Jump to content

Talk:Simferopol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water

[edit]

I removed the phrase regarding water: Salgir is too small and polluted to be the water source. Anyway. it's not important - we don't usually specify where do cities get their water.AlexPU

Salgir is too small and polluted to be the water source.
O-la-la! Who told you this?! I've drunk water from Salgir many times, and I'm alive, you know. %))) And a half of the city is provided with Salgir water from the city's storage pond.
Don Alessandro 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is a water reservoir on the Salgir upstream of Simferopol, though I am not sure how much of the city's water comes from there. Jbhood 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

I think the Greek etymology of Symferopol maybe is partial wrong: The substantive "symferon" (Συμφερον)" ancient greek meaning is closer to advantage/profit/interest/benefit - anything is good to someone. See here (Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon) [1] b. in neut. as Subst., συμφέρον, οντος, τό, use, profit, advantage... Vardos (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Greek or Russian, but we need to be consistent with ourselves. We currently say:

The name comes from the Greek Sympheropolis (Greek: Συμφερόπολις), meaning city of common good. in the Etymology section, and The name Simferopol is in Greek, Συμφερόπολις (Simferopolis), and literally means "the city of usefulness." in the Russian Empire and Civil War section. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian is my mother tongue but it is nothing to help. We did not adopt any words of 'symf' root. Better ask Greek people. As far as I know Crimeans use 'usefulness' meaning, at least it is the literal translation of 'город пользы'. But 'pol'za' in Russian is not neutral term, it is very positive, more like 'beneficial'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:71FC:6800:69FD:9933:E987:DBAD (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a native speaker of Greek and the word comes from the verb "συμφέρω" which means: "to be beneficial". A derivative is the adjective "o συμφέρων" (masculine), "η συμφέρουσα" (feminine), "το συμφέρον" (neuter), which loosely translated in English, it means: Something deemed to be beneficial/profitable. Therefore, to a native Greek speaker, the word Symferopolis, does not, directly, make a lot of sense, however I can see how it can be interpreted as "the city of usefulness." I guess, I could understand it as "The city where it is beneficial to live".Xwpis ONOMA (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=10552&context=search:

Country

[edit]

On other pages at the Wikipedia about disputed areas the country which controlls it get the label, for example: Arunachal Pradesh, Tawang District. It is also the most rational solution at any kind of encyclopedia not to comply with that what local or international law dictates, but the absolute physical characteristic. In this case maybe Ukraine, maybe Russia 'should' hold the label, but in reality it is the former for now. I understand it is quite a rare ocasion to see borders changing, so people don't have many opportunies to excercise their objectivism. So please consider keeping consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.84.82 (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

CodeCat (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

[edit]

I reverted an edit since I did not see any value (interchanging Russia and Ukraine), and it was immediately reverted without any explanation (no explanation was given for the orifinal edit either). If explanation is not forthcoming, I am going to bring the article back to the original state per WP:BRD.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response in a day, reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Simferopol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

[edit]

Forgot

  • Digital Valley (Tsifrovaya Dolina)


silicon industry, computers, wafers and microelectronics, it, other related. --~~ sameha

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current edit wars with regards to the status of the city

[edit]

During the past couple of weeks a few users (me included) have been edit warring on this page. Most disagreements seem to follow from the propriety of references to Russia's de facto control over the city and Crimea at-large. This edit war has led to some redundant passages such as the opening statement "Simferopol is [...] in Crimea, Ukraine. Simferopol [...] is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine". Ommitting Ukraine in the very first line, I think, made sense in the context of the entire paragraph, where the situation is explained. A similar issue arose in the section pertaining the 2014 referendum. Now we end up with two sentences about the international non-recognition of the results separated by a sentence on the city being named capital of a new Russian federal subject in Crimea. References in the infobox were also removed (federal subject within Russia, current [Russian] website of the city, etc.). I would like to point out that in similar cases of territorial disputes, such as the conflict in Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh, this information is displayed in the infobox (similarly, the wiki page about Stepanakert/Khankendi doesn't open with the line "Khankendi is a city in Khankendi district, Azerbaijan"). Even in cases such as Idlib, where the current occupiers do not demand seccession but merely aim to replace the current government, there's an entry on the infobox showing current control of the city with a wikilink to their corresponding Wikipedia page.

Summing up, I believe some of this edits negatively impacted on both the readability and the informative aspect of the page. With this in mind, I have changed a few things, which I hope will maintain the article neutral while remedying some of the failings I consider to exist. Of course, I could well be wrong. I would welcome feedback especially from user: Volunteer Marek and user:Dmytro91, but also from user:Mellk. Ostalgia (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Simferopol, Ukraine” or “city, country” is standard on Wikipedia. The “internationally recognized as part of Ukraine” is there for obvious reasons. This isn’t a “territorial dispute” - calling it that is a gross violation of NPOV and pushes Russian nationalist disinformation. It’s an occupation. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think not calling it a territorial dispute is violating NPOV and constitutes disinformation. We are supposed to reflect the fact that the annexation is not recognised internationally, which we are at present doing, but we are also supposed to show information that reflects the current, real, status of the territory, which does not mean condoning or supporting anything. Allow me to once again point you out to the example of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh - the fact that the territory is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan doesn't mean we can just pretend the [completely unrecognised] Republic of Artsakh doesn't exist, and that there's not an administration, a military, and a population there that are not only not Azeri but also beyond the control of Azerbaijan. However, if you ask an Azeri, they will most likely tell you that there is no dispute, that (quoting you) "it's an occupation".
I will not revert until I hear back from you. Ostalgia (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We ARE reflecting the current, real, status of the territory. It’s occupied. Per international law. I’m not going to comment on AA issues per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not, and you're violating NPOV in the process, first by deleting information that quite clearly reflects the reality on the ground, and then by your choice of language (see WP:NPOV, especially "Prefer nonjudgmental language" and "Words to watch").
The fact that it's a disputed territory should be self-evident and entirely uncontroversial, but it can additionally be surmised from its listing here, as well as from media coverage (see for instance [[1]]) and even academic studies (see [[2]]). Similarly, to refer to it as annexed and not merely occupied is not arbitrary but based on numerous sources from across the world and the political spectrum (see [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]]), not to mention the fact that the corresponding Wiki article is titled Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Now you may disagree with all of that, but in order to do so you would have to label Boris Johnson, the Independent, the WaPo, Anadolu Agency, Reuters, the Deutsche Welle and the Brookings Institution as Russian propagandists pushing (and I quote you once again) "Russian nationalist disinformation".
As for you dismissing comparisons per WP:OTHERSTUFF, allow me to quote from the article: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. [...] [C]omparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case." I pointed you to Stepanakert, classified as a Good article by Wiki standards, and the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh equivalent of Simferopol. Ostalgia (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly there is a difference between say Lviv and Simferopol. Crimea was annexed by Russia. Treating it as disputed territory I do not think is "Russian nationalist disinformation" and has been the practice on WP for the past 8 years. Otherwise this will require all Crimea, Russia, Ukraine articles to pretend otherwise. Consensus on this is clear despite attempt at mass changes and it needs to be consistent. Pro-Russian POV would be treating Crimea as rightfully reunited with Russia after totally legitimate referendum that reflected the will of people who wanted to escape tyranny of Kiev junta etc Mellk (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know how you think "illegal sham referendum" is more NPOV than the original, "unconstitutional referendum". Please explain, thank you. Pavlodon (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC) sock puppet strike[reply]
You JUST created this account a few minutes ago in order to edit war across multiple articles. Volunteer Marek 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ostalgia There is no consensus for such changes, to say that it is not a disputed territory. If consensus develops on the talk page for different wording, then sure. Mellk (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is “no consensus” for Russian nationalist irredentist POV which tries to pretend that these areas are part of Russia. Volunteer Marek 07:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek You made changes and have been reverted by multiple editors, rather than following WP:BRD you are edit warring with your excuse repeatedly being "Russian nationalist irredentist POV". This is not an excuse for edit warring. Please leave the page at the status quo and continue the talk page discussion. Mellk (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but multiple editors reverted your changes. No one has come to restore your changes. Yet you keep trying to restore it. Mellk (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like for fuck’s sake, the weaseling and POVing involved in describing it as “administered by Russia” makes it sound like Ukraine just went “here you go Russia, can you ‘administer’ this city for us for awhile cuz like we busy and shit”. It’s just pure disinformation and bullshit. Also unsourced original research. Volunteer Marek 07:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it states that Russia annexed it and it is mostly recognised as part of Ukraine. This is not claiming it for Russia. Mellk (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia "annexed it" in its own imagination. Look, there's no way we're gonna try and hide the fact that this territory is occupied by Russia and that it is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. We are also not going to invent some WP:OR about "administrated by" or "de jure vs de facto" or any of that. All those wordings, aside from being weaselly POV pushing are unsourced. Volunteer Marek 15:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RS widely describe it as being annexed. The WP article on is literally called Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. So "annexed" is what we will go by. You have issues with the wording and say there are OR issues. That is fine, but continually restoring your changes over the past few days after multiple editors have reverted it is just edit warring and I do not see a valid reason to do this. Mellk (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sourced do describe it as "annexed", that's not the problem. Please read what I actually wrote. The problem is OMITTING the fact that it's "occupied" and pretending that it's just "administered" by Russia (as if it was doing Ukraine a favor or something. Like wise the whole "de jure" and "de facto" thing is unsourced, it's a Wikipedia invention. How many times do I have to say this? Sources please. These "multiple editors" you speak off? How many are already been banned for being WP:NOTHERE SPA's [8]? Sockpuppets and throwaway accounts can try to fake consensus but it still ain't consensus. Volunteer Marek 17:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously can't understand how a grown individual can blatantly ignore everything that's being said to him, on top of ignoring reality itself, and just accuse everyone else of being Russian nationalists and pushing "disinformation and bullshit". I though you were a person that could be reasoned with and I tagged you on purpose so some sort of compromise could be found in order to improve the article, but clearly I was wrong. Ostalgia (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey WP:SPA sleeper account that only activated itself in April after this war started, how about laying off the personal attacks, on talk and in your edit summaries? How about actually making a meaningful number of edits before you jump into edit wars on controversial topics? Volunteer Marek 17:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of pushing "Russian nationalist disinformation" and when I call you out on that, and on your PoV pushing, you accuse me of personal attacks, while at the very same time accusing me of being a "single purpose sleeper account"? A bit rich, don't you think?
As for the rest of your message, the strongest argument I can think against your exhortation is the fact that after 17 years on Wikipedia and several thousand edits you apparently can't find it in you to behave like a grown, rational person and engage other editors in dialogue, especially when they approach you and try to provide an argument grounded in sources, Wiki policy and precedent, and instead resort to mass-reverting and name-calling. Ostalgia (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what those 17 years on Wikipedia taught me? That AGF isn’t a suicide pact and what the sound of a DUCK quacking sounds like. Volunteer Marek 03:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to revert anymore, I think there is room for improvement so I hope this can be discussed instead and consensus develops for an improvement. Mellk (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but User:Mellk is trying to falsely frame this debate as about whether the word "annexed" is legit or not. This is a complete non-sequitur. The version I restored says explicitly: However, it is occupied by Russia,[3][4] which annexed Crimea in 2014 and regards Simferopol as the capital of the Republic of Crimea. No one's arguing that the word "annexed" should be removed - it's dishonest to pretend that this is what the disagreement is about.

The actual dispute is over

  1. some editors trying desperately to remove the fact that Crimea and this city are both within the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine,
  2. removing any mention of the fact that Crimea and this city are occupied by Russia, as stated in multiple reliable sources and,
  3. inserting this whole "de jeure" and "de facto" wording which is a pure Wikipedia invention and unsourced.

Taken together, yes, this is 100% irredentist nationalist Russian disinformation POV pushing. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm not sure why you said Russia annexed it in quotes in its "own imagination" as if you had a problem with the term. Also, no one is trying to remove any mention of it being within internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. It literally says this on the first line. From what I can see, these articles of settlements in Crimea for 8 years have had disputed, de facto/de jure etc. Now you think it is Russian nationalist irredentist disinformation propaganda etc etc and you can edit war to change all this despite being reverted because it is just SPAs restoring the old version and pushing propaganda. Crimea being called disputed territory as Russian propaganda is just ridiculous. Mellk (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with trying to pretend that the annexation was legitimate. And your continued removal of the fact of occupation. This doesn't get any simpler than that. "Disputed" is WP:WEASEL because it pushes the fiction that both sides have legitimate claims here. They don't. Pretending that they do is indeed Russian propaganda. Volunteer Marek 20:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is pretending the annexation is legitimate. It would be a lot easier if you stopped inventing such claims. A territorial dispute does not mean that two sides have equal claims, it is your problem if you think that way. Mellk (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. You are. By removing any mention of occupation or the fact that the referendum was illegal. Hell, your comment right below \> is you claiming that "annexation is more precise than occupation". How about this: come up with some proposed wording which acknowledges that this is an illegal occupation? Volunteer Marek 21:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do know what annexation means right? RS consistently call it annexation because it is not a mere occupation. Some people pretend it is just a "temporary occupation", which is POV. Mellk (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false dichotomy. Sources call it an “occupation”. This is undeniable, so please. Stop. Trying. To. Deny. It. There is also an “annexation” but it was an unrecognized, illegal annexation. Please stop denying this as well. Jfc, who’s blatantly pushing a (ultra nationalist, irredentist, Putinist) POV here? You two have become kind of blatant about it. Volunteer Marek 03:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are just regurgitating your false claims of me trying to "deny" that the annexation is unrecognised and that I am pushing "ultra nationalist, irredentist, Putinist" POV, which is why it is impossible to engage with you. Mellk (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention in your edit to Republic of Crimea you changed the wording to "claimed to have annexed", in this article you changed the section title "Russian annexation" to "Russian occupation" (when annexation would be more precise here). So it seems you do have a problem with the term annexation. Mellk (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a dishonest reply. You changed the subtitle "Russian annexation" to "Russian occupation", as well as removing the link to the main article (Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation). You also blatantly ignored the various sources I mentioned when speaking of annexation, including news agencies (Anadolu, Reuters), state-affiliated media (DW), major newspapers (WaPo), [anti-Russian] heads of government (Boris Johnson) and other, all of which refer to it as an illegal annexation, but an annexation nonetheless.
On the other hand, if your problem was, as you claimed earlier, with the use of the term "administration", I remind you that you reverted my edit [[9]] changing "it is under the control of Russia" (control, not administration) to "it is occupied by Russia". As for the de jure/de facto distinction, the terminology is most certainly not a "Wikipedia invention" (it's amazing to me that this has to be mentioned), and neither is it unsourced for the current situation in Crimea: an academic article I also linked earlier says "International law and the general position of the international community, however, side with Ukraine and uphold its de jure sovereignty over Crimea despite Russia's de facto rule there" [[10]]. The Deutsche Welle's Crimea category describes the territory as "at least de facto if not de jure [...] under Russian control" [[11]].
None of the people whose edits you reverted, or who you attacked, claimed that Crimea was legally Russian, or that the annexation of Crimea was recognised internationally, not even that the referendum was legitimate. The only person pushing his PoV all along has been you, in spite of being summoned to dialogue and regardless of attempts to find a consensus that reflected the reality on the ground as well as the legal status of the territory, thus keeping Wikipedia both useful and neutral. Ostalgia (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more time. No one's objecting to the word "annexation". What is a huge problem however is your continued attempts to remove the word "occupation" and to try and present this occupation as legitimate. And all you've found for the "de facto" stuff is a passing mention in a snippet of a single source. Here is precisely what is being removed/POV'd [12]:
1. The fact that Crimea is part of Ukraine
2. The fact that Crimea is occupied by Russia
3. The fact that the "referendum" was illegal
4. Weaseling about how the results of the "referendum" were, quote, "questioned" (as in what? Gee I have some questions about that there referendum?) rather than outright rejected.
5. Misinformation nonsense about how Crimea and Simferopol are just "administered" by Russia which makes it sound like they're doing it on behalf of Ukraine out of the goodness of their heart or something.
Put these together and there's absolutely no fucking way you can tell me that this isn't a conscious effort at POV. Volunteer Marek 20:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go point by point. "Noone is objecting to the word annexation" - you literally renamed the section "Russian annexation" to "Russian occupation" and removed the link to "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation". You also said, and I quote, "Russia "annexed it" in its own imagination". To pretend you've not been pushing against the use of the word annexation, which is present everywhere, including in this article before you edited it on Sept. 2.
"Yor continued attempts [...] to try and present this occupation as legitimate" - I'll quote my own version (which you removed), typo and all: "Russian forces entered Crimea and occupied it, disarming or subsuming Ukrainian units in the territory. On 16 March 2014, a referendum on independence and accession to the Russian Federation as a fedearl subject was unilaterally held by Russian and pro-Russian forces in Crimea. The vote, whose legitimacy was rejected by a majority of the nations in the UN as well as supranational and non-national organisations, showed an "overwhelming" support for joining Russia, with over 90% of participants supporting that choice. The referendum was decried as a sham by Western countries including the US, which declared that they would refuse to recognise "the results of a poll administered under threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention that violates international law."" Please tell me how that presents the occupation as legitimate.
"All you've found for the de facto stuff is a passing mention in a snippet of a single source" - I linked you two sources, an academic article, and perhaps more importantly, the Crimea category of a major, state-owned (a NATO country, not Russia, not Belarus) news outlet using the term. That's not a single source, and it's two different types of sources entirely (academic/press), to show that it's not a niche thing. But if you want you can check how other outlets use the same terminology: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty talks about "the de-facto Crimean government" and "[t]he de-facto authorities" [[13]], Al Jazeera reports how "Crimea’s de facto authorities say the fence aims to protect the peninsula’s population from Kiev’s ‘crazy antics’" [[14]], the Moscow Times talks about how "[m]ost of the world does not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, though Moscow does exercise de facto control over the territory" [[15]], NATO speaks of the despicable actions of "the Russian de-facto authorities in illegally annexed Crimea" [[16]], and so do the UK government [[17]] and Amnesty International [[18]]. I'm sure all of those are also rabid Putinists, intent on pushing a Russian nationalist agenda. NATO in particular, everyone knows those guys go to bed humming Katyusha.
As for the points you numbered, which I wouldn't want to leave unanswered:
1) The second line in the lede in my version goes as follows: "The city, along with the rest of Crimea, is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine, and is considered the capital of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea." It accurately reflects the de jure (i.e. legal) status of the city and of the region.
2) The third line in the lede goes like this: "However, it is under the control of Russia, which annexed Crimea in 2014 and regards Simferopol as the capital of the Republic of Crimea." That reflects the de facto situation of the city and the peninsula. Not only does it show that the region is controlled by Russia, but it also links to the article about the annexation of the region. The article itself describes the annexation, as can be seen in the passage I quoted above, which I believe is pretty illustrative.
3) I'll refer you to that passage once again. I don't know how anyone could not deduce the illegality of a referendum described as unilaterally called by an occupying force and rejected by the international community in the UN, with the corresponding links.
4) Same as 3).
5) As mentioned, I used the word control, not administration.
You've been consistently pushing your PoV and trying to pass it off as NPOV, you've labeled everyone who disagrees with you as a pusher of Russian disinfo/bullshit and/or a Russian nationalist, and instead of trying to reach some sort of sensible solution you resort to edit warring with no attempt at constructive dialogue. In your arrogance you called me, and I quote, "a single purpose sleeper account that only activated itself in April after this war started" and told me to make a meaningful number of edits before editing controversial topics, like the value of someone's argument was measured by how many edits they got in. If I have been active on and off for years (usually a dozen, twenty at most, edits per year, not always logged in) and usually take long breaks from editing it's because of obtuse and petulant editors like yourself. Ostalgia (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just reply to this part for now:
I'll quote my own version (which you removed), typo and all: "Russian forces entered Crimea and occupied it…
This is completely and utterly false.
1. This isn’t “your version”, this wording is in BOTH versions. Don’t take credit for something you didn’t do. Don’t try to pretend the argument is about something it ain’t.
2. I did not remove this text at all. This is straight up falsehood.
3. This particular sentence, although appropriate is buried in the text. It is NOT summarized in the lede, which is what the argument is about. So yes, the article itself acknowledges the occupation but you two (plus a few helpful SPA throw away accounts) have been edit warring to keep any mention of this from the lede. THAT is the whole freakin’ problem! The lede is supposed to summarize the article not present completely different POV! I’m guessing this is driven by the knowledge that most readers don’t read past the lede.
Let me ask you this. Would you be ok with such a sentence in the lede? “Russian forces occupied Crimea etc.”? Yes? Then why are you edit warring precisely to remove something like this? No? Then why are you bringing it up here?
Ok with this sentence or no? Volunteer Marek 22:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not on both versions, but on all three, AFAIK. I did not claim to have written it, I quoted to show I did not remove references to occupation when I edited the section on annexation, while you decided to just blatantly revert my entire edit. Of course that part remained, because I didn't remove it at all.
2) see 1)
3) It's not buried anywhere, it's in the appropriate place. The occupation was a first step in the process of annexation, which happened already 8 years ago. In other words, and to answer your question, I wouldn't be OK with that sentence in the lede because it doesn't summarise the present situation, it doesn't even try to, instead it pushes a PoV that ignores that reality which is that the territory has been functioning under the de facto control of the Russian Federation, which annexed it, an annexation that is unrecognised by the international community and considered illegal and illegitimate by a majority of UN states, who consider the region to be Ukrainian. All of that was clearly stated in the lede in my version.
A final comment on your detective skills, if I may. "[Y]ou two (plus a few helpful SPA throw away accounts) have been edit warring to keep any mention of this from the lede. [...] I’m guessing this is driven by the knowledge that most readers don’t read past the lede" - oh, you got me (us?), mr. Holmes, I'm undone, I'll never get my rubles now! Miss Simonyan, please, don't have me killed, I can still be useful, I promise! The fact that you're seeing nefarious intent (and collusion!) in everyone that disagrees with you, no matter how many sources they have to back them up, would be hilarious were it not affecting the quality of content read by millions. Ostalgia (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the value of an account edits is not “measured” by their edit count but it sure as hell correlates with it. Especially when we’re talking about an account that made like 10 edits four years ago, then re-activated just recently as a WP:SPA just as this war started, WP:DUCK and all that. Volunteer Marek 22:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the value of an account's edits "sure as hell" correlates to the number of edits made, then the higher the number of edits, the higher its value, therefore you are indeed measuring its value by the number of edits.
As I explained, I only made a few edits almost every year. I've been here since... 2016? (//Edit: 2015) on several wikis. The likes of you have always put me (and a lot of other people, by the way) off from contributing more, especially in my native language's wiki. I don't know what you mean when you say the account reactivated "just as the war started" when you yourself note that this year I started editing at least a couple of months into the war (in your mind it's probably because the bear bringing the rubles to my place got entertained playing the balalaika and drinking vodka somewhere along the road). I also have no idea what you mean by "WP:DUCK and all that", but I would absolutely love for you to tell me what my "single purpose" is. Ostalgia (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Your account made a few edits back in the day, stayed dormant for a few years then activated and became very active as this war started with just WP:SPA edits. DUCK. Click the link. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few edits virtually every year since I created this account. You can check. I'm also still waiting for you to tell me what my "single purpose" is. I dare you. Ostalgia (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions presented by Volunteer Marek are quite popular outside this Wikipedia, they are not 'his PoV'. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear that "his PoV" isn't personal, or at least I hoped it was clear. Another editor has explicitly said that as well. It's just as clear that he's pushing that PoV and blatantly violating WP:NPOV. I don't know if you're arguing semantics because you want to more clearly accuse him of having an axe to grind in the conflict, or if you're trying to defend him (in which case allow me to point out that the fact that an idea is "popular" doesn't mean it's neutral, in fact, it's often the other way around). Ostalgia (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting that text be sourced and that we don’t try and hide the fact of occupation (which is amply sourced) is not “pushing POV”. It’s the opposite. Volunteer Marek 03:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be OK with that sentence in the lede because it doesn't summarise the present situation And there we have it. You’re explicitly denying that Crimea is occupied by Russia. You’re trying to weasel it by saying “yes, it was occupied in 2014 but then Russia annexed it so it’s not occupied anymore”. I’m sorry but that’s 100% bullshit. An occupation doesn’t stop being an occupation just because an aggressor gets away with it for a few years. Sources describe it as an occupation. Your repeated attempts to remove that fact from the lede, along with the statement quoted just shows that you’re a WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE account. Volunteer Marek 15:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decontextualising and cherrypicking might be a great rhetorical skill to have as a 15 year old on Reddit, but a person who's spent 17+ years on this place surely has to be a grown man and should know better. Unfortunately you don't, and the fact that you have racked up thousands of edits, assuming all of them are done in this way, is absolutely shocking to me. You have consistently ignored or dismissed all the sources presented to you at every turn (and, of course, not once apologising for being patently wrong), provided no evidence of your own, made literally no suggestions and throught the entire exchange only resorted to personal attacks, on top of simply reverting stuff while making no attempt to engage with people who, at least originally, addressed you in a civil and respectful manner (I believe it's pretty clear that at this point in time I have more respect for the intellect of a slug).
If you were to ask the Russian Federation who Crimea belongs to they would probably reply with "Крым наш" (I don't entertain the idea of them replying in English at all). If you asked Ukraine they would say Crimea is just "temporarily occupied" by Russia. If you check the sources that have been linked to you, as well as Wikipedia's article on the subject, you'll find that they refer to the territory as illegally annexed, or de facto under Russia's control. That's the line I followed. Yet in spite of nobody at no point suggesting anything even remotely implying that Russia's annexation of the territory has international approval and/or legitimacy, or that the procedure was in the slightest legal, you have insisted on a position that is not reflective of reality, on a vocabulary that repeats the position of one of the parties in the conflict (the party that is hard done, yes, but a party nonetheless), and on the fact that everyone who doesn't follow it must out of necessity be peddling Russian propaganda. This just shows that you have an axe to grind, that you're being purposely obtuse, and that you're completely incapable of respecting NPOV.
And, as mentioned above, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what my "single purpose" is. Ostalgia (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first paragraph about is just a slew of personal insults and attacks. Not even worth responding to.
Your second paragraph is a mix of falsehood and sophistry. No, the sources do not describe it as “de facto Russia” , gimme a fucking break. Best you could find is a snippet from a paragraph length blurb that happens to use the phrase “de facto”. What sources DO call it is “occupied”. And this also happens to be the word you object to (contra sources), and have been edit warring to remove. Like I said - if you’re acting n good faith here, come up with wording for the first sentence which acknowledges - and uses the word - that this town and Crimea is occupied (no one said anything ever about “temporarily” so that’s another attempt by you to derail the conversation into irrelevancies). Volunteer Marek 04:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been launching personal attacks against me from your very first post here, by accusing me, and everybody else, of pushing Russian propaganda and disinformation (I believe the nicest thing you said to anyone here is that what they wrote is bullshit), implying that people who do not acritically accept your point of view are Putinists and Russian nationalists. You've also accused me of sockpuppeting and of being a single purpose sleeper account. It's a bit rich of you to victimise yourself. And for the record, I did not insult you - I merely pointed out that you're not worthy of my respect in the slightest. For clarity's sake, I'll add that if I didn't insult you it's not for a lack of desire, as at this point it's become absolutely clear that you have no interest in improving the article, but merely in pushing your position and obstructing other editors. Furthermore, I'm nowhere near as familiar as yourself with Wikipedia policies, but I assume that if I were to just speak my mind to every blithering idiot I come across on the site my career here would end rather quickly.
As for the second point, "falsehood and sophistry" could well serve as your motto, going by your behaviour, so I am almost tempted to take your word for it. You are the expert! Unfortunately, since I read the sources I linked you, I have to disagree. The use of de facto is widespread in reference to Russia's control over the territory, it being a particularly accurate term since de facto has a clear connotation of ilegality when used for describing political processes (if you do not know what de facto means, dictionaries don't bite). As for the word occupied, as explained more than once already, nobody is objecting to it, since it literally is present in the section about the Russian annexation of the territory, and none of the editors removed it (while you even renamed the section, and removed the link to the main article, titled Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation). The term annexation is by far more accurate, does not imply the action is legal or legitimate, and is also the preferred term in the overwhelming majority of reputable sources (of which plenty have been linked), so to claim that by prioritising the term annexation we're going against the sources you would have to live in a bubble. Considering the fact that your definition of "good faith" is "agree to do the things the way I want you to" after days of sending you sources from all walks of life and precedent within Wikipedia, all of which you blatantly ignored, and the fact that you've been moving the goalposts all along, not once admitting you were wrong, there's no reason for me to assume that you are acting on good faith, but quite the contrary.
And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how I'm a single purpose account. You clearly have the time to reply with inane comments several times a day, and since you're accusing me the onus is on you. Ostalgia (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "launched" any "personal attacks" on you. I've described your edits. Claiming that Crimea is part of Russia and that it is not under occupation is indeed Russian nationalist propaganda and disinformation which violates the basics of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think repeatedly insinuating they are a sockpuppet would count as a PA. Mellk (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I wait to be told what my single purpose is, I've partially restored my previous version, with some modifications (most are listed in the edit summary). Feedback is welcome. Ostalgia (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you did is remove the pertinent tag and then added into the infobox that Crimea is part of Russia! In other words, you made the POV *even worse* and then tried to pretend that you were fixing the problem. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you took a 5 day break only to keep making shit up? I'm yet to see anything even remotely constructive from you. I truly hope your other tens of thousands of edits were more constructive than this, because I have no intention of checking them.
By the way, you still haven't told me what my single purpose is. I will make a point of reminding you of this until you either answer or apologise for accusing me of random stuff that you continuously pull out of your arse. Ostalgia (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "make shit up". You and then Melik went and put in "Country (de facto) Russia Russia" [19] into the Infobox. Do you need me to post a screen shot or something, in addition to the diff? The fact that you're going to sit there and blatantly deny what's very easy to check, and then turn around and try to act like I'm "making shit up" really illustrates the problem here.This is blatant POV, OR, nationalist irredentist. Unsourced. THIS is your "single purpose" here dear account that recently activated itself. Volunteer Marek 17:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is no different to how it was before. Saying that this city was now put as being in Russia is false. Mellk (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the frustration, I do not think such language is needed. Mellk (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I would very much prefer to have a respectful discussion, with both sides presenting their arguments in an attempt to reach some sort of consensus, but that ship has long sailed, or rather, it didn't even call at port. In principle I wholeheartedly agree - this language is not needed, but it is certainly satisfying after having to put up with someone (who I tagged in order to have some sort of productive exchange, by the way) accusing me of a) pushing disinformation, b) peddling bullshit, c) being a propagandist, d) being a Putinist and e) being a Russian nationalist (I'm not even Russian...), all right off the bat, while completely disregarding sources and not even once engaging in constructive conversation. Ostalgia (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one said you were Russian. No one accused you of being a Russian nationalist. What I said is that you're putting in Russian nationalist propaganda and disinformation into the article. Which you are. That's the difference between discussing content (what your edits are) vs discussing editors (who they are). You're the only one doing the latter. Volunteer Marek 17:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still, while I do not appreciate his accusations too, I think it is best to try to respond calmly. I would have suggested WP:DRN but with how things are continuing now, maybe it will have to be something for WP:ANI. I don't know, but things are not pleasant. Mellk (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make changes that get reverted by 3 users (excluding the now blocked account) so 6 reverts over the span of <3 days (of course 3RR so cannot go too crazy with it) by using NPOV as an excuse, falsely claiming they were reverted by "a few" SPAs. Now in the talk page discussion it did not take long at all for there to be accusations of sockpuppetry, pushing propaganda and disinformation. How can this be an example of working collaboratively? Mellk (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the “accusations of…” part. Was I wrong about the other sketchy accounts that were helping you out in the edit war? No. I’m not wrong here either. Volunteer Marek 04:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "Pavlodon" was a sketchy account, but which other sketchy accounts reverted you? From what I can see, Seryo93 reverted you, then Ostalgia, then I did. Mellk (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still going to claim that it is SPAs that were reverting you and that excuses you from restoring your version that has been reverted by multiple users which no one else has supported? Mellk (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because they were. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask again, what other sketchy accounts reverted you? Mellk (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to simply stating a fact

[edit]

The two users above, Mellk and Ostalgia are edit warring over many things, not least of which is the insistence that Crimea is part of Russia. However, even the first sentence is being disputed.

The current wording states:

Simferopol (/ˌsɪmfəˈroʊpəl/) is the second-largest city in Crimea, Ukraine

This is as it should be. Mellk and Ostalgia are both trying to remove the fact that this is a city in Ukraine from the first line. This is obviously POV but it also violates usual style guidelines on Wikipedia. Compare articles on some other random cities:

  • Manchester = "Manchester (/ˈmæntʃɪstər, -tʃɛs-/)[4][5] is a city in Greater Manchester, England"
  • Córdoba = "Córdoba (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈkoɾðoβa]) is a city in central Argentina"
  • Jos = "Jos /ˈdʒoʊs/ is a city in the middle belt region of Nigeria"
  • Hefei = "Hefei (/həˈfeɪ/; Chinese: 合肥) is the capital and largest city of Anhui Province, People's Republic of China"

Giving the country that the city is in in the first sentence is standard on Wikipedia. Trying to remove the info that this city is in Ukraine (and instead putting "Country (de facto): Russia" in the infobox) is a pretty blatant and transparent attempt at misinforming the readers with nationalist irredentist POV. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 9 reverts (so far) in total recently against multiple editors for your version, no one has supported your version which you keep restoring, so please try not to pin the blame on others. Please also do not compare Simferopol to places like Manchester for obvious reasons. Please find a comparable example. The issue here is that you do not like it being called disputed territory (how the article has described it for the past 8 years) even though the whole time the article has clearly said that Simferopol/Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. This is not about "Crimea is part of Russia", despite how many times you repeat this false claim. Mellk (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you keep knowingly repeating a lie, in spite of it being explained to you, and that you refuse to read sources or Wikipedia articles linked to you, is mindblowing. If your blatant dishonesty should instantly disqualify you from any sort of academic endeavour, it is your completely undignified and adversarial behaviour vis-a-vis your fellow editors that makes you insufferable within the frame of a collaborative project such as this encyclopedia.
You may try to present as many "random cities" as you want (as a side note, it's kind of ironic that you dismissed my comparisons without, by your own admission, even reading them, but now bring other wiki articles to try and make a point), however we're not talking about a "random city" but about a very concrete city at the center of a territorial dispute. I have already pointed out equivalent or comparable Wiki articles but I will do so again if only for the benefit of whoever comes here and skips the previous discussion. These are some examples of cities within other disputed territories in the same region, so as to make the context as similar as possible (I'm not going to bring Somaliland or some other such state into the discussion):
Example 1 (de facto/de jure distinction in the opening sentence):
  • Stepanakert or Khankendi is the de facto capital and the largest city of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh, de jure part of Azerbaijan, located within the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Example 2 (no state attribution in the first sentence, merely geographical reference):
  • Sukhumi or Sokhumi, also known by its Abkhaz name Aqwa, is a city in a wide bay on the Black Sea's eastern coast.
Example 3 (more in depth/historical presentation of the dispute):
  • Tskhinvali or Tskhinval is the capital of the disputed de facto independent Republic of South Ossetia, internationally considered part of Shida Kartli, Georgia (except by the Russian Federation and four other UN member states), and previously the capital of the erstwhile Soviet Georgian South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast.
Of these three options I went for the second one (geographical) as the most appropriate in my view. It's short and to the point and allows for a more detailed approach to a contentious subject in the next sentence. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, but it certainly means that you have no right to throw accusations to me or anyone else, or to edit war with people instead of trying to engage them in dialogue when they actually reached out to you to find a consensus in the first place (and you dismissed them with accusations of Putinism). Ostalgia (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These "multiple editors" are Mellk, you (an account which became active in April after this war started) and User:Pavlodon who's been banned for WP:NOTHERE. Comments like these, by you;
The fact that you keep knowingly repeating a lie, in spite of it being explained to you, and that you refuse to read sources or Wikipedia articles linked to you, is mindblowing. If your blatant dishonesty should instantly disqualify you from any sort of academic endeavour, it is your completely undignified and adversarial behaviour vis-a-vis your fellow editors that makes you insufferable within the frame of a collaborative project such as this encyclopedia.
are gross violations of WP:NPA and also indicate that you're WP:NOTHERE, much like the other banned account. It's also quite disingenuous to follow up such obnoxious insults with claims that you "reached out to find consensus" (lol, who are you trying to kid?). Volunteer Marek 19:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a section where I wrote an explanation detailing my changes and in which I mentioned, as an example, the case of Stepanakert. In that very first post I tagged you and two other users (one of them is Mellk, the other is a Ukrainian user with whom I eventually found consensus on another article, but who didn't participate here) to ask for your opinion. Your reply was to just ignore my post and accuse me of pushing nationalist propaganda. I tried to explain again, and you once again stonewalled me and said that you were not going to comment on my Stepanakert example because of WP:OTHERSTUFF (ironic, isn't it?). You've not once engaged with the articles I posted (not even now!) or with the sources I linked, and you merely branded everything propaganda, disinformation, nationalist/Putinist/irredentist PoV, or just plain bullshit. You claimed I hadn't made enough edits (?!) to participate in controversial topics, and that I was a "sleeper, single-purpose account" multiple times, but not once did you tell me what you based that on, or what my single purpose is (and I expect you to answer that). You'll find it is quite disingenuous to expect to earn people's respect after all of that.
So, "lol", who are you trying to kid? Ostalgia (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were also reverted by User:Seryo93 who thought your version was pushing a POV and he cited a source. Now, you claimed that there were other SPAs/sketchy accounts that reverted you who you haven't named? OK, the version you oppose (which I think can be improved anyway, by the way) you think is pushing a POV, but others think your version is pushing a POV and no one else supports it. Why should your version stay? Mellk (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sery093, Russia, which makes him a neutral expert in Ukrainian matters. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even bothered to check his source (a book on Russia published by Routledge, a reputable, Western, academic publishing house), or even what he wrote? I would replace (and did replace) his use of the term "administered" in the lede, but his part about the annexation was quite uncontroversial (minor edit: it doesn't mean I agree with his wording, or that I suggest going back to it, but it was no different from the language you saw in the press at the time), and it was sourced. His edit was just insta-reverted, his source removed, and replaced with a link to an article published on Voice of Russia (!!!!).
What you are implying comes dangerously close to asking for edits to be judged not on their merits but on the nationality/ethnicity/citizenship of an editor. I think you would do well to take that back. Ostalgia (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again with WP:NPA? Mellk (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously user:Volunteer Marek, how about you chill with the reverts, eh? Can't you write a line manually instead of reverting something completely neutral out of laziness? Or are you just trying to piss people off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostalgia (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m having trouble taking any of your statements seriously in light of the fact that virtually all your comments consist of personal attacks and insults. Volunteer Marek 00:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You never took any statement that disagreed with you seriously, so please spare me your dishonest sanctimonious victimisation and refrain from reverting randomly in the future. Ostalgia (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again. It is getting tiring at this point. Mellk (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the insistence with which you keep restoring Russian nationalist POV into the article is very tiring. Sources describe these territories as “occupied” not as “de facto Russia”. Volunteer Marek 19:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why no one else has restored those changes. I guess everyone else is just a Russian nationalist. You should REALLY know better than to wait a little while to quietly restore your changes without even writing an edit summary, without saying anything on the talk page, and hope that no one notices. Mellk (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been you and Ostalgia, effectively a brand new account (more precisely, a sleeper SPA) that have been relentlessly restoring the Russian nationalist POV here (and couple other articles). It's not exactly surprising that a couple accounts with a keen interest in the topic are taking a greater interest in the topic than other editors. And I very much do hope someone notices. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Volunteer Marek 05:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about those other few SPAs you claimed exist and were reverting you? And you did not have any luck on other articles, I wonder why. Mellk (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please

[edit]

Show me the reliable sources which state that Simferopol is "de facto Russia"

NOT sources about South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

NOT unreliable sources from god knows where or from Russia

NOT sources which say that "Russia de facto controls Crimea" (nobody's disputing that), which is very different than "de facto Russia" (WP:SYNTH)

NOT a bunch of half assed theorizing about what "de facto" means (WP:OR)

NOT links to dictionary definitions (WP:OR)

Reliable sources which actually support this labeling. If you can't, this needs to be and will be removed. Volunteer Marek 05:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Seryo93 reverted you, he kindly provided a link to a source,[20] but instead you decided to ignore this and go on an edit war. Here is a quote from the source as an example: "In March 2014 Russia annexed two territories internationally recognized as constituting parts of Ukraine—the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City—bringing the de facto membership of the Federation to 85 territories". Mellk (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He posted a link to a webpage for a book. No page number. No quote. Nothing. This is the first time you actually provided a quotation and no, it's not "an example". It is the singular usage of the term which doesn't even quite say what you want it to say.
Now. Here are sources for "occupied":
  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  5. [25]
  6. [26]
  7. [27]
  8. [28]
  9. [29]
  10. [30]
  11. [31]
  12. [32]
  13. [33]
  14. [34]
  15. [35]
  16. [36]
  17. [37]
  18. [38]
  19. [39]
  20. [40]
  21. [41]
  22. [42]
  23. [43]
And I can keep going for another few dozen.
Bottomline: There are virtually NO sources which refer to this as "de facto Russia". There are literally dozens if not hundreds of sources which refer to this as "Russian occupied". On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, not some WP:OR invention of some Russian nationalist editor (whoever came up with this nonsense in the first place - looking into it, it looks like this is something originating from reddit and brigaded from there). Volunteer Marek 06:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, again please don't try to cast aspersions and stop pretending that someone just snuck this in a while ago or something in all the Crimea-related articles and no one noticed. This was obviously heavily discussed back in 2014 including the use of de jure/de facto[44] and the page history shows this continuously being restored since then.
Secondly, it seems that you copy-pasted a bunch of links following a search without properly reading the sources, nor do they challenge the idea of Crimea being disputed territory or not de facto part/federal subjects of Russia etc. Also the source I mentioned explicitly calls them de facto federal subjects of Russia.
Lastly, there are definitely other sources that say the same thing, so saying virtually NO sources do this is inaccurate[45][46][47][48]. Mellk (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I gave above describe the region as "occupied". Not "de facto Russia". You can try to spin that anyway you want but that is what these sources do. And again your sources say that Russia has "de facto control" or "de facto administers" these regions which is different then these regions being de facto part of Russia. Even then you managed to find four sources which don't even say what you claim they say, vs the 23 I listed (and I can easily list another 23).
Seriously, just stop trying to defend the indefensible. Sources. Do. Not. Use. These. Terms. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you may want to properly read those sources before misrepresenting them. Also, it is not a contest about how many sources you can link, you should know this. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how I am "misrepresenting them". I am not. All of these describe this area as "occupied", not as "de facto Russia". If you can't show that I am misrepresenting them, then you need to strike that aspersion.
And yes, it IS about how many sources we present here. We follow sources. If you can't find more than a couple sources which kind of-sort-of-but-not-really say what you claim they say and I can find dozens and dozens of sources, we follow what the "preponderance of sources" say. You should know this. Volunteer Marek 07:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 2014 Russia annexed two territories internationally recognized as constituting parts of Ukraine—the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City—bringing the de facto membership of the Federation to 85 territories."[49]
  • "Politically speaking, the term Crimea refers to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, a de jure administrative unit of Ukraine, with its capital at Simferopol (pop. 332,000). However, since the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, the region is a de facto federal subject of Russia, along with the federal city of Sevastopol,..."[50]
  • "Since March 2014, Russia administers the Crimean Federal District de facto as two federal subjects..."[51]
  • "Presently Crimea is de facto a part of the Russian State."[52]
  • "...has since administered them as de facto federal subjects (as a republic and a federal city respectively)."[53]
  • "In 2014, Crimea and its harbour city Sevastopol became two new federal subjects of Russia,..."[54]
  • "The Crimea Peninsula thus became a de facto part of Russia, but de jure remained the territory of Ukraine."[55]
  • "...the peninsula is today de facto part of Russia and is extremely unlikely to be returned to Ukrainian control."[56]
  • "Crimea was once again de facto a part of Russia."[57]
  • "The case of the de jure Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which has been a de facto part of the Russian Federation since..."[58]
  • "Though not recognized internationally, Crimea is now a part of Russia, de facto and as far as Russian laws are concerned."[59]
Sources are not equal. Anyway I am sure the goalposts will be moved and moved (it was not that long ago that "administered" was "pure disinformation" and "bullshit"). Now from asking for sources to saying there are virtually no sources that support it and then arguing about semantics. Mellk (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, this is irredentist Putinist propaganda. You really need to give it a rest.Just Alabama (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seemingly cant stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, not even after a month, I might as well drop by here with a comment. But before we start, since you seem to be misrepresenting the meaning of the expression de facto (or to play dumb regarding it), here is the definition from a few dictionaries, starting with Merriam-Webster:
  • Being such in effect though not formally recognized
  • Exercising power as if legally constituted
From Oxford:
  • Existing as a fact although it may not be legally accepted as existing
From Cambridge:
  • Existing in fact, although perhaps not intended, legal, or accepted
De facto does not presuppose legitimacy, legality, not even acquiesence. A military government installed via a coup d'état constitutes a de facto government. It is still a government, it exercises power, it rules the country in practice, but it's usually not legally recognised. Exercising "de facto control" over a territory which you claim to be yours and in which you installed an entirely new administrative framework, as opposed to just stationing troops in a territory which you still consider foreign, is beyond a mere occupation – the US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, it it did not intend to make territorial changes to it, nor did it seek to control it either de jure or de facto for any meaningful amount of time, while Al-Tanf, legally a part of Syria, is occupied by the US, which can be said to militarily control the territory, but they have shown no intention of detaching it from the rest of the country. To point this out to you is not OR - it's merely for you to understand what is present (and why) in the article, which you have, for over a month, attempted to misrepresent as an attempt to legitimise Russia's annexation of Crimea (you even accused another user of "Conquer(ing) Ukrainian cities on Wikipedia for Russia").
Furthermore, you claim that nobody is disputing the fact that Russia "de facto controls Crimea", yet that is quite literally what the article says and you’re trying to remove from the lead (“However, it is under the de facto control of Russia, which annexed Crimea in 2014...”)! Just like with the word annexation, which you claimed to not be bothered by even after explicitly complaining about it (I’m old enough to remember "Russia annexed it in its own imagination"), going as far as to rename the “Russian annexation” section on the article and removing its “Main article” link to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. You also complained about comparisons with other disputed territories, first by stating that “this isn’t a “territorial dispute” – calling it that is a gross violation of NPOV and pushes Russian nationalist disinformation", and then by claiming that comparisons are invalid due to WP:OTHERSTUFF, only to try and compare Simferopol with cities (in completely uncontested regions, by the way) like Manchester or Córdoba a week later. We’re forced to deal with “Schrödinger’s peeve” – stuff has to be considered to simultaneously bother you and not bother you because we can never know which is it, as it depends on some arcane process in your head that might or might not happen (and if you make a complaint explicit you’ll always find a way to spin it the other way 5 minutes later if a source contradicts you, anyway).
But even if I indulge you in your objection to sources stating "de facto control", which I’ll repeat that I find pretty absurd, there are even more sources on top of the ones user:Mellk mentioned above (some of them I already linked and you chose to ignore):
Explicitly referring to the territory:
Referring to the Russian-installed administration (something you are also removing from the infobox):
There are more, you can look them up yourself if you want, but these should be enough for you to get the point. None of them are Russian (unless you want to count Carnegie as Russian...), pro-Russian, Belarusian, etc.
This will be my last contribution to this talk page for the foreseeable future (barring something “big” happening, like a new influx of editors). I have no desire to entertain any more of your constant, unfounded accusations of me being out to push Russian propaganda and whatnot in spite of this being the closest I’ve been to an article on current events (excepting football) in the past 6 months. Fundamentally, however, I have long stopped believing you are capable of mature, reasoned exchange on this topic (I don't know about other topics because is the only place I've interacted with you, luckily). It’s enough that you tagged the article as presenting “Russian nationalist disinformation” merely because you do not like it, an article that is based on a previous, consensus version in which several users, including admins, participated without objecting to the terminology you complained about, some of which I removed in the present version to (naïvely) try to please you. You’re trying to act as a gatekeeper and stonewalling people who disagree with your views, behaving like some sort of RGW crusader, which makes engaging you a complete waste of time and effort. I will, however, revert you if you keep trying to forcepush your edits, and especially if you keep trying to lay low for a couple of weeks hoping that nobody will notice you sneaking in a revert. Have fun in your echo chamber. Ostalgia (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map

[edit]

@SummerKrut: You made a bold edit (removing the pushpin map), I reverted. According to WP:BRD, discussion should begin. Since the pushpin has two options (showing the location in Crimea and showing it in Ukraine), that's the one I prefer. If we can't reach a consensus, we can return to status quo (i.e. the version prior to the dispute) or seek dispute resolution, see WP:NOCONSENSUS (mentioning this since I assume from your edit summary what kind of "status quo" are you trying to return it to? that you didn't know the procedure). Rsk6400 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by that is the fact that you are returning to an older version in absence of conflict. You asked to keep a flexible map - I did, so I see no basis for your revert. Summer talk 10:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I called my preferred version of the map "flexible" because it allows the user to choose between three options. And, since Simferopol is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, we should have a map showing it as such. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The map had been stable for two months before you reverted again, so I think we can safely assume that it is now the status-quo map. Also: Your edit summary once again: it's either both or neither seems to imply that WP should be neutral between the Russian position and that of the international community. That's not our concept of neutrality. "Neutrality" on WP means, neutrally reporting what RS say. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: WP:NPOV is "represent both opinions equally", not "if one POV is rejected by the other POV then it shouldn't be mentioned at all". There's no need for multiple different maps when one is more than enough. Summer talk 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn’t. Please don’t put quotation marks around your opinions and misrepresent them as our policies. See WP:VALID.  —Michael Z. 22:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SummerKrut, please take a look at WP:NOCONSENSUS. You didn't get consensus yet for removing the map which shows Ukraine. Before you removed it for the first time (12:43, 10 June 2023), it had been there for a very long time, so that is the version that should be kept until a different consensus is reached. Feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request: Ukrainian IPA and audio pronunciation

[edit]

Please change the beginning of the "Etymologies" section from:

The name Simferopol ({{langx|uk|Сімферо́поль}}; {{langx|ru|link=no|Симферо́поль}} {{IPA|ru|sʲɪmfʲɪˈropəlʲ|}})

to

The name Simferopol ({{langx|uk|Сімферо́поль}} {{IPA|uk|sʲimfeˈrɔpɔlʲ||audio=Uk-Сімферополь.ogg}}; {{langx|ru|link=no|Симферо́поль}} {{IPA|ru|sʲɪmfʲɪˈropəlʲ|}})

This will display as:

The name Simferopol (Ukrainian: Сімферо́поль [sʲimfeˈrɔpɔlʲ] ⓘ; Russian: Симферо́поль [sʲɪmfʲɪˈropəlʲ])

I took the IPA from the page on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, which I assume has it right. It would also be good to have the audio pronunciation for the Russian Симферополь and especially the Crimean Tatar Aqmescit which is a very unusual spelling for English speakers, but I couldn't find audio files for either of those on Commons. Thank you. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 11:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RetroCosmos, 70.181.1.68: The IPA or maybe pronunciation could be sourced from dictionaries or reliable articles. I would also like to talk about that most of the IPA or pronunciation in city articles are unsourced or not sourced properly, are we being unfair to 70.181.1.68 since we are only asking him/her here to give reliable sources? СлаваУкраїні 11:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means to me, a person who does not speak the language, on the basis of it being on a Wikipedia article is not necessarily sound reasoning to make the change. IP themselves say "which I assume to be right", indicating they don't actually know or are unsure. That's why I responded with a note and not a not done.
Without knowing past RfCs on this matter, I would propose that those who speak the language can add under WP:SKYBLUE and those who don't to exercise caution. I don't think this would be unfair to anyone. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 11:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Ukrainian and Russian have a systematic correspondence between spelling and pronunciation, as long as the position of stress is known. For example, the English Wiktionary has Lua modules which it uses to generate IPA for Ukrainian and Russian. As seen on the page wikt:Сімферополь, given the input "Сімферо́поль" (with the diacritic indicating the stress), the Ukrainian IPA module produces the output [sʲimfeˈrɔpɔlʲ], matching what uk.wikipedia also gives. That said, if we need a non-Wikimedia reliable source that explicitly gives the IPA for Сімферополь, then I don't know where to look, and I won't press the issue further. FWIW, most IPA pronunciations that I've seen on Wikipedia weren't explicitly sourced (but maybe they should be). Thank you for your consideration, in any case. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RetroCosmos According to the audio pronunciation (), the IPA is correct per Help:IPA/Ukrainian, I think it could be added in the article. Besides this, to 70.181.1.68, I recommend you to create an account in order to help in articles which are protected since you are a decent contributor. СлаваУкраїні 12:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 01:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simferopol&oldid=1255406193"