine." Internationally recognized is quite ambiguous when ten nations per our own article officially see Crimea as Russian. And there are 15-20 other nations that issue visas to Crimea, Russia and handle all business as Crimea, Russia being careful to sidestep the term "officially recognized." To the average reader to say Crimea is internationally recognized as Ukraine is wrong. Just the simple tweak in saying "Sevastopol, along with the rest of Crimea, is recognised by most nations as part of Ukraine" has helped clarify things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Crimea is internationally recognized as Ukraine by all countries except Syria, Cuba, N.Korea, Venezuela and 2-3 others. The word majority suggests that a bulk of countries support the annexation which isn't true. %99 don’t. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Per our own sourced article that is dead wrong! Majority is far closer to the truth that what it suggests now. And defacto silent Nations matter also, which is also in our own wikipedia sourced article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian terror in Sevastopol

The history of Sevastopol finished on 18 March, according to this page. No word about the Russian terror. I have copied the phrase" According to the United Nations and multiple NGOs, Russia is responsible for multiple human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary detention, forced disappearances and instances of discrimination, including persecution of Crimean Tatars in Crimea since the illegal annexation" and added two references mentioning anti-Tatar terror in Sevastopol. "Buric's report on the human rights situation in Crimea and Sevastopol". There is the trick that Crimea may be the whole Crimea but also may exclude Sevastopol. User:Alaexis "rv; this was copied from Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation; I don't think it belongs here; the report says nothing specific about Sevastopol" - if you know better please correct, but I may see here censoring of Russian terror. Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My point is this information is about the Crimea as a whole. It makes sense to include it into such articles as Annexation of Crimea and History of Crimea but not to the article about every settlement on the peninsula, especially ones like Sevastopol which have very small number of Crimean Tatars. Alaexis_¿question? 13:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually those sources do mention Sevastopol explicitly. Volunteer Marek 10:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

We do need to be careful about mentioning items going on in Crimea and transposing them to Sevastopol. That would be improper synthesis unless Sevastopol is specifically said to also have the atrocities. I have no doubt those atrocities are happening in Sevastopol and, so as long as we have specific sources saying so, I have no issue with the atrocities being in the article. Sevastopol is mentioned here, and also here, though the later also has some footnotes that exclude some items in Sevastopol. You may be able to dig through some articles in this list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Status as occupied for de jure ownership

Crimea is under citizen control, it is an integrated region of Russia. Calling it occupied in this context doesn't make sense. In reality it's under control of Russia. 2604:3D08:927F:6D80:B0C3:B63D:6B44:F362 (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. But certain people here believe that this article should become pro-Ukrainian propaganda, and it looks like it seems that the Wikipedia administrators are fine with threcent edits have removed a lot of important info from the infobox. My attempts to revert this are considered to be "disruptive POV pushing". And the user that said this has so far not replied to my question of how I am pushing a POV. Furthermore, the Wikipedia admins told me that I am not allowed to edit here. Check my talk page for information on that. And they did not reply to my reply where I voiced my concerns about Crimea-related articles becoming Ukrainian propaganda because of a handful of disruptive editors.at. Note that Michael60634 (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I would be careful about throwing around the term "pro-Ukranian propaganda." There is far more Russian propaganda, let alone their human rights violations which are disgusting beyond imagination. I may agree with you and sources that Crimea is defacto Russian controlled for eight years, and that barring a multi-country war it will likely never go back to Ukraine, but that's as far as I go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) I probably should have been more careful with my wording, but I do fully agree with you. My issue is that certain disruptive editors feel that it's necessary to remove information simply because they don't like it. And the Wikipedia admins are fine with it. For example, check the infobox. You won't find any mention of the current government. It's absolutely not POV pushing to mention the current de facto government of Sevastopol. It is POV pushing to wipe any mention of it from the infobox because a person with political motivations disagrees with the current situation. Michael60634 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The citizens of Russia do not control anything. It is under civil authorities which were installed by Putin, yes, if that's what you mean. Whether it's integrated or not makes no difference, the territory is occupied because it was seized in violation of international law, and that will remain the case until the occupation is internationally recognised. It is the same with the Israelis in the West Bank. 203.214.74.125 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not even close to the same. Perhaps the same as China and Tibet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

What? Seriously? Tibet is internationallyrecognized as part of China. Crimea is not internationally recognized as part of Russia. That comment right there kind of gives away the nationalist POV. Volunteer Marek 04:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes... it's much closer than the other situation. China seized Tibet and it was not internationally recognized... through time it is by everyone today. Same would have likely happened with Crimea and still could, but with the current situation who knows. And horseshit on your nationalistic poppycock, if anyone is off the rails POV it's you. I'm simply a realist to the situation, and you can't be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No it’s not and stop inventing ridiculous original-research analogies. Maybe if we were writing Wikipedia in 19fucking50 they’d be relevant - and if we were writing in 1950 we wouldn’t write that Tibet is part of China either - but this is 2022 and we’re not. Again your accidentally-revealing claims that Crimea is not internationally recognized as part of Ukraine kind of give away who’s pushing nationalist POV here. Volunteer Marek 06:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There you go again with your POV baloney. Do you figure if you say it over and over that it simply becomes the truth? Crimea is recognized by most nations as part of Ukraine. I have said that enough that even you might be able to understand by now, but I'm not holding out hope with your do-or-die Ukraine pushing beyond reality and personal attacks. We want to be honest to our readers without all the rah rah rah and rose-colored glasses you seem to be wearing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"Most" being 191 out of 198. Refusing - and edit warring on the premise - to acknowledge that Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, when this is exactly what sources say, is indeed POV pushing and you can't wave that away by calling it "baloney". If this is not the case, why do you keep removing the fact that Ukraine is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine from the article?

I have not made any personal attacks. This is yet another attempt by you to deflect from discussing the content and the POV issues present.

Speaking of "baloney". Where are those sources you promised but never delivered which say that Crimea is "de facto Russia"? You've had like three weeks to follow through on supporting your claims. Volunteer Marek 10:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the personal stabs are certainly piling up, let alone disdaining any source people give you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the point if you are going to ignore them anyway, like you did before? Mellk (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are literally the only person here that is pushing a POV and edit warring across many articles. Additionally, you need to be respectful with other editors, even though you disagree with their sources, or the on-the-ground situation in Crimea. Wikipedia is not the place to voice your opinions or harass other editors. Make a blog if you want to do that. Michael60634 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), @Mellk and @Michael60634 talk pages are here to provide space for editors to discuss changes. Will you please focus on the subject not editor please? Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You are right that the talk page is for discussion of the article, but the editor in question is being disruptive and ignoring valid sources because they do not like them. And they are clearly pushing a POV. Discussing this editor is relevant here because of their actions regarding this and related articles. Michael60634 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What a load of crapola. We have an editor not listening, not caring, and making personal innuendoes and snarky remarks, and you call out the editors trying to keep him in check. I lost all respect for your judgment because this is a biased response and I have noted as much on your talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Will you tell that to the one who falsely accused me of being "in pursuit of irredentist POV"? Mellk (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat yet again - Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor. Please read WP:FOC Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And I will repeat once again. Focusing your accusation on multiple editors who are not the source of the problem is bias on your part. You should not reprimand those trying to keep one editor from turning a conversation into a swamp. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Crimea is still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, as per sources. Removal of this fact, as we can witness in this edit isn't acceptable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And I say that you are using "internationally" incorrectly. That tends to indicate universal recognition, and that is false per every source imaginable. And it is really false when you take into consideration those nations that defacto go about their daily business calling it Crimea, Russia, without coming out in court and declaring it officially. It is true per areas taken over since the March Russian war, but not the area taken in 2014. It is internationally recognized by most nations as part of Ukraine, and that is a much better statement of the facts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I’ll rather go with what the United Nations resolution (A/68/L.39 and Add.1) says, not your "de-facto"(?!) opinion. Crimea (as of October 31/2022) is part of Ukraine. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And that is your choice to use the term "internationally" in a way that does disservice to our readers when we have an easy sourced way to make it as clear as possible. I just can't sit back when I know we can do better for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to join the discussion below, regarding Russian terror in Sevastopol? Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click) You keep replacing the fact that Crimea is recognized as part of Ukraine by the international community (which is what reliable sources say) with some WP:WEASEL version of "most". Here you claim - without sources and falsely - that it is recognized as part of Russia by, quote, "10-20 nations". Since there is no source for this (probably because it's nonsense) this means you just. made. that. up. Please don't do that. Most definetly don't edit war to restore false and unsourced info as you did here and here and here.

I'd ask you to back up this claim of "10-20 nations" (sic) with sources but since we're still waiting for you to produce any sources to back up your previous claim that "Sevastopol is de facto Russia" after you, once again falsely, claimed that such sources have already been provided, I'm guessing that would be an exercise in futility. Volunteer Marek 20:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your previous response to sources was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also can you start an RfC instead of edit warring? Saying adding the country does not require an RfC, which is what the whole dispute is about, and then reverting again is a blatant disregard of the policies. Like... Mellk (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that was not my previous response. My previous response was to list a shitload of sources which explicitly state that Crimea is occupied by Russia. Why are you making things up?

And including the country that a city is part of is standard practice. If you think there's some compelling reason to remove it then YOU start an RfC. Volunteer Marek 21:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You asked for sources about the "de facto" label, claiming hardly any such sources exist, and then in the end did not respond to a list of a sources that were provided which you acknowledged. Please don't falsely accuse me of "making things up".

You were already told multiple times why this is not "standard practice" in this case. Is this "standard practice" listed somewhere as a guideline? And that RfCs somehow do not apply here? This is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again and again. You tried adding this in September and there was clearly no consensus for this. But it's clear that you only wish to force your own will. Start an RfC or cut it out. Mellk (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

And of course you keep moving the goal posts all the time. Before you said you didn't have any problem with the annexation label now you are consistently changing it to "claimed to have annexed" which is not what most RS say. They simply say annexed. But this not a surprise. Mellk (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources were given and you ignored them, as is a pattern, so I don't waste my time with giving you more. Most is not weasel if it is true, leaving it out is actually your own pov. Our own articles on politics of Crimea says we have 8-10 nations out of 195 that officially recognize "Crimea, Russia", and another 5-10 that defacto recognize in practice. Please stop with the edit warring against reality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources were given and you ignored them <=== Absolutely false. Provide sources for the "10-20 nations" claim. "Our own articles", well, first they don't say that, and second, they are not a reliable source, which you know very well.

Sources or stop putting in false info into the article. Volunteer Marek 20:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop putting in personal pov info and all will be well. I've gotten tired of all your baloney and shenanigan's. Ukraine has not been in the sentence in question for a long time... so you start an RfC to add it in. The onus is on you. That area has been in flux for eight years now per sources. And we have articles that do say that, so more made up stuff by you. Everyone is tired of your JUSTDONTLIKEIT so stop already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources please. It can't get any simpler than that. Volunteer Marek 14:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) - You're so mistaken Fyunck(click). The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 states that Crimea, (hence Sevastopol), is an integral part of Ukraine. There are only 11 countries out of 183 that voted against it. Where on earth did you get the 10-20 number from, and why are you attempting to deny the fact that Sevastopol is still legally part of Ukraine (as far as global community is concerned) is beyond me. All this doesn't look good, you know? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That's true. I said we had about ten of 195-200 countries that have signed on to Sevastopol, Russia. But there are also those that officially said Sevastopol, Ukraine but have unofficially done pretty much Sevastopol, Russia. China for one. Others have also issued passports as Sevastopol, Russia, and done all there other correspondence as Russia. Those are the countries that do the texas-sidestep. This is well known in our own articles. There are many more than 183 countries in the world. I never went against the fact that most of the world officially calls Sevastopol part of Ukraine. We all know this to be true. But there are about a score who either deny this or don't practice what they preach. We all know this to be true also. You denying these facts doesn't look unbiased to me, you know. I think most nations didn't recognize the Baltic states as part of the Soviet Union either.... but they were part of the Soviet Union in practice and dejure and defacto. When they pried themselves loose from that regime, the US didn't have to recognize them as independent. I have to be careful here with my Ukrainian heritage, not to show favoritism towards Ukraine and Poland articles, but I also have to be realistic with the sources and reality. Some here seem to be pretty loose with the pov pushing and I just can't be a part of that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources please. It can't get any simpler than that. Volunteer Marek 14:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT Michael60634 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Michael60634 I don’t see any references supporting the claims in your post above. Are you referring to yourself by attaching WP:IDONTLIKEIT link saying that you don’t like it or what? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious who I am referring to. Michael60634 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Marine Biology's Importance

Why does the lead include two sentences on marine biology and military trained whales? This isn't brought up anywhere else in the article and seems to be of little importance. In particular, the statement that Sevastopol is "an important centre for marine biology research" has no source. InspectorWhy (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Occupation

That's consensus. That was told a lot about others occupied cities. Their status and that of Sevastopol are exactly the same. Listing of the occupation administrative division and non-marking of occupational administration as Russian installed non-consensus, groundless, false and essentially a justification and legalization of military aggression and occupation. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no discussion on this talk page about this consensus. You should link to it if a non-local consensus has been reached elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Donetsk. Talk:Donetsk/Archive 1#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_1_October_2023 UA0Volodymyr (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

1) I don't see a consensus there. A comment even specifically states there's no consensus. 2) a WP:Local consensus on another article doesn't give a consensus to this article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)