Talk:Crimea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crimea which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Kherson Oblast to infobox?

The area of Crimea taken up by Kherson Oblast is obviously very minute, and it's not clear to me whether the Arabat Spit is consistently considered part of the Crimean Peninsula, but should it be added to the infobox as a unit of Ukraine claiming part of the peninsula? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Arabat Spit is definitely part of the peninsula, as that's all it's connected to (except by a bridge); so yes, the Kherson Oblast could be added. The article body currently claims that Russia doesn't claim the north part of the Split, however there's no citation for this. I think it's quite probable that Russia claims the entire Split, as I doubt they would claim all but a tiny part of the Crimean peninsula. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, but I've seen social media reports that Russia took Strilkove, a few kilometers up the spit into Kherson Oblast, then returned it to Ukrainian soldiers while retaining control of a gas plant there: [1] No word on it more recently. Russia has said it considers the boundary of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with Kherson Oblast to be the new international boundary between Russia and Ukraine, which would imply that Strilkove, Chongar, and other southern extremities of Kherson Oblast are still universally recognized as Ukrainian -- although Moscow's word isn't good for much these days. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014

Occupied by Russia

ArtemBeloglazov (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I understand the request. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Article about Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank) says it is illegally occupied by Israel, so all articles about Crimea should say it is illegally occupied by Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Name

Clearly, English Crimea is from Italian Crimea (not Russian Krym or Tatar Qirim directly). It was adopted in the 18th century, I find earliest references in the 1780s. Now the Italian term I find attested throughout the 17th century, but this doesn't mean it wasn't used erarlier. In any case the Italian name dates to the days of the Crimean Khanate at least, if not even back to the Genoese and Venetian colonies co-existing with the Golden Horde. It would be interesting to find how and when this entered Italian, and paralleling this with the adoption of the name in Russian. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled on the proposal of connecting "Crimea" with the name of the Cimmerians. Now this is almost certainly without merit, but the idea seems to have some (19th century?) academic pedigree, and in any case it is still often repeated in print today, where "in print" is mostly limited to decidedly unacademic,[2][3] or at best "para-academic"[4] works. --dab (𒁳) 21:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Article scope

I am convinced that Crimea should, for the time being at least, redirect to this page. It's the only way to keep up neutrality and keep the edit warring in check. The Russian vs. Ukrainian political entities are covered at Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea, so all the current-events bickering can go there, while this article can continue to cover history and geography etc. without being shouted down by the weight and insane detail fo coverage of what is going on just now.

Also, pending further development, Autonomous Republic of Crimea will in any case also cover a historical period and represent "History of Crimea (1991-2014)", as during that time the legitimacy of the republic within Ukraine was completely undisputed. So all and any events dating to this period will always be perfectly on-topic in that article.

This also means that the focus of Autonomous Republic of Crimea should now be chiefly concerned with (a) the 1990s to 2000s and (b) the Ukrainian position in the current dispute. It is imperative that the ARC article isn't burdened down by Scythians, Khazars and Goths just as it is imperative that this article doesn't become a current-event ticker.

If we can enforce such a division of scope, I think we will be in a very good position in terms of both neutrality and encyclopedicity. --dab (𒁳) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Although it couldn't harm to throw in a few Goths. That makes any article more interesting. :) CodeCat (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

true, it would be a nice sort of running gag to take care to mention the Crimean Gothic heritage in all and every Crimea artilce, but of course it would also count as disruptive editing :) --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename: Peninsula or peninsula?

Should it be with a capital or small P? I'd prefer it with a small one because it's not a set part of the name. CodeCat (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a set part of the name, and reliable sources usually capitalise it. It also is in line with all other peninsulas on Wikipedia, such as Liaodong Peninsula. RGloucester — ☎ 01:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather just move the page to Crimea. In fact, I'll start a move request. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

scanning google books, it is clear that both variants are in use. I would personally prefer "Crimean peninsula" (the way the name is also given in the lede atm), but I accept that tastes on this may differ. It is my impression that the fashion to capitalise stuff like this is something of a recent fad, so that in very recent sources, "P" may be more common, and in older sources "p", but clearly both variants are found throughout. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move to Crimea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Crimean Peninsula → Crimea – Crimea is now a redirect since the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was finally moved to its own article. The usage of "Crimea" or "the Crimea" is far more common for this region than the unwieldy "Crimean Peninsula". Just as the autonomous republic was moved to a new title on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC grounds, this should be moved on WP:COMMON grounds. Kudzu1 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support with reservation. I'm wary of making it any less clear that this is a geographical entity and not a political one. If we move it, people might start adding infoboxes like on the two "political" entries, with more edit warring and NPOV violations as a result. With the current name, that's not possible because the name tells them it's about the geographical feature. CodeCat (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the article having an infobox already may help us with that. We can also keep the lede sentence the same, or similar, to make the geographical/general focus clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• oppose move. "Crimea" is an ambiguous term and properly a redirect now. At least until the current events have solidified into a new status quo, it should remain a redirect. It might even properly have to be a disambiguation page, but that's impractical, so it is up to people to decide on a "primary meaning" and point it there. Depending on general context, there are various "primary meanings" of simple "Crimea". The peninsula is properly called "Crimean peninsula", the khanate "Crimean khanate", the oblast "Crimean oblast", the republic "Crimean republic", and so on. As Krim (Qirim) is properly a town, "Crimea" properly means "the territory of which Qirim is the capital". Of course, it hasn't been the capital for 250 years now, so the name is just conventional and properly anachronistic now anyway. Still, I suppose if there is any real primary meaning of Crimea, it must be the Crimean Khanate, as this is what the name was coined to refer to. --dab (𒁳) 08:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• [Oppose – Rob (talk | contribs) 13:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]Comment – Premature? A month ago, to an extent, there was distinction between 'Crimea' and 'Crimean Peninsula', with the former often excluding Sevastopol. Now that distinction no longer exists, however that's not to say 'Crimea' has suddenly gained primacy over 'Crimean Peninsula'. Shouldn't we wait and see how sources use these terms from now? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • it has been a problem long before the current crisis to use "Crimea" for "Crimean peninsula minus Sevastopol". In English, "Crimea" primarily refers to the peninsula. This has only ever been an issue since the 1990s. Before 1991, "Crimea" simply referred to the peninsula, which conicided with the Soviet oblast. Keeping track of whether you do or do not exclude Sevastopol at any given point has been a real bother. I still agree that the primary designator of the Crimean peninsula is still "Crimean peninsula", and "Crimea" is just a sloppy shorthand in whichever sense it may be used. --dab (𒁳) 12:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sorry, by a month ago, I meant prior to recent events. But yes, unless there is sufficient evidence that 'Crimea' has gained primacy in referring to the entire peninsula, which would take longer then a week to establish, then I don't think this move could be justified. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has referred to the whole peninsula since at least the Soviet era. However, I'm not sure if I want to support this move or not, as the "Peninsula" is a nice marker of geography which separates it from the various political definitions. I'd also like to mention that Crimea has been turned into a disambiguation page by someone. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Whilst I appreciate dab's reasoning, for me this is a simple question of WP:COMMONAME - and searches of Google Books gives very clear indications on that. "Official", "proper" etc designations are not what we're about, it's usage however "sloppy". If you look through Google results, I don't actually think it's an "ambiguous term" at all. The primary topic quite clearly is the peninsula and when it is used in any other sense it is almost always qualified, Khanate, Republic etc. I also think that all the above concerns are already be dealt with by the current hatnote: "This article is about the peninsula, for..." etc etc. DeCausa (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not convinced that "Crimean Peninsula" should be the primary meaning of "Crimea", given how readers are equally likely to be searching for either the peninsula or one of the political entities on its territory. I'm also the person who has just moved "Crimea (disambiguation)" to "Crimea"—note that the move is strictly due to existing disambiguation guidelines and may be reversed if a consensus to do so is reached in this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2014; 14:23 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'subsequent comment'

well, for the record, I also appreciate DeCausa's arguments, and I would like to say that my reasoning was based on Crimea redirecting here: you enter "Crimea", you end up here because it's the primary meaning of the term de facto, but the page still has the more precise title of "Crimea peninsula". So I cannot say I am too happy with Ëzhiki's move. It may force people to be disciplined when linking to "Crimea" articles, but it also puts an unnecessary inconvenience on mere readers who are simply trying to look up "Crimea". It's very well for a seasoned Wikipedian to pick the desired article from a list of a dozen historical entities, but your average reader will be put off by this. --dab (𒁳) 06:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why anyone is moving any of these articles at the moment while the various discussions are in a state of flux. With reverts of closures etc, it's like the Wild West round this part of WP at the moment. I think, quite apart from my take on policy, I'm sure that the average reader who puts "Crimea" into the search is looking for an overview, and this article, IMHO, is the best that delivers that. If you go to the disambig page first, you actually have to have a reasonable idea what you're looking for to go on any further - the situation and history is too convoluted to be truly disambiguated with a page like that. In my view, the reader is best served by treating this article as the gateway article for all of them. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

it was necessary to move each article to an unambiguous title, anything else would have been a standing invitation to a move war. Clearly, nothing should be moved to Crimea at this point, but Crimea can still be freely edited, and we can try to build a consensus of where it should point, if anywhere, or if it should remain the disambiguation page. I agree with your view that the convenience of the "average reader" is to be put above technical bickering over guidelines, and the redirect to this page was intended to reflect this. Still I am not going to edit-war over this, and consider the disambiguation page solution an acceptable second best. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to two people on my own talk page, my move was merely for policy reasons based on the situation at hand and is meant as nothing more than an interim plug. In the long run, it's probably best if "Crimea" becomes a broad concept article, but that decision is up to the community, of course (not to mention we'll need a volunteer to do the actual work). At any rate, the ultimate location of the dab page may soon be affected by the outcome of the move request on Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2014; 12:10 (UTC)

No matter how many times you explain your reasons, you will still be forced to accept that it is possible to disagree with them. I think your "policy reasons" were ill-advised. There is no need for a separate "broad concept article", because this is already it, all the ins and outs of terminology are already fully explained on this very page, aptly titled "Crimean peninsula". All that needs to be done is redirect the Crimea title to this page. Oh wait, that's what had been the case until you cited "policy reasons", leaving us with a stranded disambiguation page with tons of incoming links at a time when there is a super high amount of traffic on Crimea topics. Well done. "MOSDAB" isn't "policy" (like NPOV and RS), it is a guideline, and on Wikipedia guidelines never trump common sense, and they need to be applied on a case-by-case basis anyway. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with dab/Dbachmann on that move. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing from the standpoint that my move was intended to be a permanent solution. It was not. It is merely a plug meant to fix a guideline violation while a discussion is taking place at Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Once that discussion is over, it will become clear where the dab page should ultimately be located. While it's ongoing, we should be following the guidelines we already have in place unless there is a good reason not to, and so far we've had plenty of opinions on what such good reasons might be but no consensus. What's "common sense" to one person is something completely different to another, as the discussion on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea talk page will easily illustrate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2014; 12:16 (UTC)

Please see my procedural note over at the other page, at [5]. I believe the discussion there has resulted in a fairly clear consensus for the move of this page to the plain Crimea, and since over several days now no uninvovled administrator could be bothered to do us the favour and formally close the damned thing at last, I see no other way but to take matters in our own hands, so I will implement that move in a short while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that seems reasonable. DeCausa (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The assessment seems reasonable to me as well, but I personally would prefer to see a different admin closing that thread, if only to avoid unnecessary complications in the future. I've filed a statement to that effect under the procedural note.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2014; 13:31 (UTC)

I would have preferred that too, but apparently no such action is forthcoming; I filed requests to that effect in at least three places two days ago. I am just as "involved" or "uninvolved" in all this as you are, but then I am not claiming this to be a formal administrative closure, but a matter of editorial self-help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but since we are not operating on any deadline here, I see no harm in waiting a bit longer. It's not like the thread has been dead and inactive for days anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2014; 13:58 (UTC)

Satellite Image

The satellite image shows the entire Black Sea and much of Ukraine; it should be replaced by one of the Crimean Peninsula itself. Sca (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

communication by cleanup template

this.

Apparently, a user had a feeling there might be "original research" in this section. Hard to say which is the offending parts, as no inline tags were used. Also I find it funny how completely unreferenced nonsense can sit there for years[6], but as soon as I take the trouble to verify it and turn it into a tightly referenced and coherent paragraph (while still keeping as much as possible of the material that was there before), people start slapping templates on it. At least tell me what's wrong with it, or better yet improve it. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't even notice it was you who had written that passage – I only saw you referring to it in a discussion somewhere. But really it should be fairly clear why I tagged it: I am missing secondary sources. You only cited primary source attestations of the use of the name in some historical documents, but obviously what we really need to support its claims (that English got the word in the 1780s, that it got it from Italian, that Italian had been using it for the entire Khanate rather than for the peninsula) would be reliable secondary lexicographic sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, it seems the statement that the name only got common in English from the 1780s onwards may well be wrong. It's not too difficult to find attestations throughout the 18th century and earlier [7][8][9][10][11][12] etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No criticism of dab (it was much worse before), but the two key citations are to the 17th century source for the Italian point and to a proto-turkic dictionary for the meaning of *Kɨr, but with no source linking that word (as far as I can see) to Krym/Crimea. I've spent some time looking around for other sources but surprisingly there doesn't seem much. There's this which confirms (1) that Crimea is derived from Krym/Krim and (2) which in turn comes Stary Krym (and Krim/Krym was first used in the Mongol period/13th century) and then applied to the whole peninsula by the Ottomans in the 15th century. And this which effectively gives a Mongol or Greek derivation for Krym/Krim. The one thing both say is that it is of "uncertain origin". I don't think either of these are great sources, but unless someone comes up with better ones perhaps the "Name" section should simply say:

The name used in English is ultimately derived from the Russian and Turkic names for the peninsula: Krim or Krym. Originally the latter applied only to the town of Stary Krym, the seat of the Mongol governor in the 13th century, but by the 15th century it came to be used for the whole peninsula.<ref> The origins of Krim or Krym are uncertain, but may be derived from a Greek word for "escarpment" or a Mongol word for "strength".<ref>.

DeCausa (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

fine, pointing to mention of Crimea in Italian books of the 17th century to show that the name existed in the 17th century may be using "primary sources". At the same time, using an online Turkic etymological dictionary to establish the reconstruction *Kɨr may be using a secondary source. Building a case for the etymology of Qirim while all that online source states is that Tatar qɨr is a reflex of a Turkic word for "1 isolated mountain 2 mountain top, mountain ridge 3 steppe, desert, level ground 4 edge" is, however, misuse of a secondary source.

I take it as established that Qirim and hence Krim is from the name of the town (Stary Krim). Its further Turkic or Mongol etymology may be discussed there. It has not been shown that the name has been extended to the whole peninsula in the 15th century. We have documented

• the existence of Crimea (for the khanate) in Italian in the 17th century
• the use of "Crimean peninsula" in English in the late 18th century
• the use of "Crimea" as shorthand for "Crimean peninsula", also in the late 18th century.

Anything else, especially claims concerning the use of Krim or Qirim in the 15th century, but also use of Russian Krim prior to the 19th century, remain unreferenced.

Especially, we need to find more information on

• the transfer of the Italian form Crimea to English
• the first use of Crimea in Italian (this may potentially date back to the 14th/15th century Genoese/Venetian interests in the peninsula, but this needs references)
• the early use of Krim in Russian (the official 18th century name was still Tavrida, and Krim arose as an unoffical name alongside it, but Krim may of course have been in use earlier, especially in the Cossack states. But this also needs references)
• the use of the name in Ottoman Turkish, our Crimean Khanate page claims a form Qırım Hanlığı قريم خانلغى (without providing a reference). This would, of course, just mean "the government of the territory of the city of Qirim" and not show any use of Qirim for the peninsula itself.
• It would be nice to find out more about the town's name (Qirim), especially about the -im suffix which apparently has come to be seen as a possessive suffix(?), but needless to say we also need references on that.

On your references, DeCausa, the "15th century" one just says that the name was given to the town (not the peninsula) by that time. The Greek and Mongol ("escarpment" vs. "strength") etymologies (for the town's name) are new, but they are also completely unreferenced (yes, they are in a "secondary source", but an etymological dictionary which doesn't cite its sources is worthless). --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, on page 1084 it says that the name was given to the town in the 13th century. Over the page (on 1085, 1st column, about two-thirds of the way down) it says that under Ottoman suzerainty ("from 1475" i.e. 15th century) the name of the town became applied to the whole of the peninsula. On the etymological dictionary, I didn't say it was a "good" source but I think it's overstated to say it's worthless. It's better than what we have at the moment. I've since seen this National Geographic piece, which gives a further etymology - but without citing sources. While it would be preferable to cite sources I don't feel either should be excluded merely because they don't. What they all have in common is that the erivation is described as "uncertain". I think that the section in this article should emphasise that. I think the Itailian connection (which seems probable of course) should be dropped until we have a secondary source confirming it. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I had not seen this, it is a valid reference (even citing its source, W. Radloff, Türk-Dialecte, ii. 745) so it is safe for us to say the name had become extended to the peninsula "under Ottoman suzerainty". But note that this just means after 1475, it does not mean "in the 15th century". It means that at some point between 1475 and 1779, the name had been extended to the peninsula.

We now have a bunch of "suggestions" for the etymology, enough to simply say that the etymology is unknown and various stuff has been suggested. As for what has been suggested by whom, we would necessarily need references to the scholars making the suggestion. I am sure that the "Cimmerian" and also the "Cremni" comparison has a scholarly pedigree, but it is most likely quite dated (19th century at least), so the reference would be important to put the merit of the various suggestions into context.

As for the Italian connection, we will need it to explain the English form Crimea, which couldn't possibly be derived from Russian Krim. Perhaps somebody can just look it up in OED? I do not have access to oed.com from where I am sitting atm. This is going to be supremely uncontroversial, it is just a matter when the Italian spelling first pops up in English. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out, the form Crim coexisted with Crimea in English until at least the mid 19th century. So this becomes a matter of tracing the relative frequency of usage of each. Crim is of course the expected from taken from Russian directly, while Crimea is the Italian form. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

übooks.google.ch/books?id=f7I-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA510&dq="Crim+Tartary" == time zone == Crimea has apparently just switched from EEST (UTC+2) to Moscow time (UTC+4). There are a number of search hits for this, with [13] the most detailed of the handful I looked at. I have no idea if it's disputed by anyone. There are presumably a lot of databases that will need updating, and who knows if the change will last (it's like getting pushed 2 hours into daylight savings time). 70.36.142.114 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see Republic of Crimea mentions this. Not sure if current article needs it. I didn't realize there are separate articles. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Politics

I request the removal of the politics section, which was only recently added. This article was purposely established to deal with the history and geography of the peninsula, and not with politics. Political issues are dealt with by Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea. I do not agree with the recent addition of this section. What say others? RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• The section was added with this edit by Dbachmann. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I've been bold and removed the section, per WP:BRD. It really has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This should for the most part be an apolitical article that just deals with the peninsula, geology, climate, culture, as it already does. § DDima 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Also agree EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section should go. However, the current political position needs to briefly be covered at the end of the History section, which has had a tendency to be added to. I've just taken a look at it and seems ok as of now, maybe with a little copy editing. It has the potential to be unnecessarily built up. Could we establish a consensus that nothing further needs to be added (subject to further events of course). DeCausa (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A basic phrase directing people to the appropriate articles is all that is necessary, I agree. RGloucester — ☎ 14:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The above comments look like full agreement to me. I am adapting the language of User:RGl above to post a redirect in this subsection for all "Contemporary history and politics" to be redirected. Modify as needed, and the emphasized wording will keep other good faith editors from not putting in edit time for "surprise" template requests. FelixRosch (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because it's already covered by the last paragraph of the history section. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Apparently an IP editor is unhappy with the presentation of the infobox, judging by the way he keeps removing the section regarding the competing claims of Russia and Ukraine without discussion. This is obviously unconstructive editing by someone who appears to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, but it does raise the question of how the infobox should be handled. Are people happy with the (pre-193.104.16.75) version of the infobox, or do we need to make some changes to cut down on the politics on this page? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge Taurica to History of Crimea

I started a discussion at Talk:History_of_Crimea#Merge_Taurica_into_this_article on merging Taurica into History of Crimea. That merge could potentially affect this article as well. Any interested editors should comment on Talk:History of Crimea. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Switch to Moscow Time

Crimea has switched to Moscow Time on 29 May, 2014, however that change is still no updated on the map of the Time in Europe. Can someone please update the map as soon as possible. 99.225.193.121 (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be a conflict as Europe itself doesn't recognize this time change? --Львівське (говорити) 05:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Typically areas/states/nations can determine their own time zone. Europe doesn't recognize the time change itself? That said, this really belongs on Talk:Time in Europe. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I do understand that this discussion belongs in Talk:Time in Europe however that talk page gets little attention so I tried to start it here. As for the map update Europe can't just say Crimea lives at a different time than it does, aach region is aloud to change their time. The map should be updated as soon as possible. 99.225.193.121 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Legitemacy in infobox

Legitimacy based on a source from ABC News from Australia? At least justify it with the UNGA resolution! Anyway, I didn't change anything. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The UN General assemby resolution itself is only a primary source and per WP:PRIMARY shouldn't be used for any sort of an analysis of the sitution. All it can used for is to support the bare statement that the those states voted in the GA to oppose Russia's move. The ABC piece is a secondary reliable source which can be used to support an analysis of the position in international law. Having said that, better pieces, eg from a legal academic, would be preferable than a journalistic piece. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Subsequently noticed that it was written by a legal academic! the only other question is whether it is WP:UNDUE and whther that reflects the balance of the reliable sources. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted that edit. It's POV, against consensus, and at odds with how Crimea is described on other pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, where you see a consensus ? I gave source for what I wrote, don't remove, it's against the rules of wikipedia. thank you--Tigran20 (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Tigran20, it is not against the rules. Please read WP:BURDEN, WP:BRD, and WP:CONSENSUS. We have discussed wording for infoboxes on Talk:Ukraine, Talk:Russia, and Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Who have 3 editors who have reverted your addition. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

INFOBOX

Hello everybody. I changed the infobox for make it lighter. However, I changed the status of Ukrainia about Crimea, because for 100 countries in the world, Ukrainia dont claim Crimea. I gave a source, so thank you to respect it.--Tigran20 (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually there's another problem with the infobox in that it presents the claims by Ukraine and Russia equally. But in terms of international recognition these claims are not equal. This is another example why infoboxes, to the extent we use them at all, should contain only the most factual, non-controversial information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Geography

Perhaps it would have been beneficial to all to separate the geography et al of the Peninsula from the political history. Right now the political history dominates the entry, to the detriment, in my belief, of the expansion of the information on the land mass, climate, flora and fauna, water systems of this peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Real results published by the Russian Human Rights Office reveals Crimean Referendum fraud

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.87.25 (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

please talk in a single thread. Seryo93 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, what about it? Simply pasting a news article link without explanation doesn't help with editing the article. Abstractematics (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

recent highly POV edits

Like this one: [14]. Note the false edit summary. Look, Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, like it or not. There was even a UN resolution condemning Russian annexation/occupation. Note also that the user starting the edit war has not bothered to start talk page discussion or even comment here so far. Volunteer Marek  04:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. It's obvious that not everyone in the world agrees with that view. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Crimea is not "internationally recognized as part of Ukraine". There are 15 countries and 4 partially-recognized territories which consider it a part of Russia. Since it's a disputed region we have to judge the language based on the number of speakers in the region, since Russian is the most popular language it goes first. As for the categories, both the Russian and the Ukrainian categories should be present to keep an NPOV persepective, otherwise it's POV pushing. This was the text on the article until someone changed not too long ago. --Leftcry (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No. It's internationally recognized as part of Ukraine by international organizations such as the United Nations which even passed a vote condemning Russian annexation. It's always possible to round up a couple countries to support you in international politics but that's not what determines recognition. And who cares if a couple "partially-recognized territories", pretty much all also Russian created phony states "recognize" Russian aggression? And there's absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that says "we have to judge the language based on the number of speakers" - we go by what country the region belongs to. Including "Peninsulas of Russia" as a cat is straight up irredentist, aggressive, territory marking and clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. *Removing* that cat is NPOV, but not cramming it into here. I guess if we had a category for "Territories claimed by Russia" or something like that, that could go in. And I don't care what the text was; if it was in violation of Wikipedia policies, then it gets changed. That's how Wikipedia works. Volunteer Marek  06:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely the aggressive style of reply I expected. This is simple. "Internationally recognised", without qualification, implies universal recognition. It isn't, no matter how dismissive you are of those organisations and people who disagree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out with the personal comments or you'll get the same - "this is exactly the bullshit excuse and original research I expected". "Internationally recognised" does NOT imply universal recognition. You made that up, pulled it out of thin air to justify your POV pushing. Not everyone recognizes that Texas is part of the United States but also, no one else gives a fuck, and Texas is "internationally recognised" as part of US. Here: "the United Nations, which confers legitimacy". If United Nations recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine then, while we can note that there is a dispute, we treat it as part of Ukraine, whatever the megalomaniac fantasies of far right Greater Russia irredentists. Volunteer Marek  06:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work for the United Nation, we are not obligated to follow their POV. We have take into consideration a NPOV that will work for anyone, and since Crimea is NOT internationally recognized as Ukraine we can't just say it as part of Ukraine. As for the language I will once again repeat, Crimea is a disputed region, we can't judge the languages by the corresponding state as picking between the two is POV pushing which is why we just judge them by the amount of speakers in the region. Both categories must also remain to keep an NPOV environment on the article. Your example of Texas has little relevance to the Crimean dispute as Crimea is de facto a part of Russia,not Ukraine, Texas is still de facto a part of the US no matter what that Texas independence group may want. --Leftcry (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, but United Nations opinion is the main one out there, everything else is WP:FRINGE. Insisting on including the opinion of a couple artificial unrecognized states on the same footing is a classic case of WP:UNDUE, which violates WP:NPOV. Crimea IS internationally recognized as Ukraine. Stop it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  19:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "a couple artificial unrecognized states" it's 15 UN member states and 4 partially recognized territories. You keep saying that Crimea is internationally recognized as Ukraine when that clearly isn't the case. HiLo48 makes a very good point as you are the one trying to push your POV completely ignoring the NPOV that should be applied. Crimea is a DISPUTED region and it is treated as such on the article, stop trying to push that it is part of Ukraine. That's your opinion, keep it to yourself, don't put it on Wikipedia as NPOV must apply here. --Leftcry (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. My position is clear on this matter. So is yours, as always. It must be wonderful seeing the world in such a binary way. Never any doubts, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem. New version in infobox links "claim" to Political status of Crimea which tells (more or less correctly): "the Crimea is the subject of a political and territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine and the majority of the international community consider both Crimea and Sevastopol as administrative divisions of Ukraine". Simply indicating "Russia" is incorrect. One could tell: this is a common problem with infoboxes that simplifies things. I would not object if someone removed whole infobox here, but leaving it as is right now (new version) is wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You didn't fix anything accordingly, there is no consensus made yet. It's just Volunteer Marek arguing for his POV pushing to be put in the article, no one agreed with it but you. --Leftcry (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I also support user My very best wishes version. You can work out the Federations claims en detail in the article, including the coalition of those willing nations. Alexpl (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I support that version as well, as it more accurately represents what reliable sources say on the subject. RGloucester — ☎ 16:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I support that version as well. See? We all can get along! USchick (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's the best version, but I can live with it since it seems to have general support here. Just to clarify, my edits were only to maintain WP:STATUSQUO until discussion and consensus was achieved here. It appears to have been achieved. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia violates Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity

Russia violates Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity to aggress and annex Crimea from Ukraine. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 is a resolution adopted to recognize Crimea within Ukraine’s international borders on March 27, 2014.114.25.11.77 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do, but this is not the place to discuss that. CodeCat (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2015

2014 March 16, held a referendum in which the people of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to chose whether to join Russia or stay in Ukraine. 96,6 % were in favour of reunification with Russia. RamirezGunsta (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam ^Sing! 13:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic vandalism that went undetected for over four months

Does any intelligent being actually watch this article?! How can vandalism like this one slip through?! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism. An inappropriate removal of content, probably, but it doesn't meet the definition of vandalism and I'd hesitate to describe it as "anti-Semitic". There's a whole history of debate as to whether people of Jewish heritage should be considered a separate ethnic group, something that has been an especially sensitive issue in Eastern Europe and Russia, and this drive-by IP editor could have removed the content on those grounds. At any rate, I agree it should be restored. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Errr, inappropriate removal of content (it has happened that I've restored complete, sourced sections that were obviously hard work to write!) is vandalism in my book, and much more insidious because it is far harder to detect than the addition of "[classmate] is gay" (bonus points if you replace most of the article with "[classmate] is gay", the next moron comes and deletes only the vandalism and the article is reduced to a stub). Anti-Semitism looms large in Eastern Europe, so the removal, which renders the Jewish minority invisible, lit up a huge red light when I noticed it while going through the history. But good that we agree in effect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor who deleted the content did raise in on the talk page at Talk:Crimea#Jews?.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Treaty of Jassy

The annexation took place in 1783, and was recognised the same year (in December) by the Ottomans. Jassy had nothing to do with Crimea proper, but with Yedisan. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone thinks that the Treaty of Jassy is relevant, please could they cite some reliable sources showing its relevance. If that someone has the reliable sources to do this, then using those sources to upgrade the article on that treaty would be a good place to start. Anyone who followed a wikilink from the article on the Crimea to the article on the Treaty of Jassy would be puzzled, since the article on the treaty currently makes no mention of the Crimea.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Russian control vs. Ukrainian control

Maybe I'm ignorant about the federal system of Ye Olde Soviet Union, but using 1954 as a dividing point between a Russian Crimea and a Ukrainian Crimea seems to miss the point somewhat. Crimea was part of Russia until 1922, when it became part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, it became part of independent Ukraine. Breaking up the Soviet period, without distinguishing the Soviet period from the imperial period, seems like the wrong approach. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It was part of the RSFSR during the Soviet period until the transfer. Even when it had autonomous status within the RSFSR as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, it was still subject to the RSFSR. After the deportation of the Tatars, when the autonomous status was revoked, it remained under purely Russian control until the transfer. Crimea was never a constituent republic of the Soviet Union. It was either an autonomous republic within Russia, or an oblast of Russia. RGloucester — ☎ 01:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that, but considering Russia dominated the USSR politically, economically, militarily, culturally, and socially, is it really more significant that Crimea went from being attached to Soviet Russia (within the Soviet Union) to Soviet Ukraine (still within the Soviet Union), or that Crimea went from being part of the Russian Empire to part of the Soviet Union (as an ASSR of Russia)? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That depends on one's perspective. Ultimately, the move of the Crimean Oblast into the Ukrainian SSR did not affect the governance of Crimea. No one cared about the transfer, as Moscow still reigned supreme. However, the obvious impact of that change was that it was what led Crimea to becoming part of the independent Ukraine. Whilst it did not have any real effects at the time, it did do so later on. Functionally, the Soviet Russian rule of Crimea during the pre-1945 period was significant, as it led to increasing Russification, and also represented the quashing of Crimean Tatar independence movements during the Russian Civil War. The continuity of Russian rule during that period is certainly important. RGloucester — ☎ 01:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the information is historically significant. I'm just wondering whether it would be better to split up the history subsections on this article into "Russian imperial era", "Soviet era", and "post-Soviet era". -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be the more conventional way of doing it. It is also usually split between pre-war and post-war, as the lack of Tatars post-war completely changed the demographic nature of the place. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Events of the 90s

This edit [15]. And this edit [16], which is better since it removes some of the over the top POV language, but unfortunately retains the misrepresentation of sources (presumably unaware, in good faith).

For example, first para:

"On January 20, 1991 in the Crimean region was held a referendum, because there was a strong tendency to reconnect to Russia. Referendum were attended by 81% of the population, to create Crimean Autonomous Socialist Republic voted 93%. On the basis of the referendum results, on February 12 1991, Ukraine adopted the Law on "Creating Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic"."

Cited to this Washington Post blog by G. Sasse [17].

Ok. Now WHERE in the source does it say that "there was a strong tendency to reconnect to Russia"? In fact, the article says exactly the opposite: "(The pro-Russian movement in Crimea) lost popular support when it failed to address the worsening economic situation".

Now, WHERE in the source does it say that the "referendum were (sic) attended by 81% of the population"?

WHERE in the source does it say that "to create Crimean Autonomous Socialist Republic voted 93%"?

WHERE in the source does it say that the referendum led to the Law?

And as a whole, I don't think we should actually use this source. Notice what it's saying "Ah, there won't be anything in Crimea, Putin's not going to risk a war by seizing it, Crimea will just get greater autonomy within Ukraine, that's all that will happen"... lol. It was written before what actually happened happened. It's actually a pretty good example of Western-academic-naivete and ignorance that characterizes the understanding of what's going on in that part of the world.

And that's just to start with. Seriously, any more shananigans like that and off to WP:AE we go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Next sentence: "On May 5 1992 Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea declared independence by adoption of the "Declaration of government Independence of the Republic of Crimea"" sourced to this old NY Times article [18].

NO. The parliament declared conditional independence. That's crucial. After all, Crimea DID remain within Ukraine for the next 13 years. Stop playing games. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, this content belongs to page 1992–94 Crimean crisis, although I'd like to see any sources which describe these events as "crisis". My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Now, WHERE in the source does it say that the "referendum were (sic) attended by 81% of the population"? WHERE in the source does it say that "to create Crimean Autonomous Socialist Republic voted 93%"?" I have found numerous reliable sources which confirm these figures and have added some of them to the article, feel free to request quotes. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources are delivered by MyMoloboaccount and me. Volunteer Marek please stop playing games that majority of Crimeans ever wanted Crimea in Ukraine. This edit is crucial. Word conditional is now included, as are all sources. Thank you for your understanding. Jirka.h23 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Before you continue shoving that POV edit back into the article you need to reach an overt consensus here on the Talk Page. Work it out before continuing all that pro-Russian nonsense. In any event, that level of detail is inappropriate and prejudicial in this particular article. It should be in an article specifically about Crimea during the breakup of the Soviet Union. There should not be more than a single sentence or two here. --Taivo (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You simply have to remember that anything to do with Crimea following the Russian invasion and occupation is highly sensitive and needs to be approached with care and sensitivity. That is especially true of material that casts a pro-Russian light on anything in the article. Step lightly and build a consensus before pushing a pro-Russian agenda. --Taivo (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense, you can not delete whole text without any serious resons just because you do not like it. Events are highly related to the article because they preceded the anexation. It cast light on why did it happen, as Crimeans never wanted their peninsula in Ukraine and that was the origin of subsequent problems. Explain which sentence is problematic or why, but stop reverting whole text. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to submit some shorter version? I am all ears. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD before you assert that "you cannot delete". That is precisely the process in Wikipedia that you are ignoring. Step 1) Be bold and edit (you did that). BUT Step 2) Someone doesn't like your edit and removes it (that was done). You are ignoring Step 3) Discuss before editing again. You need to discuss your edit here on the Talk Page and then reach a consensus on what to actually put in the article. Read my comments above--that is precisely what I suggest you do--follow Wikipedia policy and get a consensus for your edit or reach a compromise version to place in the article. If no one agrees with your edit, then you have to abandon it. That's the Wikipedia process. As I said above, Crimea is very touchy right now and your overtly pro-Russian edit will not fly as it stands. --Taivo (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Step one: explain your reason for deleting text. Step two: delete text. Consensus can not be found if one side is deleting everything because it simply do not like it. Last edit was very well referenced. If will not be delivered reason for deletion until tomorrow, i will have to again revert your edit. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If you argue that level of detail is inappropriate, i can argue same with the following paragraph (It should be in an article specifically about annexation). My text is importantly related to this paragraph. There should be explained everything or nothing. We can cut or exclude both if you like. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem understanding WP:BRD and think that somehow you are exempt from building a consensus. I have said why I object to your edit--1) that it is biased, and 2) that is it overlong and detailed for this article, giving far too much weight to your pro-Russian bias. The other editor who reverted you also pointed out that you have misinterpreted your sources to push a pro-Russian bias. You cannot simply keep adding the same thing over and over. I have suggested a clear path forward--revise, shorten, and propose here. But if you continue to just push the same text over and over then you are edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so the shortened version:

In 1954, by an internal political action by Communist Party General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, it became a territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union. However, the Russian majority on Crimea continued to support partial or complete separation from Ukraine. A referendum on sovereignty of Crimea on Ukraine was held in January 1991, sovereignty was approved, however with the dissolution of USSR, Crimea returned to Ukraine.. On 5 May 1992 Crimea declared conditional independence, it had yet to be approved by a referendum in August the same year. However Crimea was soon forced to withdraw from this action and Crimean legislature received a more ranging autonomy.

When a pro-separatist president won elections in May 1994, parliament voted to reintroduce the Crimea Constitution of 1992, which made Crimea more independent on Ukraine. Howevew Leonid Kuchma dismissed Crimean constitution, it was replaced the Ukrainian parliament in January 1999 with a new version also mentioning its autonomic status (as part of Ukraine).

In August 1999 the President Leonid Kuchma advocated that Ukraine should have only Ukrainian as its state language. Crimean President then publicly accused Crimean prime minister and the representative of the Ukrainian president in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, of trying to start a coup d’etat.

References

Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – You selectively pick the pieces of history you want to pick, and ignore the ones that don't fit your narrative. There is no way that this is going into the article as written. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid. I picked up the most important part of Crimea for this period. If you feel that text should be extended (or reduced) then go on and expres yourself. You do not own wikipedia and can not censor sourced text related to article because you just want to.Jirka.h23 (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS, and you don't have it to introduce pro-Russian bias into this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. If WP:CENSOR is irrelevant, i did the same with the following paragraph, because it is highly related to my text. You have to find a consensus before inserting this text. - Because, as you said; Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph was the result of consensus. And, Jirka, you are approaching vandalism by ripping through the rest of the article just because you are angry that we don't accept your POV edit. If you don't like the paragraph on current events, then you can start a separate discussion here and reach a new consensus for deleting it. But you cannot simply remove paragraphs based on consensuses reached before you showed up. If you can build a consensus for deleting an old paragraph, then you can delete it. Until you have built a consensus for deleting it, it stays. --Taivo (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, this paragraph is not the result of consensus. This paragraph has not discussed at all. And also, as has been stated before on this page: This should for the most part be an apolitical article that just deals with the peninsula, geology, climate, culture, as it already does. Therefore this is not going to be included here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand much about how Wikipedia operates, Jirka. If you want to delete that existing paragraph, then you have to build a consensus for it. If you want to add a paragraph (or section) that wasn't there before, you have to build a consensus for it if other editors object. Wikipedia isn't your personal playground. --Taivo (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, if someone pushing a text, which violate wikipolicy (too detailed off topic), i can delete it without permission of someone who keep pushing it here. Exactly as in this case. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You can go ahead and keep on blanking content without consensus, but you'll be writing yourself a ticket to the edit-warring noticeboard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu, I am still waiting for your feedback. What should be changed in my text to find a consensus? If you are not willing to find a consensus than please dont touch the paragraph at all. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a modified version of your paragraph about the 1991 and 1992 maneuvering (cleaning up grammar and POV issues, as well as some apparent inaccuracies). In my judgment, the other stuff is extraneous and already better-covered on History of Crimea. We are trying only to provide an overview of that history here. I think the transition from USSR to Ukraine is noteworthy enough to discuss in light detail on this page, but the rise and fall of Yuriy Meshkov is best handled elsewhere, and your description of the constitutional dispute(s) was frankly incoherent, so unless you can explain that more clearly (remember, this is the English-language Wikipedia) and articulate why it is important enough to have on this geographic overview page, it's cut as far as I'm concerned.

On a side note, I really, really think you need to review WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and WP:CONSENSUS, among other Wikipedia policies, because you have come off as nothing but demanding, combative, and tendentious throughout this entire back-and-forth, and I'm frankly not sure why I bothered doing you the favor of inserting your paragraph into the article in light of the way you've been treating me and other editors on this page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu, please consider removing your additions, which maintain the same PoV problems as Jirka's. This is a selective history, and leads out many important details. It is pure PoV pushing. RGloucester — ☎ 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't see any POV issues with noting the transition from oblast to autonomous republic, as well as the 1992 dispute over autonomy, which were actually important developments in the territorial development of Crimea with lasting impacts. If readers want important details, well, that's why History of Crimea is mainlinked. WP:COATRACKing all of the alleged grievances of the Crimean people and heroic stirrings of pro-Russian sentiment, a la the original proposal, on the other hand... -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a 1992 dispute, no doubt. That dispute was over whether they'd continue with the autonomous republic status in Ukraine. However, this fails to mention that Crimeans voted for independence within Ukraine in the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding that information, which seems significant. Do you have a source? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read the source book through a library, but I don't own it. Perhaps I have a citation stashed away somewhere... RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Kudzu1: Found the book online, praise God. Take a look. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. I'll work the ref in -- looks like useful for corroborating the 1992 sources as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic, finally is someone willing to find a consensus. That was exactly what I wanted to add to article. I still do not understand, why RGloucester do not said he was missing Crimean vote in 1991 and we could save all of this stuff. I had no problem even with more shortening. Sorry if I seemed to be rude, but replies like "this is never going to be included" without explanation what was the exact problem, drived me a bit crazy. But it does not matter, the main thing is, that we have found a consensus. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Link

Reference Link No 27 "Putin describes secret operation to seize Crimea, retrieved 3/8/2015" doesn't work. The reference linked to the nonexistent/deleted article. Please delete the Reference No 27. 208.179.179.98 (talk) Kirill 6/8/2015 — Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Putins Vengeance

This article is spineless. America and Western Europe agree - Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty so lets not give Vladdy boy any slack. Until he returns Crimea and apologizes Russia will be the joke of the greater world' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

the Crimean Tatars were deported

Not only Tatars but also Greeks and Bolgars.Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sevastopol navy base

Crimea is important for Russian navy.Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Ukrainian Navy lost its base there.Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions

Taivo, I do not want to start again some endless discussion, but please consider it. I see your point, sanctions are primarily against Russia, I have no problem if you mention it (actually Russia is also mentioned in the first sentence). However, how can now reader find out, which sanctions are imposed on Crimea? Sanctions listed by me are imposed directly to Crimea, not whole Russia. Mixing this can be very confusing for anyone. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Russia controls Crimea, all general sanctions applied to Russia are also applied to Crimea. Only sanctions against individuals can be specified as "Russia only". There are no sector sanctions that apply to Russia, but not Crimea. Every country outside the EU that has applied sanctions has applied a different list, but they all include sector sanctions and not just individual sanctions. There are sanctions 1) against the Russian economy and financial transactions (affect Crimea), 2) against Russian businesses (some affect Crimea), 3) against Russian individuals (don't affect Crimea), 4) against Crimean businesses (affect Crimea), 5) against Crimean individuals (affect Crimea), 6) against Donbass individuals (don't affect Crimea). And outside the EU, every country placing sanctions has a different list. There's enough complexity that "2014-2015 sanctions against Russia" can have its own article (if it doesn't already). Just as with the history of Crimea's relations with Ukraine and the Soviet Union, we summarize here and have more detail in separate articles. Listing just those sanctions directed overtly at Crimea is too simplistic since many of the sanctions directed against Russia also affect Crimea. And this paragraph doesn't even mention sanctions against Crimea and Russia by Ukraine--which levels another layer of complexity since it involves more complex relationships involving banking and social service payments. --Taivo (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You did not answered my question, how can now reader find out, which sanctions are imposed on Crimea, since this article is about Crimea. Sure that sanctions against Russia have its own article, but this is not the place for it. Or could be, if you really want to list all of them. But should be speciffied here, which are specificaly applied against Crimea. With your edit it is now all mixed, and readers have no chance to find out, which sanctions-and by which country are agains Crimea applied. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions are subject to change and just these days they have been directed at a Crimean port in addition to other sanctions on Russian individuals and companies. You need to find out the status of sanctions through searches because nobody can update this page to keep up with rapidly changing policies in Washington and usually followed by the EU.

Let's call a spade a spade: The sanctions are directed at Russian entities and individuals as a punishment with the ultimate goal that Russia might be hurt enough to give Crimea back to the Ukraine. At the other end, sanctions are hurting the EU finances, Germany in particular, just as much - at a time when Greece requires a lot of money.

The billions from the EU, required to put Ukraine on a good economic path, are obviously reduced by not having to fund Crimea which amounted to 5 % of Ukrainian population. Russia is now funding Crimea, and the EU saves some money there, probably a billion $ a year, as 20 billion annually for 20 years have been mentioned as requirements for Ukraine to be in the Western fold.

Sanctions change all the time, check with other media what they're at at the point in time when you want to know. 58.174.193.77 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And after your edit, it is even factually wrong, Japan or New Zealand etc. don't prohibit dock their ships at Crimean docks or prohibit sale of goods etc.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of your English is confusing and the pronominal reference is ambiguous. You ignore my main point--that sanctions are complex and not so simple as you want to lead readers to believe. You ignore the fact that sanctions against Russia as a whole also apply to Crimea. You ignore the fact that Russia's invasion of Crimea is the root cause for sanctions in the first place. Readers who want to find the details of which country sanctions Crimea for what will need to read another article, but your original wording that sanctions have only been imposed by the EU and the US is factually misleading. --Taivo (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what you do not understand. All my references are related to the Crimea, not Russia. Sanctions against Russia as a whole also do not apply to Crimea. Sanctions against Russia are targeted against Russian individuals and entities. Different sanctions are targeted on Crimea, and are imposed only by the USA and the EU. If you think that I am wrong, please provide relible sources. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The article currently says:

"Following Russia’s unrecognized annexation of Crimea, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and several other countries imposed economic sanctions against Russia, including some specifically targeting Crimea. While different countries have imposed different combinations of sanctions, in general they prohibit the sale, supply, transfer, or export of goods and technology in several sectors, including services directly related to tourism and infrastructure. They list seven ports where cruise ships cannot dock.[50][51] Since December 2014, Visa and MasterCard have stopped service in Crimea.[52][53]"

I think the problem is that there need to be citations supporting the various countries/organsiations in the list. Citation [50] supports the inclusion of the European Union (EU); citation [51] supports the inclusion of the United States of America (USA). But it is not clear to me that there are citations supporting the inclusion of "Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and several other countries".

Taivo, please could you add citations that clearly support the inclusion of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and some other countries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. (Your estimate of 15 minutes was about right, Toddy.) I don't have any skill at the fancy formatting of web references, so someone else will have to make them pretty, but they are there nonetheless. --Taivo (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Where it is done? References you added describe sanctions against Russia, not Crimea. Where is that Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. targeted sanctions at Crimea? Different sanctions are targeted on Crimea, and are imposed only by the USA and the EU. Still waiting for reliable sources.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jirka.h23, if there are statements in the text that you think are unsupported by citations, please make a bullet-pointed list here (explaining why you believe that the current citations do not cover it). If you have some other point that you think ought to be mentioned in the article, why not propose some wording here, along with citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Economic sanctions listed by me are imposed just by the USA and the EU, as this was original edit. Wording is now proposed in article. It could be separated, because after Taivo edit it is all confusedly mixed. Also, Taivo references are moved to the relevant sentence. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jirka, as I have said before, and as the text in the article clearly states, the sanctions were levied because of Crimea. That alone makes them relevant here. And all sanctions against Russian businesses and the Russian economy affect Crimea since Russia has de facto control over Crimea at this time. You keep trying to minimize world indignation against Russia. And I only included sanctions which were levied in the so-called "First round" in March and April 2014. I could easily justify listing all anti-Russian sanctions since Crimea is at the root of every sanction as the first cause. And every sanction, whether levied in the first round or later, that affects the Russian economy does affect Crimea. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not said that they are not relevant, add them if you want. Where you get that? I said that economic sanctions listed by me are imposed just by the USA and the EU, and after your edit it is all confusedly mixed. Wording is now proposed in the article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop trying to minimize the scope of sanctions against Crimea. Canada listed Crimean individuals in its sanctions and the sanctions by EU aspirants also include Crimean individuals. I've properly referenced it all. While Japan's sanctions do not directly target Crimea, all the others do. (I've left Australia in the first paragraph since I can't find the Aussie list of first round sanctions yet). --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop your edit warring. If you take two seconds you will see that all my changes are referenced. If your English is not up to the task of reading the sources, then you need to ask about specific references. --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thats why they should stay in the first paragraph, as they listed individuals and not the following economic sanctions. Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No. You have insisted on a division between 1) sanctions against Russia that affect Crimea indirectly and 2) sanctions imposed directly against Crimea. Sanctions against Crimean individuals should be in the paragraph focused directly on Crimea. That's the division you wanted--Russia versus Crimea. That's what you got--Crimean individuals in the Crimea paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are not willing to provide reliable sources that Canada, and several other countries prohibit the sale of goods and technology and list ports where cruise ships cannot dock. Your edit is wrong and against wikipolicy. Source it or stay away from it. Thanks.Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Before you actually post something here, please actually read what I wrote. Sanctions against Crimean individuals are relevant here. You are simply trying to promote a pro-Russian bias by artificially restricting what kinds of sanctions you will recognize. The sanctions regime against Crimea and Russian includes 1) sanctions against individuals (some of them Crimean), 2) sanctions against businesses (some of them Crimean), and 3) sanctions against financial institutions (some of them Crimean). Stop your edit war since every single statement I have made is properly sourced. --Taivo (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Taivo, what pro-Russian bias are you all the time talking about? This is not place for some pro-whatever stuff. This is encyklopedia, it should include just factial data, this all were my edits about. Communication with you is very difficult (if not almost impossible). When you firstly edit my paragraph, this looks like all selling of goods, prohibited support of tourism etc. was related to Russia. It was not, they were just to some individuals and institutions. Now it is better, but still, I do not see anywhere sourced that also Canada etc. are imposing all these sanctions against Crimea. If I am wrong, I would support your edit with no problem. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Footnote 54 is the list of individuals and entities sanctioned by Canada ([19]). Under entities are a number of Crimean companies and ports. --Taivo (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So if does not apply following sentenses to Canada, and sanctioned by Canada are just some individual a entities, it should be mentioned but in a separate way (sentense). This is really confusing. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Jirka, it's only confusing because you want it to be. The sanctions by Canada are no different than the sanctions by everyone else. Read the entire act if you are confused. No one else is confused. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point, Jirka, you are crossing the line into WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. --Taivo (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You really do not see a difference between sanctions to few individuals and companies in Crimea, and: Banning provisions of any EU services directly relating to infrastructure and tourism activities, listing seven ports where EU cruise ships cannot call, also listing houndreds of goods banned, stops European entities from buying real estate, acquiring shares in Crimean firms, and providing loans or financial services; also cover supplies to foreign consular missions, hospitals, and schools, as well as work to maintain safety of existing infrastructure or to protect human health and safety or the environment ... ? Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point, Jirka, you have definitely crossed into WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. I have provided appropriate references to show that all of these countries listed in the second paragraph have enacted sanctions against Crimean companies as well as against Crimean individuals and that those sanctions are far-reaching in their scope. --Taivo (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You said that they are no different than the sanctions by everyone else. Canadian sanctions in your source clearly state, that they are imposed only on designated persons and entities. This 12 EU sources claim in article: 1) that designated entity now means any Crimean entity, 2)it is prohibited to sell, supply, transfer, or export goods and technology to anyone in Crimea or for use in Crimea, article 2)D it is prohibited to provide services directly related to tourism activities in Crimea, it is prohibited for any ship providing cruise services to enter any Crimean port, etc. etc. Because in the first case, sancions do not affect ordinary people in Crimea (not involved in Crimean annexation), it is now prohibited for any Crimean people or someone willing to use it in Crimea. (Designated people could before anyway buying it from second hand). The ban goes much further than previous Crimean sanctions (which is even sourced in the first reference).Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your English simply doesn't make sense. You are trying to split hairs that are not there. The references are there, the wording is correct. You're simply pushing your pro-Russian POV to make Crimean sanctions into strictly an EU and US affair. They are not. --Taivo (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I really do not have time for this. If you still do not see this significant difference, then I give up. References are not there, the wording is not correct. Anyway will somebody correct this sooner or later, because it is factually incorrect. Bye. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

Request to link the word "Arabat Spit" in the infobox under "Claims" -> "Russia" to the article Arabat Spit. 2601:246:4400:402E:8092:194A:3F76:1FAE (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Linked first mention, delinked second mention in infobox. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Infrastructure wording

I apologize if I am putting this in the wrong place but I found the wording of this sentence from the Infrastructure/Transportation section very awkward: "The trolleybus line starts near Simferopol's Railway Station (at Soviet age start near Simferopol International Airport) through the mountains to Alushta and on to Yalta." The "at Soviet age" phrase is very jarring. At first, that phrase seemed just to have been randomly dropped into the parentheses. Now, I'm GUESSING that the author wanted to tell us that the trolleybus line today starts at the Simferopol Railway Station but started the Simferopol International Airport back in the Soviet Era. (It seems a bit grandiose to call it the Soviet Age when it lasted less than a century but if the Soviet Age is what you Wikipedians have agreed to call it, who am I to argue?) I would not be very comfortable editing this passage though without being sure what the facts actually are. Did the trolleybus line start at the airport in the Soviet days and does it start at the railway station today? I really have no way of finding that out since I don't speak or read the local languages.

135.23.68.111 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Crimean war 1854 1856

This page on the crimea has is no mention of the Crimean war. This war was fought by the English, French and ottoman empires against the Russian empire. The main objective for the allies was the Russian naval port of Sevastopol. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.40.172 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

De Facto Control?

Good day ladies and gents ... having just read the article for the first time as a fresh set of eyes, one or two points stood out that strike me as needing cleaning up. First up ... under 2014 Russian Annexation and Aftermath, there is this phrase: "The peninsula is now de facto controlled by Russia" ... control cant really be de facto. You can say "The peninsula is de facto part of Russia" because the "is" part is debated, but control of the peninsula is not debated. i.e. that phrase should read "The peninsula is now controlled by Russia". The current "The peninsula is now de facto controlled by Russia" doesnt make sense. It actually is 100%, undeniably controlled by Russia. De facto refers to a state of being that is debatable, or is contestable. You can debate whether Crimea "is" part of Russia or not, but you cant debate or contest that Russian "controls" it.Moto-extremist (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a good catch; thank you. I've made the correction, but you do know that you could have easily made it yourself, right? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 30, 2015; 17:01 (UTC)

"De facto" means "from fact". It is a fact that Russia is in control of the Crimea; hence, their control is de facto. The term doesn't imply anything about whether or not such control is contested, unless it is contrasted to the de jure situation. Arbolus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

History: who controled

I offer to use the same structure in the History section as in History of Crimea (after 1783), not to invent new one:

• Russian Empire (1783–1917)
• Russian Civil War (1917–1921)
• Soviet Union (1921–1991) (where it should be mentioned about transfering from RSFSR to UkSSR)
• Autonomous Republic within Ukraine (1991–2014)
• Crimean crisis (2014–present)

If no one minds I am going to copy the same structure. LeoKiev01 (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's mostly fine except the last part since the article is Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Volunteer Marek  15:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Look suggestions in the Talk:Crimea#To_use_Rissian_Empire.2C_Crimea_in_Russian_Civil_War.2C_USSR.2C_Ukraine.2C_Russia_in_the_history_section — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoKiev01 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

2014 Census should be

I have added the 2014 census in the table but Volunteer Marek deletes it because: 'two things. First you need the references. Second, because this census is fundamentally different it should not go in the same table' Sure I can add references but they are above in the section. But I can add the again. But what is 'this census is fundamentally different'?? Why is it 'fundamentally ' different from 1897 census, or 1939, or any other censuses??

Does anybody mind to use 2014 census data in the paper to show the current situation? LeoKiev01 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what I can add to my previous comment. First, you need a source for the census. Second it cannot go in the table and be put on par with the previous cens...censi (?) since it was taken under, ummmm, "special circumstances". Volunteer Marek  06:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

1st- I have added the source. 2nd- It was taken under common circumstances => by administration that controlled the territory. Recognition or not recognition the 'de facto' administration can't influence other side of the topic. And I would be grateful if you could add some other censuses, e.g. by Crimean KhanateLeoKiev01 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Or you (Marek) can add under the "2014 census" that Russia annexation is not recognised by the World. But repeating the fact does not improve the section. LeoKiev01 (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The URL cited does not lead to a page containing the claimed numbers. There is a URL that does contain census data. The numbers claimed in the article are only for the "Republic of Crimea" entity, not the whole of the Crimea (i.e. they are taken from rows 143-280 of the this source. The percentages appear to have been calculated as a proportion those who gave their nationality; this is dubious. It would have been better to have calculated percentages of the whole population, and to have had a percentage of "not stated".

If 2014 census data are to be used, it would best to use the data in rows 5-142, which refer to the whole of the Crimea. Any citation should make explicit what is being referred to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I Agree that both Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol people should be counted. But now I see in 2001 census that: 1) Data is for republic only without Sevastopol!! 2) Percentage is not division by all quantity of people but only who say their nationality'. It is mentioned in the Ukranian version of the report as "які вказали національність". So what data are we using? LeoKiev01 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed this problem that you identified. At one time in the article history Ukrainian nationalist POV editors had decided that the data should only refer to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (there were article moves to this effect), and the nationalist POV editors changed the data without changing the headings :( -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not fixed the percentage problem with the 2001 data. However, as you can see the error is small, as the number of people not stating their nationality was about 0.5% in 2001. There has been a huge increase in the numbers not reporting their nationality from about 12,000 to over 87,000.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! I will try to check tomorrow. LeoKiev01 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To use Rissian Empire, Crimea in Russian Civil War, USSR, Ukraine, Russia in the history section

Current situation is:

• Russian Empire (1783–1917)
• Russian Civil War (1917-1921)
• Soviet Union (1921–1991)
• Autonomous Republic within Ukraine (1991–2014)
• 2014 Russian annexation and aftermath

Being proposed:

• Russian Empire (1783–1917)
• Crimea in Russian Civil War (1917-1921)
• Soviet Union (1921–1991)
• Ukraine (1991–2014)
• Russia (2014-Present)

Why?

1. In the beginning we use a state that controls but then we use a name of subject within a country, and then event and aftermath. For example, we don't use 'Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire and aftermath' instead of 'Russian Empire ()'. 'Crimea in Russian Civil War' would mark several state formations in 1917-1921.

2. It was not only Autonomous Republic within Ukraine but Sevastopol too.

If no one minds I am going to use the structure here and in History of Crimea.LeoKiev01 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There were no objections. Done. LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The previous version accorded with neutral point of view; your attempted new version does not, so I have partially reverted it. I have accepted your addition of "Crimean Khanate (1441–1783)", since this is NPOV. It now looks like:

1. Crimean Khanate (1441–1783)
2. Russian Empire (1783–1917)
3. Russian Civil War (1917-1921)
4. Soviet Union (1921–1991)
5. Autonomous Republic within Ukraine (1991–2014)
6. 2014 Russian annexation and aftermath

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So lets discuss NPOV. Where has who said we have to write "Autonomous Republic within Ukraine (1991–2014)" and "2014 Russian annexation and aftermath" in the list in Crimea history section?

• I can't catch why we use "Russian Empire" in section with "... and was then annexed by Russia in 1783", and don't use "Russia" in section with "As a result of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and subsequent annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation...". I see we must use hard truth and in the same style as in previous sections. I am not sure Ottoman Empire, Great Britain and others were happy because of Annexation of Crimea in 1783, but we write "Russian Empire", not "1783 Russian annexation and aftermath" :-)
• Why Autonomous Republic within Ukraine?? Crimea containted not only Autonomous Republic within Ukraine, but Sevastopol too.

What do you think about it? LeoKiev01 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 Russian annexation is not generally recognised.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is not recognised! And it is mentioned many times in the section. But general style сan maintain: Crimean Khanate, Russian Empire, Civil War, Soviet Union, Ukraine, Russia. It is not recognised but we write facts only. For example, I can not go to Crimea free because of fact that there are Russian border guards. And you didn't answer about "Autonomous Republic within Ukraine (1991–2014)". I want to see just Ukraine in the header of the section like Sovet Union or Russian Empire. Am I not right? LeoKiev01 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you are not right. WP:RS tell us that the global community do not recognise the RF as having legal claims on Crimea, hence the sub-headers reflect what RS tell us. "I want to see" is your WP:PPOV... which is irrelevant to Wikipedia articles and how they are structured. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Censuses

I offer to elaborate censuses. Today I have specified the 1959 USSR census. Sevastopol is described as "Sevastopol gorsovet" and goes together with "Simferepol gorsovet" inside "Krym oblast". So data is for Krym oblast as a whole. AS I know "nationality" field was mandatory in a USSR passport. So I'we written the same number in Total and Total who stated..
I think we should specify all censuses if it is possible LeoKiev01 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Saying that because the "nationality" field was mandatory in a USSR passport, it followed that the census would have the nationality of everyone is original research. You need the census to say that the number was zero.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A census is not a passport. People filled these in with information they were prepared to disclose, just as is done now. If they did not want to ascribe a 'nationality' or 'ethnicity' to themselves, they did not respond. There are a multitude of reasons as to why they would not want identify themselves with any particular nationality or ethnicity. The nationality field in a Soviet passport was the representation of which SSR they were citizens of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Look here - Soviet Union passport. It had an ethnicity. A man of age 16 had to select ethnicity of one of parents. So there was ethnicity in a Soviet passport. And there was an official list of ethnicities. it was changed from census to census. For example, 1959 - 126 ethnicities, 1979 - 123, 1989 - 128. ru:Пятая графа#В СССР. And 1,201,517 - it is not who stated ethnicity but who was counted. LeoKiev01 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This page helps you understand the 1959 census with respect of nationality. Code 99 is for Национальность не указана. This page gives the census by nationality for the Ukrainian SSR; there are 911 people in the the census listed as национальность не указана (code 99). So now you need to find a page that gives a breakdown of the Ukrainian SSR by region.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In the 1959 census, the source for nationality for the Ukrainian SSR as a whole gives a total (41,869,046) that includes the 911 whose nationality was not stated. (I checked in Excel.) This page, which is by gender gives the same total for Ukraine (41,869,046), and the total for the Crimea as 1,201,517.

The source for nationality for the Crimea gives the total for the Ukrainian SSR as 42,859,046, and the Crimea as 1,201,517. It does not include an others category.

Clearly the others figure in the table in the article was calculated by subtraction. If we assume that the 911 people whose nationality is not stated were distributed evenly in the Ukraine, then you would expect about 26 to be in the Crimea (911 x 1,201,517 / 41,869,046).-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, LeoKiev01's table does not conform to WP:CALC, but is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In Tachypaidia's edit summary of 09:17, 5 November 2015, he/she says "My calculation of all entries having Jewish is 3,374 not 3,373 =>3144 Jews (IDN)+228 Krymchaks (Crimean Jews)+1 Mountain Jews+1 The Central Asian Jews (Bukharan Jews)=3,374 Jews . Is this collapsing of categories allowed under WP rules?".

(1) Well done. I must have missed one when summarising in Excel.

(2) With respect of collapsing of categories, the 1959 census gives both the larger category (Jews), and a breakdown of different types of Jew. The Crimean Karaites were not included amongst Jews.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in headings

An editor objects to having headings mentioning the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. This objection apparently applies to headings in the article and to headings in the population table. The reasons given for this objection were:

• Demographics: The idea is not who controlled or occupied but who just carried out a census. It is a neutral fact and is not disputed. E.G. 1989 census - it was carried out by USSR (as a whole), not UkSSR.
• Lets maintain more neutral variant. It is the same as in other Crimean articles.

I think this ought to be discussed.

I do not agree with these edits. The internationally recognised borders of the present Ukrainian state are those of the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. It seems to me that the editor is trying to massage away inconvenient facts in support of his POV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur; it warrants discussion. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you we can discuss this. First of all, census. For example, the 1989 census. It was carried out by Sovet Union on the whole territory of the Soviet Union ( All Union Census or Whole Union Census - Всесоюзная перепись населения). It was not Uk or R SFSR. Secondly, the republic (the region) inside USSR. Of course we can tell about RSFSR and UkSFSR again. Especially in the current situatoin when two opposite teams are glad to kill another for mentioning Ru or Uk. But it was one country and one people. Crimea and Sevastopol (like any other territory of USSR) was managed from Moscow, the capital of USSR. Sure, it was managed from Kiev too but in some economic activity not politic. So I think if we speak about some real politic control we should mention USSR. The transfer can be mentioned in the section as an important fact (for future borders especially). LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cities of Crimea in Kievan Rus'. Principality of Tmutarakan X-XII

Add to history of Crimea period of Kievan Rus'. Principality of Tmutarakan was a Russian principality that existed in the 10th - 12th centuries on the Taman Peninsula, with its center in Tmutarakan. The territory of the Principality covered Eastern Crimea with main Crimea cities and Greek colonies of this time: Kerh (Pantikapaion) and Chersonesus (Korsun). (http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Principality_of_Tmutarakan). It is believed that it occurred during the Eastern campaign of Sviatoslav I of Kiev in 960, or during the a campaign of Vladimir I against Chersonesus (Crimea) (Korsun), in 988. This event is very important for Christianization of the Kievan Rus'. Vladimir was baptized at Chersonesos in 988. Check map also (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mstislav_of_Chernigov#/media/File:Principalities_of_Kievan_Rus%27_(1054-1132).jpg)

First prince of Tmutarakan Principality with Crimea cities is Mstislav of Chernigov. Madnessgenius (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting idea. It could show ancient Slavic presence in the region. Moreover Interesting this was Kiev the capital of Rus' LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:ITSINTERESTING, it's highly speculative for the scope of this article, particularly as you're both interested in it due to the Rus' connection. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Greeks are an ethnicity of Crimea

In reply to the deletion of Greeks from Crimean ethnicities, Greeks constitute the oldest, continuous ethnicity of Crimea, dating back of 2,600 years; despite numerous invasions and persecutions (including the Soviet NKVD deportations of 1944-1949). Its ethnic-religious-linguistic contribution to Crimean identity is existential and cannot be marginalized, even if the population has been greatly reduced. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is for contemporary information and what Greek population still exists in Crimea is miniscule compared to the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, Tatars, and Russians there. There is virtually no contemporary Greek presence in the peninsula, so it deserves no place in the infobox. We might as well list Scythians since they were in the peninsula prior to the Greeks. --Taivo (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Greeks are the extant indigenous population of the Crimea. For the U.S., by way of example, the indigenous Native American plus the Alaskan Native population is .009 of the population; the Native American by itself is likely only half of that. I don't expect there is a WP threshold % that resolves people's significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Significance is determined by percentage of extant population. The three or four Greeks who still live in Crimea do not count as "indigenous population". They were invaders and colonizers who took the land from the population that was there before them. They are utterly insignificant as a population or cultural element in Crimea. The Greek influence on Crimea was pretty much wiped out as the Mongols and Tatars conquered the area and then the Black Death finished out what was left over 600 years ago. That means that "indigenous" now falls to the Tatars since they were the population before the Slavs showed up. There is simply no Greek population to speak of on Crimea and hasn't been for centuries. Apparently you didn't even look at the infobox at United States because there is no listing for "Ethnic groups" as there is here. And even if there were, WP:OTHERSTUFF means "Who cares?" We're talking about infobox usage and the "Ethnic group" listing in infoboxes is not "historical", but contemporary. --Taivo (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Taivo. On top of which, the claim that the Greek community is extant is unsourced. The article makes no reference to it. It does make a sourced reference to 70,000 Greeks being deported by Stalin (presumably that was the entire remnant community). So without any reference in the body of the article and no supporting WP:RS it's certainly not going in the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A new Nero! “… the arbiter of life and death for nations.” (Seneca, De Clementia 1.19.8) By what proportions is this justice meted out? for “a false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is His delight.” (Prov. 11:1). An understatement of a 1000-fold! Not to be undone, DeCausa avers the Crimean Greeks wholly extinct. Despite massive ethnic cleansing from Crimea—which proportionally rivals that of the khanate Tatars—their residual proportion exceeds that of indigenous Americans (viz. U.S. article in-chief). Evidently, a source of consternation—that a single Crimean Greek would have escaped the Soviet NKVD dragnet—they remain in the cross-hairs.

Of the Bosphoran Kingdom Cicero wrote: "It were as though a Greek fringe has been woven about the shores of the barbarians." (De Republica, ii, 9) Tachypaidia (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So you don't have any sources for an extant Greek community in Crimea then. Thought not. DeCausa (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you clarify what it is that you are contesting? Are you saying there is a discontinuity of Greek presence in Crimea? If so, rather than attempting to cover a 2,700 period, could you identify where I should focus my rebuttal? Tachypaidia (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't really know what you're trying to say. The only issue is whether you have a source that shows there is a Greek community in Crimea in 2015. Whether there was a Greek community in Crimea in any previous period in history is irrelevant to the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we're on the same page--not sure how showing there is a Greek community in Crimea in 2015 answers to my assertion that the Greeks are 2,700 indigenous people of Crimea. Anyway, the 2014 Crimean census counts 2,877 Greeks or the 12th largest minority in Crimea. Does that suffice? Tachypaidia (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In other words, there is a trivial number of Greeks in Crimea, not worth mentioning and included in "other". The ethnicity box is not intended to show every single minority in Crimea. I have an American friend who owns land in Crimea. Should that mean we need a line for "Americans" as well? As the 12th largest minority minority in Crimea, even if we were to list all the trivial minorities in Crimea, we would have to list all of the top eleven before we even considered listing Greek. As it is, the number of Jews and Armenians on Crimea also fails to rise above "trivial" in my book, so if you wanted to eliminate them, I wouldn't disagree. But you have failed to show why the trivial number of Greeks should be listed. --Taivo (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Tachypaidia, we're talking about this edit where you added Greeks to the Infobox, right? You are very definitely on your own "special" page all by yourself. (1) The Infobox lists current not historic ethnic groups. (2) It currently lists the top 3 ethnic groups: Russians (1.5m), Urainians (345,000) and Tartars (232,000). To include the allegedly 12th largest ethnic group we would have to include ethnic groups numbered 4 to 11 as well. A huge list in a small Infobox of 12 ethnic groups down to a minuscule one with allegedly a couple of thousand people is just riduculous. You're wasting people's time here. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I completely agree with DeCausa. I got confused as well and was talking about the box under "Demographics". Greek definitely, positively, without a doubt does not belong in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

First, I'll take that as a concession of your prior assertion that the Crimean Greeks are extinct. Secondly, the Crimean Greeks are the indigenous peoples of the Crimea (2,700 years, which is, in a sense, unfathomable). Not unlike the indigenous American Indian (whose % of total populations< 1%), warranting delineation. It may be convenient to resort to simple numerical counts to judge inclusion, but the history of multiple deportations, especially under Stalin (70,000 Greeks) with mass executions speaks otherwise. Tachypaidia (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Their history is utterly irrelevant. They don't exist on Crimea anymore in any number other than a tiny, inconsequential, unimportant relic. And there is no evidence that the Greeks living in Crimea are actually descendants of the pre-Mongol/Tatar population and not post-Tatar replacements. And even if they were, by some miracle of history, descendants of the earlier Greek colonists, they are still not part of the ethnic makeup of Crimea in 2015 any more than the Armenians, who outnumber them. --Taivo (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, on a count basis, the Greek percentage is less than the Armenians so they would constitute less of the ethnic makeup (the Jews are the 10th largest minority). Nothing to note there. (Though you seem all to earnest too "eliminate" the number of the Armenians and Jews). OTOH, on the legal question of who is to be designated the indigenous peoples of Crimea, it is of singular significance. On this same question: "The Greeks were here before you and me" - President V. Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 12:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no parameter in the Infobox for "designated indigenous people", whether or not President Putin is a reliable source for that. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What, where parameters? You asserted: "The only issue is whether you have a source that shows there is a Greek community in Crimea in 2015." Apparently, the parameters have changed. Tavio claims that "Significance is determined by percentage of extant population." He also avers a grim algorithm on determining indigenity (genocide annuls it). Or, succinctly, in his words, "Who cares?". The Greek, Tatar, Armenian, and Jewish peoples are the genocided populations of Crimea. Allowing that the "info box" may be intended solely for listing the highest percentages (if so), why the exclusion of the Greek population (the sole surviving indigenous (and genocided) peoples) from the demographic box, while the Jewish population (10th ranked) is included? If you find the question to be a "waste of time", then tap out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Tachypaidia (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jews aren't mentioned, only Russians, Ukrainians and Tartars. The next ethnicity that would be a candidate to be mentioned are Belarussians. But there only 21,000 of them compared to the next largest ethnicity, the Tartars at 230,000. So, it seems logical to draw a line at Tartars. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In the table under Demographics, if you include all ethnicities that outnumber the Greeks, then I have no problem including the Greeks. But the infobox at the top of the page is for the primary ethnicities--Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar. --Taivo (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you have no source for this, it is just your assertion. Still no explanation why Jews (a specially-designated minority by the Ukraine Verkhovna Rada, along with the Greeks) are given in theDemographics, but not the Greeks. 108.45.44.48 (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't read my previous comments. I don't know why the Armenians and Jews are on that Demographics chart. I didn't put them there. I don't need a "source" for not treating Greeks as if they are something special. They're not special with regard to Crimea. They are a tiny minority of people. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In spite of the apparent hostility to the topic, there still remains value in providing some background to the Greek presence in Crimea. The small numbers of Greeks in Crimea doesn't explain the existence of significant Greek ruins. There are no "Jewish" ruins in Crimea, but there are notable Greek ruins. The Russians go to great length to document and record minorities and minority rights, right down to the smallest percentage such as the Greeks because they see value in the history. All the relevant genocides and purges are known. So the commenters above ought to admit that some explanation is needed. It's a huge and glaring omission and deserves more than the contentious opinion of some above commenters, e.g. "Their history is utterly irrelevant". At the very least, if the belligerence above can't be overcome, links to the substantial articles on the Greeks in Ukraine could help to explain the small numbers of Greeks remaining in Crimea. It's a good question. Santamoly (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to see the whole context, Santamoly. The context is that Tachypaidia wanted to include Greeks as an ethnicity of Crimea in the infobox. It has nothing to do with the article text at all. The Demographics box listing got dragged into the discussion and it was also clear that the Greeks are not large enough to include there either. But that doesn't mean at all that the former Greek presence on the peninsula should be ignored in the article text. Quite the contrary. But all we are talking about here is 1) the infobox and 2) the table in the Demographics section. Not the text of the article. But I have to laugh about your comment that the Russians care about minorities. While they count their minorities to demonstrate their "care" for minority rights, their actions are utterly the opposite, with a long and continuing history of deportation, extermination, and imprisonment of minorities. Just ask the Crimean Tatars if the Russians care about minority rights. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Satellite image revision request

In the present image the Sea of Azov looks like a land mass. It is not dark like the Black Sea. Here is a link to another satellite image which shows the distinct outline of the peninsula: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_2_14_10_08_AM-2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.255.146 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources no longer support the text

One of the problems of the obsessive editing, and re-editing, and re-re-editing of this article is that sources become adrift from the text. I found this example whilst checking yet another re-edit:

Within days, unmarked Russian forces took over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, also occupying several localities in Kherson Oblast on the Arabat Spit, which is geographically a part of Crimea. Following a controversial - and illegal under both Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions - referendum, the official results of which showed majority support for joining Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared independent Republic of Crimea, absorbing it into the Russian Federation, though the annexation was not recognised by Ukraine or most of the international community.

The "source" does not really support any of this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Now I understand. The "source" was added in an edit on 24 December 2014 by an editor.[20] The edit added the following text, and the source was meant to support that, which is does to some extent.

Then, in March 2014, Russia signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared independent Republic of Crimea, absorbing it into the Russian Federation, though this is not recognised by Ukraine or most of the international community.

The source was dated Tuesday 18 March 2014 at 19.47 GMT (so was probably in the Grauniard on Wednesday 19 March 2014., and says:

"US and European leaders have decried the accession treaty Putin signed on Tuesday with Crimean politicians..."

If we go back to the current version of the article, I have used strike-through on the parts not supported by the source:

Within days, unmarked Russian forces took over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, also occupying several localities in Kherson Oblast on the Arabat Spit, which is geographically a part of Crimea. Following a controversial - and illegal under both Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions - referendum, the official results of which showed majority support for joining Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared independent Republic of Crimea, absorbing it into the Russian Federation, though the annexation was not recognised by Ukraine or most of the international community.

We need to fix this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we've landed in a 'too many cooks' situation here. I know that it may not be the most desirable way to approach the article, but I'd be inclined towards restoring an earlier version and discussing what needs to be retained and what needs to be changed instead of multiple mini-rewrites, attempts to fix the rewrites, etc. Trying to work on a version that's a bit of this and that is awkward. There's nothing more frustrating than having to go through the history and work out what's disappeared, or the context for standing content as we'll dig ourselves into a deeper hole trying to find solutions to problems that shouldn't exist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Surely the article should mention the many cases of ethnic cleansing in the Crimea in the past 250 years. For example, why did an editor remove the murder of Jews by the Germans during the Great Patriotic War?[21] -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat:, @Iryna Harpy: and @Tobby72: your opinion would be valued on this question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that both the massacre of Crimean Jews (Holocaust) and forced deportation of Crimean Tatars are important events in the recent history of Crimea and should be mentioned. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted, Tobby72. The content and source you wanted to add was extremely WP:POINTy and out of place in the context of the article.

Given that this is a broad scope article about Crimea, the 'quick fact' approach strikes me as being WP:UNDUE. If there is anything to be said on the matter, why only one instance of the persecution of Crimean Tartars? Surely, if such content is WP:ITSIMPORTANT to the article, there should be a dedicated section for the treatment of the closest thing the peninsula has to an indigenous people is warranted. What is being pointed to is merely one of 250 years of abuse. The cultural cleansing goes on, as attested to by a documentary made just a couple of years before by an Australian adventurer (see On the Trail of Genghis Khan). This included a violent attack on Crimean Tartars by a town of Russians who won't allow them to access the market which is, itself, built on a sacred site. A couple of words on post-WWII Soviet treatment doesn't even begin to address the issue: it's simply lip-service to a single incident which can be easily dismissed as being an isolated contextual footnote in history. "Ah, but that was in Soviet times" just doesn't cut it. Either it's tackled in more detail or it's undue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, as a matter of interest, I've found the relevant section on YouTube here at approx 1.46.00. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Most recently I've tried to add this brief text and source: "The Germans and their collaborators killed approximately 40,000 Crimean Jews." Yitzhak Arad (2009). "The Holocaust in the Soviet Union". U of Nebraska Press, p.211, ISBN 080322270X

Strongly disagree, Iryna Harpy. I don't think that the persecution of Jews and Holocaust — mass murder of 40,000 Crimean Jews — is "WP:UNDUE" or "WP:POV pushing" (diff, diff) or "out of place in the context of the article" (WWII-related section). -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the amended version, however I do still see it as being undue given the lack of information provided about Crimean Tartars who feature throughout Crimea's known history. There isn't even an estimate of how many Tartars were 'deported' in that period. Of course the Holocaust stretched to Crimea, and an atrocity is an atrocity, but such facts are presented in other nation-state/regional articles in a balanced manner, reflecting the impact on the indigenous and other populations. The information is not balanced... in fact it reads as trumping the consequences for the Tartars. And where do the Crimean Tartars get so much as a sub-subsection in any of the subheaders? Even the 'Culture' section is dedicated to far more recent Slavic cultural references. The entire article is a POV battle for Slavic supremacy as if there were no history prior the first Russian annexation. Just because Slavs appear to be of the mindset that it was some sort of cultural wasteland, and that Tartars are non-entities, the article should not read like the Slavic version of events, nor that of the Holocaust. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "... Crimean Tartars who feature throughout Crimea's known history ..."

— Crimean Tatars and Nogais were Turkic/Mongol invaders from Central Asia, the khans were descendants of Genghis Khan. Their ancestors include enslaved and raped Slavic women who were victims of the slave trade. The truth is that Crimea was inhabited by Iranian-speaking Scythians and Alans (related to Ossetians), Greeks, Byzantines, Armenians, Jews and Crimean Goths centuries before the invasion of Tatars. Slavs actually have a long history in Crimea. There were reportedly twice as many (Slavic) slaves as Muslim free people in Crimea in 1667. - [22]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the deportation and persecution of the Tatars shouldn't be mentioned (so should the Holocaust).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, Volunteer Marek. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoa! ;) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Even I agree with you, Marek, on this one! It is another festivus miracle, I say! :-D--91.51.92.158 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, Tobby72, your POV is really showing! They've been living there for nearly a millennium. I'd say that makes 'em count as a little more than as Johnny-come-latelies, whether you approve of them or not. Again, I'd encourage you to watch the documentary here at approx 1.46.00 (starting from Tim Cope's arrival at Bakhchysarai and going on to the peaceful protest about the market built on the tentative UNESCO World Heritage site)... It isn't pleasant, but it is a reflection of the ongoing treatment of Tartars in Crimea. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with Crimean Tatars. I'm just saying that Tatars or Cumano-Kipchaks (Turkic tribes related to present-day Kazakhs) in Crimea and region north of the Black Sea are not indigenous but are settlers like the Russians and Ukrainians.

It isn't pleasant, but it's still not as bad as Ukraine's treatment of ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians in Odessa, in Mariupol, in Donetsk or in Kiev. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said Iryna. Also, let's not forget that only the ruling elite were Turco-Mongols, the "Tatar" polity were Cumano-Kipchaks known as Polovtsi before that and had been there for centuries (and before that as the Huns who in turn descended from some sort of Sarmatians no doubt). And Genetic studies [23], [24] are showing that Slavs (especially Polish) have more genetically in common with Kirgiz than they do with Europeans further west anyway. YuHuw (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if the previous poster misplaced that or if it was intentionally meant to cut me out of the convo lol :) but concerning this "are not indigenous but are settlers like the Russians and Ukrainians" I'm wondering who is indigenous then? Here is a great page to contemplate on that question List_of_Ukrainian_rulers. Note how most of those early dynasties (with the exception of the legendary Kyi,_Shchek_and_Khoryv and Nordic Rus) were in the south and Crimea. Of course we know the word Cossack comes from Kazakh, and the DNA studies are difficult to ignore. Nevertheless, perhaps the national climate is not right yet to consider such facts though. But the topic here is whether or not a section on genocides in the area should be mentioned or not right? YuHuw (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No mention of ethnic cleansing should take place, unless there is solid, undeniable evidence that ethnic cleansing took place, and WP rules regarding Original Research still apply, which, so far on this talk page, is all I'm seeing mention of. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The difference between Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (country)

Hallo there

Can I ask why my recent edit should be reverted when all I did was correct a mistake? The other editor had wrongly linked to the Republic of Crimea article when the link should be to Republic of Crimea (country). I can't believe that my edit is controversial so I don't understand. Thanks Qaz1984 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have waited a week and no editor has answered my question. I take it, therefore, that there was no valid reason to revert my correction of the mistake. I will wait another day and then make the correction again if no one else can be bothered to make the argument why the error in the article should remain unchanged. Qaz1984 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now corrected the error referred to above. I'm surprised that no editor has tried to explain why they reverted my previous attempt to correct the error - I assume they now realise that the error does require to be corrected. Qaz1984 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Qaz1984: My apologies for not responding sooner. For some reason, I missed the fact that you'd started a new thread here. My quibble was merely a reflection of my own preference for wikilinking to an entire article. Given that the anchor you've linked to in another article is more pertinent in context, however, I would agree that it's a better choice. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

en-ipa

IPA|/kɹaɪˈmiːə/ pl.ad81.11.231.253 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Done; thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 8, 2016; 14:01 (UTC)

Jews?

Hello,

Where you wrote the number of Russians, Ukrainians etc. , you wrote Jews as another group. Why didn't you write Christians? It shows a racism. The Jews who live in Crimea are Ukrainians or Russians, they're not different than the others. Don't show the racist Wikipedia. It looks bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.115.165 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jews are a race as well as a religion (see the difference between Jews and Judaism), Christianity is not a race, only a religion. Therefore it isn't racism. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Except it isn't really is it? Which group do Ethnic Russian Jews fit into ? Russians or Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.104.65 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

They fit into the ethnic group they self-identify with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2015; 16:10 (UTC)

Every Soviet citizen had a citizenship and a nationality (in this case Jewish). In other cases, a citizen's nationality might be Tatar, or German, or Ukrainian, etc. But there is no Christian nationality in Russia. Such a thing doesn't exist. Russian Jews have a constitutional right to live and vote in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. There is no Christian Autonomous Oblast in Russia. Foreign Jews may not be familiar with the concept of the JAO, but it's time they got used to it since, like the Jews in Russia, it's existed for eons and it's not a big deal. Santamoly (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Persians

I'm pretty sure that the Persians never had any presence on the Crimea, except for a plunder campaign during Darius' reign. Are there any sources concerning a Persian rule over Crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiejason (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no real evidence of any form of settlement (even if the art had spread, it's well accounted for as being attached to status in a polyethnic empire rather than actual Persian ethnicity). I'm removing it. It can always be reinstated if reliable sources can vouch for anything outside of the height of Darius' reign. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Status of Crimea (and Palestine)

Either Crimea is considered as a Russian territory de facto and an Ukrainian territory de jure (or recognized by the whole international community as part of Ukraine, which is not true, and accept the State of Palestine as a state recognized by the majority of the international community, instead of being just a Bantustan of Israel (as it's already considered in a large majority of the other wikipedias), or let's take the same standards, please, not the American Foreign policy standard, which is just one among 200. What goes for Crimea and Donbass shall go for Palestine. Thanks for your attention. Far-right American or other POVs shall not be accepted. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not the article on Palestine. If you have an issue with Palestine's status, then go there and discuss it. But otherwise it's irrelevant here. This is Crimea's page. And the consensus on this page is that Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the situation is the same but different standards are applied to it. I agree with the OP of this post and the same scrutiny should be applied to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.229.115.123 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The op is the WP:SOCK of a blocked user and, as noted by the responding editors, it's WP:OTHERSTUFF. The circumstances have not changed since this was posted way back last year, therefore your WP:PPOV is not relevant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Politics section

@Qaz1984: wants to add a "politics" section to the article, with a link to an article called Politics of Crimea. Qaz has had two attempts at this:

• [25], which was reverted because most countries don't recognise Russian occupation, so this is POV as it reflects only the Russian view.
• [26], which told the reader the administrative divisions of Russian-occupied Crimea, but said nothing about its internal politics.

Qaz, why do you think the article needs a section on politics? What do you think it should cover? How would you ensure neutral POV?-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1. It seems to me that any article on an area that covers its history, geography, economy, demographics and culture, should also have a section that covers its politics. i think the section should briefly contain the kind of information that would be common in any other politics section of any other article. My first attempt at this was reverted on the grounds that it was not recognised by most countries - not on the grounds that it was not an accurate description of the reality, but the fact that it was not recognised. Ok, so I tried in my second attempt to introduce a politics section without making reference to how Crimea is governed - and that attempt was reverted as it said nothing about the internal politics - precisely what my first attempt was trying to do!

How about a third attept, in which we describe that the Ukrainian position is that the legislature is the Supreme Council of Crimea, currently dissolved, and the Russian position is that the legislature is the State Council of Crimea? Qaz1984 (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Something like this has been discussed before at Talk:Crimea#Politics. Anything you propose needs to meet the objections raised - or alternatively, you need to explain on the talk page why those objections are no longer applicable.

Whatever you propose needs:

• To cover the subject adequately in one or two paragraphs.
• Citations to reliable sources.
• Neutral point of view.

An obvious place to start is how people in the Crimea voted in the Ukrainian presidential elections in in 2004-05 and 2010. A table might be a way to do this. Be clear whether data is with or without Sevastopol. Then to show how people voted in local elections. Such a section would be the wrong place to mention the fake plebiscite held by the Russian forces of occupation.

I suggest that you try to develop it on the talk page. Given that the consensus was to not have a politics section, developing it on the talk page would avoid an edit war.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful advice. I have read the previous discussion about having a politics section and I can understand why - in April 2014 - the clear consensus was against having one. Rather than try to establish a new consensus, perhaps a compromise approach would be to merely include Politics of Crimea in the 'see also' section. Any objections to that? Qaz1984 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made the change I suggested above as I can't think anyone would object to it. Qaz1984 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

HRW - pervasive climate of fear and repression

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/18/ukraine-fear-repression-crimea Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Good find, but I think that it is more relevant to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article in the human rights section. Keeping this article as free from WP:RECENTISM as possible is the approach that's been adopted for articles on broad scope articles about regions/countries/nation-states where an overview of the history, economy, etc. should remain the primary objective. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Annexation seem to be finished, seed the lead In July 2015, Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev said that Crimea had been fully integrated into Russia. Dee also Date 20 February 2014 – 19 March 2014[1] (24 days) If the Annexation describes also the current state, the article should be extended. Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Phasing out the Ukrainian sections

I understand all the bluster, and international politics, however, Crimea is now part of Russia. Why not have the article relate that? Ukraine can have all the laws they want claiming it, and the UN can make resolutions until they're blue in the face but it's irrelevant, as Russia controls the Crimea, making it part of Russia. So why not go ahead and delete the de iure section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.216.21 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

IP 72.196.216.21, please pay attention to the template boxes at the top of article talk pages. Please be sure to read through archived talk carefully, plus read WP:NOTADVOCATE. We follow what reliable sources have to say on a subject because it's not our job to make up our own articles as we go along. Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Thanks for your attention"? You messaged me and threatened to ban me from Wikipedia. Why do that on my page? Why speak cordially to me here, then threaten to ban me on my page? That shows a major lack of integrity. I've done nothing wrong, you talk about POV pushing, but when I post something you clearly disagree with, you threaten to ban me. Who really comes off as biased then? 72.196.216.21 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

An article's talk page is not the venue in which to air your grievances about being pulled up on your behavioural problems. There are no 'threats' on your talk page, but template warnings building up incrementally throughout this month since you began editing. Deleting warnings on your own talk does not mean that they never existed: per WP:OWNTALK, "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.", therefore it is taken to be an indicator of your having read and understood prior warnings.

The structure of your 'proposal' demonstrates that you have neither bothered to read through the archived history for this article, nor paid attention to the fact that this is not the only article on Crimea. Read through this article carefully, checking wikilinks to the related articles. Read through the talk pages (including archived talk) of this and related articles. Think carefully on what you are proposing, as well as the ramifications of what you are proposing, before you post. Think carefully about whether the phrasing of your proposal sounds professional, or whether it sounds like the simplistic, POV observation you've actually come up with. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not POV, it is fact. If I fly in to Simferopol I go through Russian customs, not Ukrainian. You're the one who made this personal by sending me a message that threatened to ban me because of a question I put on the talk page, whilst acting friendly on the Talk Page, which shows a tremendous lack of integrity. But whatever, I'm done with you. If you want to ban me for a personal grievance, then go ahead. Although I think you lack moderator privileges, and from your antics I've witnessed thus far, the reason for this certainly does not allude me.

So, that all being said, I'm opening this back up for talk, as to whether it'd be best to recognize the situation on the ground in the Crimea. 72.196.216.21 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It was never removed from here as something to be 'talked' about, so I fail to see how you're opening it up again. That said, you've failed to even qualify what is to be somehow 'purged' from this article. It's a broad scope article about Crimea (the history, geography, climate, economy, etc.) and is not subject to WP:RECENTISM, and it's WP:NOTNEWS. There are other articles that deal explicitly with any 'current affairs' aspects: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, Political status of Crimea, Republic of Crimea, Autonomous Republic of Crimea, plus multiple WP:SPINOFF articles... so I don't actually see how "phasing out the Ukrainian sections" [sic] even applies to an umbrella article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy is quite right. This is an overview article and to "phase out" the Ukrainian sections is equivalent to rewriting history. Crimea is Ukrainian and has been Ukrainian legally since 1954. You can't phase that out or scrub it so that it looks Russian. If Ukraine ever officially cedes Crimea to Russia, then "de jure" will no longer be appropriate, but as long as Crimea is simply invaded territory without any legal basis, it is de facto Russia, but de jure Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see there are any 'Ukrainian sections' that could be phased out even if it was ever decided that that should happen. The article is deliberately written in a neutral way and does recognise the reality on the ground as you (ip) are requesting, so I don't understand what you are asking for. Perhaps make a specific suggestion and we can then judge if it has merit. Qaz1984 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You have to admit then, that there is something of a grey area, and room for interpretation. Take Taiwan for example, if you search it, Wiki retrieves you an article about the Republic of China, which is officially recognized by almost no one, claims de iure rights on the Chinese mainland, which in turn has de iure rights on Taiwan. But the Taiwanese article side bar doesn't state, de iure PROC, de facto ROC, and same with the China page, no de iure PROC, and de facto ROC. You see this quite a bit actually, North Korea does not recognize South Korea, but this is not stated. Sakhalin island is another, Russia's annexation of the southern half was highly frowned upon after WW2, and is still an ongoing dispute, as southern Sakhalin is still claimed by Japan. In the Sakhalin article however, the de iure claims of Japan are not shown, nor is the de facto control of Russia explicitly stated. The same is true of the Falkland Islands page, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, etc. Where the side bar does not mention de iure vs. de facto. The annexation of Crimea was absolutely an act of war, but I guess the real question that it boils down to, is how many years must past before annexations in war are recognized on Wikipedia, and I think this is the grey area. There is no uniform consensus it seems as to when another country's claims are no longer relevant, and how long it takes that relevance to fade. Going off of "page law" (get it? play off of case law), it seems that there would be case enough for removing the de facto, and de iure claims. 72.196.216.21 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Each case must be considered on its own merits. The examples you mention are all very different. One of the key issues is UN recognition as 'de jure' means within international law (and not just domestic law). Since the current UN position is that Crimea should not be recognised as part of russia, it remains appropriate that Ukraine's 'de jure' claim should be stated here. Are there any other bits of the article that you believe should be changed? Qaz1984 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

IP 72.196.216.21, you're merely introducing your own WP:OR here in order to support your WP:POV. Wikipedia is strictly WP:NOR, yet you're continuing to flounder around creating parallels no reliable sources have made or discussed. Continuing such a discussion is a waste of everyone's time because neither you nor your opinions are reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

reunification

The word reunification isn't neutral. Crimea has been transferred between two republics of the Soviet Union, not between Russia nad Ukraine. It's rather an annexation. isn't it?Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If the word reunification was an official name it should be written here in quotation marks.Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236:  Done "Reunification with Russia" now in quotation marks per WP:RS. 'Reunification' never used by any sources other the RF. In fact, RS discuss the 'annexation' of Crimea and the defunct conceptual state of 'Novorossiya' as irredentism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Red terror

ru:Красный террор в Крыму Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's alluded to in this article, but probably needs to be developed as a separate article as in both the Russian and Ukrainian wikis. There's really a lot of comprehensive content to address that merits an article in itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is actually one of the most famous historical events in Crimea, widely covered in literature, even in poetry by Maximilian Voloshin who lived there at this time. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Referendum

Discussion closed. The user who started it is indefinitely blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest to change word "authorized" (US Treasury cite) to word "controversial" because "authorized" is pro-Russian and "unauthorized" is pro-American. No propaganda! No one should authorize self-determination act but local people. Amitashi (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Crimea at the time of the so-called "referendum" was part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Ukraine did not authorize the referendum so it was, indeed, unauthorized. Your "pro-American" comment shows your own bias. The US had nothing to do with the invasion and subjugation of Crimea by Russia. --Taivo (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC) At the time of the referendum there was no legal government of Ukraine since the Verkhovnaya Rada had illegally removed the President.Moryak (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC) I don't see any problem with using 'unauthorized' as it is a fact that the Ukrainian government had not authorised it. That said, the most important point is not whether the referendum was authorised but whether it allowed the people of Crimea to express their view. 1984Qaz (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Which it did not, 1984Qaz. There is widespread evidence that ballot boxes were stuffed, Ukrainians and Tatars were denied access to polls, and Russian Special Forces troops voted as if they were Crimean residents. --Taivo (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC) And the evidence for your statements is what? Is it even plausible that the vast majority of Crimean residents were not in favor of joining Russia since Kyiv had managed to shower them with less than benign neglect for almost 25 years?Moryak (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC) While it's possible that an honest and fair referendum might have resulted in a 50-45 choice to leave Ukraine, we have no evidence one way or another. All we have is a rigged and fraudulent referendum run by the Russian Special Forces whose results were known beforehand and dictated by the Kremlin. Strelkov, one of the masterminds of the Crimean invasion, has detailed what the Russian forces did in Russian media. --Taivo (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Please remeber the history of Crime, the expulsion of many nations (not only Tatars), the colonisation by Soviet people. French people colonised Algeria but had to leave, the Russians don't want to leave Crimea, Baltic states, Karelia. Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Hi Taivo. You are entitled to your views even if they are at the extreme end of possible interpretations of what happened in 2014. All the evidence I have read about Crimea suggests opinion poll evidence supports the idea that the majority of the people of Crimea preferred to be part of Russia than part of Ukraine. Of course, you may believe that even if true that fact would be irrelevant as Crimea should not have the right to express such an opinion. Be that as it may, even if there were instances of malpractice, there is no doubt that a huge proportion of the population turned out to vote for unification with Russia. We can't, therefore, just ignore the referendum: we need to find a way to describe it and include it in the article. I think 'unauthorised' - which is sourced - sums up the situation perfectly. 1984Qaz (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) No referundum under guns is a real referendum. Some day Russia may organize a referendum in Monaco or Chelsea.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Even a referendum under guns is a referendum. Of course, the Crimean authorities could have simply followed the Kosovo precedent and simply declared independence without a referendum so at least there has been a referendum for us to discuss. I understand that the Ukrainian government would never have granted permission for a referendum even if 99% of the population had demanded one so there was no 'legal' route available for those who wished for Crimean reunification with Russia. If Ukraine really believes that the people of Crimea want to return to Ukraine it should offer an internationally monitored referendum in Crimea as a solution to determine the future status of Crimea - of course they won't do that because they realise that there is a high chance that the people would opt for Russia and Crimea would then be internationally recognised as Russian. 1984Qaz (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Even a referendum under guns is a referendum. - where? In Nazi Germany? Xx236 (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Your opinion on the "huge turnout" has no basis in fact, 1984Qaz. I don't doubt that a majority of Crimeans might have illegally voted to join Russia if there were a fair and honest referendum. But there was no fair and honest referendum and there is no reliable evidence that even a majority of Crimeans cast ballots. There is, however, evidence that Russian soldiers were casting ballots, that there were multiple ballots per person cast in Russian areas, and that there was rampant voter suppression in Ukrainian and Tatar areas. You're just pushing a false "self-determination" narrative that doesn't exist in the factual world. But the referendum was illegal under Ukrainian law. It doesn't matter what the locals want if the action is illegal. At the time of the referendum, they were a region of Ukraine that had been invaded by a foreign power. --Taivo (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) "It doesn't matter what the locals want if the action is illegal" - so even if the referendum had been totally free, fair and had returned a massive majority in favour of the unification of Crimea with Russia, the referendum would still have been illegal so the result should be ignored? Well I suppose democracy means different things to different people. But the issues remains as to how we should describe the referendum in this article. I still thing 'unauthorised' is the best adjective as it is an uncontroversial statement of fact. 1984Qaz (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC) If the people of Texas voted to secede from the United States, it would be an illegal act, and, just as it did in 1861, the United States would enforce the law of the land, by military force if necessary. Democracy isn't about voting, it's about the whole body of citizens making laws that are applicable to all. ALL Ukrainians are subject to the laws of Ukraine. Yes, the vote was unauthorized, illegal, and controversial (because it was not conducted by any law or with any level of fairness or oversight). --Taivo (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC) There is undoubtedly a tension between the UN recognised right to self-determination and also the UN concept of the territorial integrity of countries. Sometimes countries concede that a component part of the state has a right to self-determination - as demonstrated by the UK allowing Scotland an independence referendum in 2014 - but more often than not the component part has to resort to force to free itself from the state of which it is a part. (For example, Eritrea eventually secured independence from Ethiopia and South Sudan eventually secured independence from Sudan.) Kosovo is now on the road to securing independence from Serbia after 'illegally' declaring independence without a referendum and Serbian efforts to assert its 'territorial integrity' were stopped by NATO bombing. Crimea is similar to the Kosovo situation in the sense that outside interference has allowed the component part to break away from the state of which it was a part. It is different in that while Kosovo had a war, no war was fought over Crimea: instead Russian forces secured the territory to enable a referendum to be held without it being prevent by Ukrainian forces. While it may be highly likely that Russian forces would have stayed whatever the outcome of the vote, or would have fixed the result to justify keeping control of the territory, that does not prove that that is what happened. Opinion poll evidence suggests that Crimean's did support being part of Russia rather than part of Ukraine and still do. That does not take away from the referendum itself being illegal or the possibility/probability that the vote was not as overwhelming as the official results suggested. However it does mean that we have to accept that the Crimean people may have got what they wanted. Whether they should be allowed to get what they want is an entirely different point: the Ukrainian government position is that what the people of Crimea want is totally irrelevant and they should be forced back to be part of Ukraine regardless of their wishes. So, is summary, while the referendum may have been 'unauthorized, illegal, and controversial' it may have been the only way for the people of Crimea to get what they may have wanted. 1984Qaz (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Crimea is a huge military base system but we discuss here human rights and the referendum. Navy, you full (Bill Clinton).Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Language to list first

There's been some recent back and forth warring over whether Russian or Ukrainian should be the first language listed. In the original pre-edit-war version, it was Russian that came first, and that was the case even before Russia invaded and took it over. The main languages of the area are Russian and Crimean Tatar, so that makes sense to me. If there's a particular rule that official languages should be listed first, why was that not applied before, in particular before the annexation? CodeCat (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, but I may be incorrect. Please show a link to demonstrate that Russian was listed first before 2014. --Taivo (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any particular preference as to which language is listed first. What does concern me is that there is POV edit warring in the ES, but no discussion taking place on the page. Actually, I think the solution is to follow an alphabetical listing as was the case at the inception of the article here (which answers Taivo's question). I've tried to trace back the first instance of the <!-- NOTE: Russian is listed first because it is the predominant language of the region; languages are listed in order of percent of users in region --> hidden comment being added, but there is nothing is the talk archives to suggest that it reflected any form of consensus. Retaining it is provocative, and POV editors are going to keep up the disruption until such a time as editors actually form a consensus as to presentation. Hidden comments carry no weight outside of being suggestions. The reader can't see them and understand what the rationale behind the sequence is. If this were a !vote, my choice would be alphabetical order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the article was properly developed here with Ukrainian as the first language listed on 6 March, 2014; remained stable (through multiple edits) until this edit on 24 March, 2014, where it was changed to some form of bizarre chronology (according to the ES); after another hefty chunk of traffic, it was changed to Russian as primary here on 24 March, 2014 as a unilateral decision (which I'd characterise as being a pretty sloppy rationale: particularly as eyes were on this article for far more obvious POV changes throughout a high profile event). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got a random number generator? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm predisposed to leaving lots of hidden shouting comments. Whoever can create biggest and most intimidating ALLCAPS wins... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that there isn't any consensus as to which order languages should go in the body of the article, I don't believe it to be particularly productive to add yet another parameter to the infobox (as was done here. All it does is replicate the ethnic groups, plus the RUC order (based on population percentage as is not intuitive to the reader, and is just as likely to be interpreted as reflecting the order importance). Whichever order is applied to the body should also be applied to the infobox. As for how many versions of the ethnic groups and languages are useful and informative for the infobox, I'll leave the final decision to consensus. Personally, I find it to be overkill as the languages and ethnicities are dealt with (and wikilinked) in the lead of the article in no uncertain terms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think Russian should be listed first, as the language of the majority of speakers. And I'm very much against Russia's hostile takeover, so it can't be said that I'm biased. CodeCat (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that there's been a fresh outbreak of interest and opinions in the article, I'd like to move to resolve this ASAP. When it comes to such minor issues, I think the next best thing to a 'random number generator' is a substitute 'random' system, being alphabetical order. This has been implemented for ages on the Kievan Rus' article, for example, where there are also 'part of the history of ...' templates (i.e., Belarus, Russia, Ukraine). In that way, no POV arguments can be introduced. If I'm going to !vote, it's for Crimean Tartar, Russian, Ukrainian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetical, or by number of speakers. I don't know what you mean by "...reflecting the order [of?] importance". The reader isn't going to look at the list and think this makes the Russian language more important (although in respect of Crimea, it could be argued it is). It might imply to the reader that Russian is the de jure official language of Crimea, which would only be the case if Crimea is part of Russia, and thus an endorsement of Russia's claim. However, Russian is a recognised regional language of Ukraine, in respect of Crimea and a number of other Oblasts. Also, Russian was used by the authorities in Crimea before the annexation by Russia, and thus was a de facto official language (in that the language was used officially). Overall, I think if the reader has a reasonable understanding of the language situation in Crimea, they will not see the listing of the Russian language as endorsement of Russia's claim. But a less knowledge reader might. I don't see any good reason to list Ukrainian first.

I added the languages to the infobox because it is... informative. If anything, the list of ethnic groups is less informative since it doesn't give any information about the proportion of each. It is possibly even misleading as there are other minority ethnic groups present in Crimea, and only listing the three implies there are only three. On the other hand, the list of languages is a list of native languages, of which there is actually only three. This is generally how those fields are used, for example at Ukraine, where the percentages are listed. It would be better to remove the ethnic groups, and include the languages.

Rob984 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

more on etymology and "Crimea" vs. "Crim"

With more search terms, the plot begins to thicken.

I can now document that the "Cimmerians" connection predates 1818.[httop://books.google.ch/books?id=xXk-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA176 ] The city of Qirim (or its "citadel") seems to have been referred to as Cimmerium "by the ancients". Depending on whether it can be shown that Stary-Krim has indeed an "ancient" (pre-Turkic) citatel, it is eminently possible that the Turkic name is just an adoption of an earlier one, especially as long as no decent Turkic etymology can be shown (qir, fine, but what about the -im).

This source (The Edinburgh encyclopaedia, 1830) attributes the "supposition" that the peninsula Krim is in fact named after the city Krim to one John Reinhold Forster. Also according to this source, "in some middle age travels" (travelogues?), the peninsula is known as the "island of Caffa". Crim Tatary was the English name for the Crimean Khanate while it lasted, and after 1779, the name was obsolete and presumably the requirement was felt for a new name, hence the shift in terminology at that time. "Crim+Tartary" This 1744 source says that the Taurica Chersonese is "now" called Crim Tartary.

Here is another good source, on the revival of "Taurida" under Catherine: Edith Hall, Adventures with Iphigenia in Tauris

it was indeed at some point between the 1730s and the 1770s that the dream of recreating ancient 'Taurida' in the southern Crimea was conceived. Catherine's plan was to create a paradisiacal imperial 'garden' there, and her Greek archbishop Eugenios Voulgaris obliged by inventing a new etymology for the old name of Tauris, deriving it from taphros, which (he claimed) was the ancient Greek for a ditch dug by human hands

Here is an interesting mention of Crimea (and, for some reason, Krimenda) as a variant of the name of the city ([books.google.ch/books?id=U3lMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT383 1688]):

Krim, or Krimenda, Crimea, a City of the Lesser Tartary in the Taurick Chersonese, in the Euxine Sea

[books.google.ch/books?id=CQELAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA169 Here] is an English source of 1697(!) which apparently refers to the peninsula as "the Crimea". [books.google.ch/books?id=U881AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA57 Here] a 1699 mention of the "Tatars of Crimea" and the "Cham of Crimea". [books.google.ch/books?id=_YNFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA586 Here] is a Dutch source of 1705 which makes explicit that Crim or Crimea is the name of the city, extended to the entire peninsula. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The current text has the self-contradictory language "The origin of the word Qırım designating "fortress" or "fosse" itself is uncertain." The point is is that the origin is uncertain, therefore, so is its designation. The ::text that follows then proceeds to lay out the possibilities. The sentence should be shortened to simply: "The origin of the word Qırım itself is uncertain." with the possibilities following. Tachypaidia (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Cimmerium

It took me a while to realize this, but apparently it is commonly accepted that the name is from Cimmerium. The Turkic etymologies suggested here are just on-wiki WP:SYNTHESIS (or if they aren't, they are completely unreferenced). Other suggestions, such as the Cremni one, are to be considered suggested alternatives to the mainstream etymology.

Apparently, Strabo and Ptolemy are perfectly clear that the Bosporus Cimmerius is named after a city of Cimmerium situated on the Crimean peninsula. So the suggestion isn't that Qrim is somehow magically named for the Cimmerians of 800 BC; it is the Roman era name that was based on the name of the Cimmerians, and Qrim would just be a continuation of the Roman name without any direct connection with or memory of the Cimmerians themselves. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that the extensive use of pre 20th century sources in the name section is way past what WP:PRIMARY allows and looks increasingly like WP:OR. In my view, (1) we should not be making any references to an Italian derivation or to the Cimerians/Cimmerium other than being an antiquarianist explanation without basis (2) we should strip out all the pre 20th century primary sources (3) we should use the National Geographic piece and explanation (linked to above) and the Brill E. of I. article also linked to above (4) and leave in the alternative derivation from the Etymology Dictionary. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A relevant Byzantine usage of the term is found in a newly-discovered seal of a Byzantine general of the early 11th century as of “Πο<σ>φορ(ου)”, i.e., of the Cimmerian Bosporos. viz. Constantine Zuckerman. “Byzantium's Pontic Policy in the Notitiae Episcopatuum.” La Crimee entre Byzance et le Khaganat khazar, Paris, 2006. p. 224. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2015 (U

Linguistic groupings

There is a list of peoples who have at various times inhabited the Crimea which lists the Alans under Ural–Altaic speaking, however, if I am not mistaken, they were an Indo-Iranian speaking people, not Ural-Altaic speaking. Also, Indo-Iranian languages are a subgroup of Indo-European languages so the phrasing should be adjusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:5EDD:DF00:DF1:BE18:9CB3:1CBB (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The Crimean Tatars have been described as "the most notorious of [Nazi] collaborators".

It's a very controversial opinion, kind of Miss Congeniality election. Unreliable source. Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Santamoly: I've reverted due to the tripod site being non-RS, and concerns about NPOV (and WEIGHT) with its insertion in such a bare manner. The notoriety quote appears to actually come from this book, and appears a little nuanced in the context of the full sentence and the surrounding paragraphs - looks like most notorious may have been from the perspective of the Soviet Union under Stalin. For further nuance on the matter, see (for instance) this and this. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The odd thing is that this edit by Santamoly uses the tripod site as a source for the "quotation", and then misquotes it.

If someone were to use the book as a source, they should not cherry-pick the quotation. What the books says is the Stalin and his colleagues perceived all the non-Russian ethnicities in the Soviet Union as being disloyal, with the Baltic Germans and Crimean Tatars as most of all.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to a typo of a typo? It could have been corrected with a simple note. With all due respect, the Tatar collaborators were not deported on a whim. Perhaps you could propose a more useful explanation from a more reliable source? These were not heavenly angels (I apologize if some were your relatives, or you had other relatives on the wrong side of the fight), and some explanation for their deportation would be helpful to the reader. Otherwise it would appear that you are leaning toward supporting revisionist propaganda. In these cases, discussion before reversion is always preferable so that other editors don't get the wrong idea about why you're reverting without discussion. Cheers! Santamoly (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

1. 06:30, 30 December 2016‎ Santamoly made edit to the article
2. 06:50, 3 January 2017‎ Xx236 started discussion on the talk page
3. 07:02, 3 January 2017‎ Xx236 added policy objection to his/her post on the talk page
4. 07:15, 3 January 2017‎ Hydronium Hydroxide reverted Santamoly's edit to the article
5. 07:48, 3 January 2017‎ Hydronium Hydroxide added to discussion on the talk page

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Santamoly - Which nations are heavenly angels?Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You describe yourself as a retired dilettante. Xx236 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What is revisionist propaganda? Critics of Stalin?Xx236 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The Course of Modern Jewish History is about Jewish history rather than about Tatars.Xx236 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Xx236, I really don't have any idea what you're talking about. Like your first comment ". . .kind of Miss Congeniality election", none of your other comments make much sense. Who is "Miss Congeniality"? What does "Jewish History" have to do with Crimea? Of course, there's also the possibility that you're an apologist for Hitler's Nazis. Maybe they're insider jokes for a select audience? Or your comments are influenced by outside environmental factors? I have no way of knowing - or responding. Regardless, may I politely suggest that what's happening in the remote recesses of your mind are insufficient reasons for instigating the reversion of a (mostly legitimate) edit. Santamoly (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The edit fails:

• WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
• WP:RS
• WP:CHERRY
• And it is presented as a quotation, but it is not a quotation from the source provided.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Santamoly, I (obviously) agree with ^^this^^. It's in no way a simple black and white issue:

• Somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand Crimean Tatars (CTs) participated in "self-defense battalions".
• There were many motivations for participation, but a significant one appears to be CT nationalism rather than any relationship to Germany and/or Nazism. If the peninsula had happened to have been invaded by Allied forces, then many CTs would probably have sided with them too. And it wasn't black-and white alignment with the Germans anyway: "these Tatar units usually sided with whoever was strongest in the area and could not be automatically counted on by either the Germans or the [Soviet-aligned] partisans".
• Between 20 and 50 thousand CTs fought in the Red Army. Motivations there were also varied.
• ~240 thousand CTs were exiled as collective punishment.
• The accusation of mass collaboration was repudiated by the Soviet Union in 1967.

Furthermore, the correct place for (nuanced) detail on the issue of collaboration is not at this page, but (currently) at Deportation of the Crimean Tatars (though the edit you made would be unlikely to survive there if repeated in the same manner). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• By Miss Congeniality election I understand discussions of the type "Who was worse - Hitler or Stalin" or "Who was the best president of the USA", based on feelings or stereotypes. I prefer Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands". Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• "The Course of Modern Jewish History" was suggested as the source of the accusation.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• See the top of the page "Avoid personal attacks".Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed

A few controversial facts mentioned in the article without reference. We need to request (citation need) to a few facts in the article. McRyach (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be the best if you add templates.

There are many of them already.

Probably general templates are needed regarding the whole text or selected paragraphs.

Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)