Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Merged

I merged the contents of Republic of Crimea, reverted it to the original redirect (to Crimea), here are the contents before the revert.

Here are the differences.

I tried not to change any facts, but could not get good sources to verify population for 2004, and even the area seems to change depending on source!

I added metric units to all miles and feet, but did not verify the original figures.

I merged in the official language sentence from Republic of Crimea, but all sources show me the only official language is Ukrainian so I modified accordingly and added more minority languages (some are probably very minor).

Many differences show up because excess spaces were removed. -Wikibob | Talk 11:04, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Крым

Just a curiosity of mine, why does Крым transliterate to "Krym" in English? Wouldn't "Krim" be a lot closer to the Russian sound?

Keep in mind that this is a transliteration, not strictly a pronunciation guide. See Transliteration of Russian into English for Wikipedia's standard.
"I" usually transliterates letters that stand for the [i] (IPA) sound ("Krim" would sound like "cream"). "Y" transliterates Russian Ы or Ukrainian И, which sound like [ɪ] (e.g., "Krym" rhymes with "trim").
I think many Latin transliteration systems work the way they do because they will be consistent with the pronunciation of most European languages, while English doesn't have a single unambiguous way of pronouncing many letters anyway.
—Michael Z. 21:23, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

CRIMEA CRI=HOT MEA=BORDER SEE RIJEKA(CROATIA)KRIMEJA/GRYMEYA —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOHNNYHUR (talk • contribs) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberation of Sevastopol

Sevastopol was not re-occupied but liberated, because:

1) Even if we consider Ukraine to be re-occupied by the Soviets in 1945 Crimea was a part of Russian Soviet Republic not Ukrainian SSR until 1954.

Total nonsense. Liberation means bringing liberty = freedom. Neither had anything to do, not even remotely with liberty or freedom. Hence recapture is the correct, neutral word here 81.213.13.249 00:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2)The city of Sevastopol was founded in 1783 by the Russians (by Grigori Alexandrovich Potemkin).(Fisenko 06:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Yes, that's why I reverted the anon's edit. Irpen 07:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
This hardly qualifies as an argument. Humans have been living in where Sevastopol is located for thousands of years. 81.213.13.249 00:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dear anon user, if you disagree please care to respond seriously. There are some grains of truth in what you write (very very small though) but you can't expect a serious discussion to start from the arguments written so carelessly. If you want the article changed, you are welcome to do it directly, and no one will revert you if you stick to facts and avoid analysis. If you don't like the article and not sure how to improve it, raise the problems at the talk page. OK, to your points. Every territory in the world was captured from someone in the millenia history. In the WWII nazis invaded, captured S., later they were kicked out, that it the town was liberated in this narrow sense. It has always been "occupied" by one force or another in the course of time. -Irpen 03:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I have to say that I have really hard time understanding your position. Please be concise and to the point. You are overdoing it. 81.212.111.177 00:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The position is simple: Sevastopol was built by the Russians, was populated by Russians and was part of Russia (Russian Empire/Russian SSR). In 1942 the city was occupied by the Germans and therefore in 1944 was liberated by Soviet/Russian army. Just like for example the cities of Pskov, Kursk or Orel. Nobody denies dictatorial nature of the Stalinist regime in USSR, however in the context of national territory Sevastopol was liberated. (Fisenko 01:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I agree. I just put compromise "Germans were driven out" to make sure anon doesn't revert again. I would like to change it back to "liberated" but to give an anon editor a chance to respond first. -Irpen 01:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
"Germans were driven out" is acceptable with me. Thanks. 81.212.102.30 10:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Languages

"Official languages

Is Russian an official language in Crimea or not? Someone seems to have removed that information from Russification article, and I cannot find a prove that it is an official language of Crimea anywhere online. Could you give any sources proving it or proving that it is not? Burann 11:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's correct: it is not official now. During the recent presidential elections, the runner-up Yanukovich used the slogan: "Rusian <is to be> the second state language". mikka (t) 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka's right. However, Russian is the only language specifically mentioned in the Ukrainian constitution in the clause that other languages should be protected. Crimean constitution also mentions the Crimean Tatar language, its clause is broader and government correspondance, unlike in the rest of UA, is mostly in Russian. Russian is indeed not a State language either in the nation or in the autonomy. --Irpen 17:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Corrected the wrong information in this article and as well the Russian language one by now. Burann 17:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why do all the Crimean government buildings have plaques in Ukrainian AND in Russian? Cossack 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: I wrote this some time ago for Ukraine#Demographics section. Its as much a complete answer to the question as I can give:

"According to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea constitution, Ukrainian is the only state language of the republic.[1] However, the republic's constitution specifically recognizes Russian as the language of the majority of its population and guarantees its usage "in all spheres of public life". Similarly, the Crimean Tatar language (the language of a sizeable 12% minority of the republic[2]) is guaranteed a special state protection as well as the "languages of other nationalities". Russian speakers constitute an overwhelming majority of the Crimean population (77%) with Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar speakers comprise 10.1% and 11.4%, respectively.[3]"

Check refs. Hope this helps, --Irpen 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The footnote regarding that the officials use the Russian language does not justify it to be neither de facto or in fact the official language. It simply means that those officials does not recognise the Constitution of Ukraine. That is all. The language that the Crimean official use maybe interethnical, but professional or ethical, it is not. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian language?!?!

Are you sure? Never heard about anyone who spoke hungarian in Crimea. --Yonkie 18:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This information should be corrected then. Is there any reliable source of information in the Web about languages really spoken in Crimea? 195.175.37.70 12:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polish language?

Disputed tag added. Ukrained 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Ukrained:

Hi. You marked the Polish language as disputed. From what I know there are about 4.000 Poles living on Crimea and some Sunday schools for teaching the language to children from that group. There is also a Society of Crimean Poles that works since 1998. It isn't a big group, but I think it could stay if Armenians don't have a larger presence.

--Molobo 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Your info was a surprise for me. I didn't know we have such a big Polish minority in Crimea. Although it's strongly possible. So I downgraded my tepmlate and asking you to replace it with your links.
However, the sentence may need further rewording. You see, I don't think the Polish is really spoken there (as well as Armenian and Greek) only because it is intensively studied. I believe there are only 3 spoken languages in Crimea: Russian, Tatar and Ukrainian. So what would you say if we described Poles and others as minority, avoiding the issue of "speaking" respective languages? Of course you can (and should) add (or rather Wikilink) your info on the Polish diaspora's activities.
BTW, I believe Armenians do have a larger presence, at least in sense of retaining their identity. It is a traditional ethnic minority of Crimea, and they've got some returning privileges after Stalin's deportation. But it doesn't really matter regarding what I said above. Ukrained 12:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against changing the info from language to presence of minority info, since IIRC only a small precent of those of Polish background use Polish as primary language. --Molobo 13:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ukrainization"?!?!

Removed the following POV-ed, unreferenced and unclear passage:

, despite repeated efforts to switch to Ukrainian

If someone wants it back he should cite sources on when, where and how exactly those efforts occured. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such efforts anywhere in Ukraine :(((. As for the latest link edit, that article is mostly historical and hardly reflects the present language situation. Gentlemen, please do not make inflammatory political edits without referencing and discussion. Ukrained 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, I generally agreed with most of what you said here but not this one. Where have you been? "No such efforts anywhere in Ukraine?" Look, I would really hate to start this all over again but if you really deny that there are Ukraine-wide effort to switch as much of everything to Ukrainian as possible, including most of all, education and official paperwork, and to a degree, mass-media, we have a lot of talking to each other to do, and better yet, not at this, but at talk:Ukrainization page. This campaign, sometimes called "de-Russification" is certainly nationwide. If you are saying it is less so in Crimea, than it would be harder for me to argue now because I have never been concentrating on the politics of Crimea specifically.
as much of everything to Ukrainian as possible - awful exaggeration, Irpen. If any, I would cry in happiness... EXCLUDING mass-media and culture. Paperwork throughout Ukraine - yes, but in Crimea particularly? Never heard about! There is no such organized campaign anywhere outside the heads of fruitless patriots :((. It is tremendously less in Crimea now. So references needed. BTW, I have colleagues coming from Simferopol and visiting there regularly. Ukrained 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
So, I will undo only this particular edit of yours. If you insist that this is an incorrect claim, feel free to add a "fact" template, and we can ask around then.
OK with that. Ukrained 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I hope you will keep your cool in this and future disagreements. Short-temperdness is really not appreciate in discussions. I very much appreciate your contributions and let me one more time thank you for them. --Irpen 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me one more time thank you for being so polite, and also for permanent encouraging me to be cool :( BTW, how do you expect me to be so after "gaz attack" and other recent changes in and outside of WP? Wishes, Ukrained 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. No Ukrainisation? What about movies, that should be translated in ukrainian despite that fact that crimean population are mostl russian speaking. What about the advertising and trading - everything is in ukrainian language, all those presentations in Simferopol of quasihistorical books about UPA that was never being part of crimean history. How all of those who talking about the absence of ukrainisation in Crimea will call this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banda Nova (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Radical nationalist forces"

I also removed the following unclear passage:

With the electoral defeat of the more radical nationalist political forces in Ukraine tension slowly eased.

First. Call names (link pages) and cite your sources. What elections do you mean? When you're done with that, please prove to other Wikipedians that you can and should explain the issues of Ukrainian nation-wide politics on Crimea page. Especially considering the fact that Ukrainian politics is under-developed (actually, sustubbed and messed) on Wikipedia. Until that, I'm going to revert such POV-like edits. Wishes, Ukrained 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1954 Transfer

Dear Irpen, I don't really find the question you dispute an obvious one. As you evidently know, Ukrainian historians believe that the Crimea was transferred mainly to populate it with Ukrainians (after Tatars mass deportation) and to support its collapsing post-war economy. This sufficiently referenced version should be presented in the article. Stating merely the gesture is pretty much the same that explain Nazi's invasion of Poland with reaction on the Glivice frontier provokation. Otherwise, the "gesture/gift" version should be extinguished (to achieve neutrality). So I'm going to desribe both. I'll find my quotes, you find yours (I DO insist :) ). Best wishes, Ukrained 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Irpen. I'm still looking forward to civil cooperation with you over this article. Going for it, why don't you please notify me which exact historians are "solid", and who are "crackpot" theoreticians so I can obey your directions strictly, sir? Otherwise I could waste my time searching for references already unacceptable for you :). Best wishes, Ukrained 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think as far as articles go, we mostly cooperated civilly. Now to the issue, the reason you provide (to populate it with Ukrainians) seem strange and new to me. Besides, Crimea was NOT populated by Ukrainians at that or at a later time. It seems to me that the transfer was an unimportant event because administrative borders of the Soviet Union didn't mean much at the time. As for telling which historians are solid, use common sense. Obviously those, who publish in respectable western journals are solid. Those who wrote books that are favorably reviewed and referred to in other literature are also solid. Those who write the historic essay for the respectable newspapers, like Mirror Weekly or Kommersant are usually also solid. Just use some common sense. --Irpen 19:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you mean Kommersant-Ukrayina, this is a dirty PR-bulletin of "Privat" business group. I know some guys from there personally. So I doubt that their society section can be neutral and respectable. Ukrained 12:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is an excellent article on the topic:[4] --Kuban kazak 13:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not paste pages from other sites for no reason. A link is enough and cite a few quotes. Kilobytes from elsewhere make talk pages unreadable.

Ukrained, I am not sure what you mean about Kommersant-Ukrayina. The one I know of is owned by Berezovsky and not by Privat AFAIK. But in any case it does not publish historic essays. What I meant is this story archive at Kommersant-Money. --Irpen 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak: On February 5 1954 The Government of RSFSR adopted a Decree "On the transfer of Crimea Oblast from RSFSR to Ukrainian SSR" in which it stated that "враховуючи територiальне тяжiння Кримської областi до Української РСР, спiльнiсть економiки та тiснi господарськi i культурнi зв’язки мiж Кримською областю та Українською РСР, Рада Мiнiстрiв РРФСР ухвалює: вважати доцiльним передачу Кримської областi зi складу РРФСР до складу УРСР". Thus, 3 reasons has been officially stated: (1) geographic, (2) economic, and (3) cultural closure with Ukrainian SSR. Source: [5] Uapatriot 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A Ukrainian state POV, not that it really maters but do take care to read the material I provided. Personally however I would give this more work, especially with events like these-Kuban kazak 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The link you provided is useful for understanding the Russian view on the current situation in Cimea, but it does not bring additional info on 1954 transfer. Uapatriot 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It does show that the situation is controversial and should be treated like so, hence I added a tag. Actually, IMO, I think a separate article on the transfer belongs here altogether. Care to start it off --Kuban kazak 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't agree more but it would be an extremely difficult article. I would be able to start it. --Irpen 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To the ref provided by K.K.: We have to check but if the transfer was indeed made in circumvention of even Soviet laws, it should be noted too. However, in no way it affected the legality of transfer. Speaking in strict legal terms of intra-Soviet affairs is meaningless. To summrize, it may have been unlawful but it was certainly valid and there is no issue at all in trying ro speak about decisions of party leadership as "invalid". Unlawful? Tha may be, but we need to make sure. --Irpen 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if we keep its publicity low (like not publishing it on the portals just yet) and giving a full array of facts in a brainstorm fashion. Then prematurely alerting mediators before letting everyone know of its existance to give the nationalists (both sides) a premature kick in the face.-Kuban kazak 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can start it in your userspace and no trolls with disrupt it. OTOH, if you want reasonable users from another side of the isle to help you with it, you can leave them an individual message. Basically, you are free to do anything you want in your user space. Start a new page there and proceed. But I think it would be a gigantic work. --Irpen 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, from what I read, I don't see why the transfer by itself is controversial. It was done by the Supreme Soviet, it was initiated by the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR, and it was accepted by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR.
The other question , was it a right or a wrong decision. User:Ukrained stated that after native crimea tatars were sent away, economically Crimea was suffering. And the thansfer was a economically-bassed decision to support the region. Also, the transfer was an element of political propoganda against Ukrainian nationalistic views, which were especially popular at that time in the Western Ukraine. Soviet authorites wanted to indicate that they are "nice" with respect to Ukraine. So, the decision was politically-based too. As far as I know, these two points are the main part of the pro-Ukrainian interpretation of the transfer.
A separate question is the current situation in Crimea. It should probably go into a separate article though.
I agree that a separate article on the 1954 transfer would be a valuable addition. Uapatriot 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well that is what I am proposing to list the facts (let it be here) including
  1. Background history
  2. Tatars
  3. Political process of the transfer
  4. Official reasons
  5. Violations of internal laws of the USSR (like the lack of referendum)
  6. Separate fate of Sevastopol
  7. Modern developments, political; extremism
  8. Demographics
  9. Black Sea Fleet
  10. Wider form in the Russo-Ukrainian relations
And it should be began via brainstorming on these points (feel free to add aditional ones). --Kuban kazak 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of those points are highly controvercial and we should not "brainstorm" them here. When anyone starts an article, we can get back to that. --Irpen 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why wait 1954 transfer of Crimea, would you like to do the honours?--Kuban kazak 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you want to follow my advise above, start at user:Kuban kazak/1954 transfer of Crimea. I might join at some later point. --Irpen 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

EASIER DONE THAN SAID!!! Open to any edits to people of non-trolling nature, especially Irpen; and UApatriot. --Kuban kazak 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys: I would outline the proposed article as:

  • 1. Situation before the transfer
    • (a) tatars and demographic situation as of 1954
    • (b) (if any) economic stagnation of the region prior to 1954
    • (c) pro-nationalistic situation in Ukraine (especially in western Ukraine)
    • (d) (if important) situation in Russia before the transfer
  • 2. Transfer
    • (a) Transfer procedure
    • (b) official reasoning (as it's stated in the Decree)
    • (c) Relation to 300-year celebration of Pereyaslav Rada (why was it celebrated so much? see 1(c))
    • (d) Khruschev and his desire for ruling and domination
  • 3. Why was Sevastopol transferred?
  • 4. Situation after the transfer
    • (a) (if any) what has been changed in Crimea after the transfer?

Uapatriot 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Top level domain

The table in this article says it is .crimea.ua, which neither Country code top-level domain nor List of Internet top-level domains mention. The website at www.crimea.ua is not in English. Is this a wannabe TLD, a recognised one, or something else? Wikipeditor 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's by definition a second-level domain, and should be removed. —Nightstallion (?) 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

At Crimea#Autonomy_in_independent_Ukraine it says "Crimea proclaimed self-rule on May 5, 1992" followed by a "dubious" tag. So I came here to find what the dispute is about, and there's nothing. There wasn't even a header until I added it. I have noting to say about the subject, I just wanted to learn about it. -- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not dubious. I remember Crimea declaring itself independent (late 1980s or early 1990s), but I can't remember the date. I'll have to look it up somewhere. In the meantime, I'll leave the tag in place. David Cannon 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

usage of "the"

- if he gets a chance to read this: Don't be ridiculous - as an English speaker, I can tell you that "the" is always used before Crimea, as well as some other geographic names. And who gave you the right to delete newer, more complete versions with improved English grammar and syntax? Who are you - a Khan? This kind of behaviour speaks badly of the Ukrainians.

"Crimea" and "Ukraine" formerly were used with article "the", but now are used without it. You can check it everywhere - in the Encyclopaedia Britannica for example.
And who gave you the right to delete newer, more complete versions
Here in Wikioedia each of us has equal rights. And I did not delet your version, I simply removed your "the"s. And I will insist on this version of usage, because these are the rules of the modern English language.
Don Alessandro 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As no answer was given, I revert. Don Alessandro 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it is not correct that the definite article was only used until the 20th century. It is still widely used. The Ukraine is also still used, though less often.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

'The' Crimea and 'the' Ukraine are completely separate linguistic issues. At least in British and Irish English, I'm convinced most people say 'the Crimea'. 'Sometimes referred to' in the article is too weak: I would say 'traditionally' or 'mostly referred to'. 88.113.5.94 (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Passed for Version 0.7

This article was tagged as "passed" by someone not on the review team. Although this isn't official, I've reviewed it and it is now "officially" passed. I enjoyed the article, nice job - thanks! Walkerma 02:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Balaklava included into major cities and Sevastopol isn't?

That's because geographically-based, you should include Sevastopol which is located on Crimea. And politically-based, you should exclude Balaklava which is part of Sevaslopol municipality and therefore is excluded from Crimea republic.

Ilyak 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was very strange, I've just fixed the article.Cmapm 00:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is wrong to include Sevastopol into the Admin. divisions section. The section covers administrative divisions of Crimea without Sevastopol, as the city itself has a separate administrative status in Ukraine and is counted separatly from Crimea. Thus, as "Major cities" is in administrative divisions section, the city shouldn't be included... —dima/talk/ 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "major cities" section should be separated from "adm. divisions" section? Because it's quite misleading that the major city on the Crimean peninsula is not mentioned as such. Cmapm 12:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographic predictions

Let's get this straight.

    1. The Russian fleet is due to leave in 2020 (officially it is 2017!)
    2. The decrease in Russian population is explained by it already departing Black Sea Fleet (Despite it not departing yet, and despite it being stationed in Sevastopol, i.e. only one city that administratively is not even part of Crimea, the Russian population is still falling because and only because the departing fleet that has another nine years before it departs???)
    3. the comparitive ethnic mix on the peninsula was 38.9% Russian, 31.4% Ukrainian and 15.7% Tartar in 2006. (Fair enough it could use a source though)
    4. Scientists expect that the demographics for the Crimean peninsula in 2020 will show a population of 44% Russian, 22% Ukrainian and 22% Tartar.(Ok, growth of Tatars is exaplained, yet the Russian population, which is falling, will grow!? The semi-growing Ukrainian population, or at least the share of Ukrainians will ...fall !?, and yet the fleet, which according to the source is the only reason why the share of Russians are falling will be gone by then!!!!)

Right Bandurist forget my previous impression of you, this outdid them all! --Kuban Cossack 12:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

De-anglicisation - Krym vs Crimea

I suggest to promote the original Russian/Ukrainian name of (the) Crimea and use Krym more often. It is in line many other changes in the English spelling, including historical names. --Atitarev (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is the English Wikipedia, and thus the English named should be used. The same with Moskva and Moscow and Rossiya and Russia, where we use the latter as the title and not the Russian translit. —dima/talk/ 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything.
By the way, original is Crimean Tatar "Qırım", from which Russian and Ukrainian names has derived. ;) Don Alessandro (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tatars

Mabey a special section/chapter about the returned Tatars? Acording to this US goverment sorce:[[6]] it is not always a happy matty vibe in Crimea and Wikipedia isn't an extended tourist board! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to include some of it in #Autonomy within independent Ukraine section, but there's much more to add.. I agree that there should be something more on the topic, either a section or article. —dima/talk/ 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Placed some links (better then forking right?) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuri Luzhkov speech and aftermath

Should something about Moscows mayor speech and the latest developments/diplomatic rows about Crimea be mentioned in the article (see:[7])? Or is that more Wikinews stuff? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Moscow issuing Russian passports in Crimea - Kouchner

French FM says Moscow issuing Russian passports in Crimea [8]. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They'd be better off giving them to all those illegal migrants from China. Bandurist (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today or "Putin fan club TV" as I like to call it seems to confirm Kouchner accusations somewhat [9]. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bus photo removed, why?

I see the photo of the trolleybus was removed (transport section of the article). Why? Was it not taken in Crimea? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crimea

Anybody interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Crimea? Please sign up if your interested in Krym! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cape Sarych is Russian territory?

Section 2.5 (Autonomy within independent Ukraine) says:there have been various attempts to return Cape Sarych to Ukrainian territory, all of which were unsuccessful. Is this simular to the fact that the Ukrainian embasy in Moscow is Ukrainian teritory? I think since the Russian Federation only hires they can't claim (in international law) what they hire is a part of Russia. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Castles

I think a word is missing in the second to last paragraph of the Geography section. The last sentence mentions "picturesque ancient Greek and medieval castles". It seems like "structures" or some similar word should come after "Greek". Right now it reads like there are ancient (pre-medieval) castles. AFAIK castles started in the 11th century, well within the medieval period. 65.244.131.146 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC) bhg

Cimmerians gave name to Crimea

Already Assyrian sources called the inhabitants of this place as Khumri or Gimmiri in Europe they were known as Cimri .So to say that peninsula has got name from some settlement and ignore to Cimmerians completely does seems as wrong. Please, add Cimmerian theory to the ethymology section . There is no known example of such naming designation type-'mine steppe' -it obvioulsy as an attempt to find similar looking words . Edelward (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The majority of Crimean MPs are making Russian a official language?

The majority of Crimean MPs have approved a resolution making Russian the region's official language. Since Russian is not an official language in Ukraine, where to put this info? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 07:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting Party of Regions responce... They are against it. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
According to a opposition lawmaker Crimea can't do this on its own anyway... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

--93.116.183.223 (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Putin's campaign leader about Crimea

Putin's campaign leader Stanislav Govorukhin said during the presidential campaign 2012 that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was the most historical injustice towards Russia and the Russian people. [10]. Närking (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian troops seem positioned (in Crimea) to take it back. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Timur

From the article: "After the destruction of the Golden Horde by Timur in 1441. . ." Timur died in, I believe, 1405. Cutugno (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

RfC is confusing. There are supporters of the move to Crimea who also support a move to Autonomous Republic of Crimea--one can't really have one without the other. Then a content fork at Crimean peninsula is brought up, muddying the waters even more. In the meantime, Nyttend has simply made a grammatical move, which obviates the need for much of this RM discussion. Please, next time, if there is one, don't offer alternatives unless it's clear what people can opt for. 05:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Autonomous Republic Crimea → Crimea – WP:COMMONNAME.
Alternatively, this being the English Wikipedia, shouldn't the current name be "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" anyway? CsDix (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose move to Crimea, but I support a move to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", for grammatical reasons. The mover had a good point: technically, the Crimean peninsula is made up of both the ARC and the separate city of Sevastopol. I think WP:COMMONNAME would only apply to Crimean peninsula, and I would be fine moving that to Crimea. Lesgles (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps "Crimea" should redirect to a disambiguation page presenting the options "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and "Crimean peninsula" with the distinction between them that you describe..? CsDix (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for both procedural reasons (the article was at Crimea for years until being moved without discussion a few weeks ago) and WP:COMMONNAME (i.e., use common names). Finally, this is English Wikipedia, not Runglish Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  03:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea"; same reasons as Lesgles'.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 3, 2012; 14:57 (UTC)
  • Support per same reasons as AjaxSmack. Especially his Runglish argument; most English speakers have no idea that Crimea is an "Autonomous Republic within Ukraine". "Crimea" should never redirect to a disambiguation page since for the English speaking world "Crimea" is the same thing as "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Wikipedia is not a tool to create riddles for English speakers. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lesgles, Crimea should continue to be the peninsula. -- 65.94.77.181 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Would you support a move to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea"? CsDix (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question. Should I (May I?) reframe or restart this request as for a move to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" rather than to the current "Crimea"? (Seems more likely to reach consensus.) CsDix (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems a bit soon..... This discussion is barley 24 years old. Maybe in a few days a lot of editors prefer a move too "Crimea". By the way; a move to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" per WP:ENGLISH is non-controversial so does not need to be discussed. You can do it now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
OK... You can not cause I just tried to do that and it is not possible for a common editor..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry -- it probably is a bit early and a consensus one way or another will emerge. Thanks for responding. CsDix (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Normally pages do not get moved while a move discussion is in progress - and if they do they normally get reverted, but adding "of" is obvious. Apteva (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The Crimean peninsula article still assumes this page is at Crimea. From a naming standpoint Crimea would tend to indicate a legal region, Crimean peninsula a physical location, like Korea and Korean peninsula, where Korea refers to the location habituated by Koreans. Apteva (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Copy-paste: «I think for most English speakers, "Crimea" is the same thing as the "Crimean peninsula", not the Autonomous Republic»↓. For most Russian and Ukrainian speakers too. -- А.Крымов (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Procedurally, as the move is disputed the article should remain at the original title unless there's consensus to move it to this one. The difference between the political unit and the peninsula is not a large one, and there is no reason to have both articles, as they're effectively content forks covering the same topic. I fail to see how Sevastopol will cause both articles to have more than minor differences. This, as the older and more developed article, should be moved back. Sevastopol can be mentioned in the text. CMD (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Firstly a relatively minor, and hopefully uncontroversdial, issue. Autonomous Republic Crimea is as meaningless in English as City Sheffield. It is grammatically incorrect, and is never used. If there is to be a separate article, it should be under Autonomous Republic of Crimea. However, the broader issue is whether it makes sense to have two separate articles: one on the peninsula, and the other on the autonomous republic. The two are certainly different entities, as the autonomous republic excludes Sevastopol, but there is, inevitably, going to be an enormous amount of overlap between an article on the peninsula and one on the autonomous republic, given that, apart from that one city, they occupy the same territory. I suppose it all comes down to the size of a combined article. Would the combined article be so large that it needs to be split? The fact that it was combined until a few weeks ago suggests not, and it appears the split was made not for reasons of size, but because of a desire to emphasise that the two entities are not the same. This could be achieved quite easily within a combined article, both in the opening paragraphs, and in the section about administration. On balance, I think the combined article is the better way to go, at least for the time being. As it stands, we are already starting to see instances where one article has been amended, while the other, using exactly the same words to say the same thing, hasn't been. One final point is that the split wasn't even carried out particularly well. All those images of Sevastopol (and many other references to the city) are totally irrelevant to this article, and need moving to the peninsula article, if it is to remain separate. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Crimea, support "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Separate issues. Per А.Крымов, Crimea in English usually refers to the peninsula, as it was controlled in history by Russia or the Ottomans (e.g. Crimean War). Even in today's geopolitics, the idea of Crimea is somewhat divorced from the administrative region or any association with Ukraine. Shrigley (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with you on the meaning of Crimea. Until the Crimea article was forked recently into two articles, all of the information about Crimea was in one place. That article, which dealt with all aspects of the area (not just the post-1992 autonomous republic), was stable with a very long edit history at the name "Crimea" until its recent unilateral move. I have boldly merged the two back together so as not to cloud this issue. The edit history should not remain with an article on a 20-some-odd-year-old political entity but with all of Crimea. This request is attempt to fix that move. If there is subsequently agreement to have a separate article on the autonomous republic or any other aspect, it should be a new creation and not a hijacking of the Crimea article. —  AjaxSmack  18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to Crimea as per nom. DDima 02:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • The recently created content fork at Crimean peninsula should also be merged back into the article. —  AjaxSmack  03:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this logic. I think for most English speakers, "Crimea" is the same thing as the "Crimean peninsula", not the Autonomous Republic, which few English speakers have probably heard of. It makes sense for me to have a separate page for the ARC dealing with the administrative details, but if the consensus is for merging everything back into one big article, I would be fine with that too. Lesgles (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Moving(/combining) Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea#Government_and_politics & Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea#Administrative_divisions within Autonomous Republic Crimea & moving the rest of the content in article Autonomous Republic Crimea to Crimea is fine by me too! English speakers going to the Wikipedia article Crimea do expect to read about the history, demographics etc. of Crimea at Crimea. The technical details about political parties etc. there and administrative divisions is not very interesting to most I think. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Cannot agree with you on this, though. I think most readers would expect to find details of the administrative divisions and government at Crimea also. This is also where the details of Sevastopol not being part of the autonomous republic should be highlighted. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2012 (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.

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Crimea → Crimea – The article is about Crimea in its entirety and not just the post-1992 autonomous republic. Also note WP:UCN (use common names). The article was stable at "Crimea" for years until a recent an undiscussed unilateral move —  AjaxSmack  22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support; Crimea is the only logic common name this Wikipedia article could have. If you disagree you are not thinking like the average person from a English speaking country (not that there is anything wrong with that but) this English Wikipedia is for the English speaking world. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - procedural revert to status quo. In addition to reasons AjaxSmack notes I see ChemTerm who moved the page (and has since been blocked as a Sockpuppet) gave as rationale: "The primary topic for "Crimea" is the peninsula: Crimean Peninsula. Two territorial entities are located on the peninsula: Autonomous Republic Crimea and Sevastopol)" but Crimean peninsula after the undiscussed move then ended up being the same article. If Autonomous Republic of Crimea (new article needed) uk:Автономна Республіка Крим ru:Автономная Республика Крым + Sevastopol uk:Севастополь ru:Севастополь = Crimea uk:Кримський півострів ru:Крым then in the long run we will need three articles like uk.wp ru.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support No discussion was made to move this page, let alone for the split. One would expect an article on a geographical area would prominently locate a current political entity which covers a majority of its area. CMD (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per naming conventions, which specifically deal with this sort of case. We are advised to use France, not French Republic; Italy, not Italian Republic; and Germany, not Federal Republic of Germany. Crimea falls into the same pattern. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The examples are not correct. The primary meaning for France is the country. But for Crimea it would probably be the peninsula and not these recently created Autonomous Republic. AsianGeographer (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Crimea is an ambiguous name. The primary meaning is the peninsula (10000 years old?) and not this recently created administrative unit (20 years?). Russian Wikipedia and Ukrainian Wikipedia got it right to separate the physical object from the administrative unit. AsianGeographer (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the KISS principle and WP:COMMONNAME. Not to mention this article includes information about the peninsula (Crimean peninsula rightly redirects here, now) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand WP:COMMONNAME. The name is ambiguous. And merging all topics that have the the common name is a weird solution. Only because the peninsula happens to be called like the republic, the topics are merged??? Then merge Iberian Peninsula and Iberia (airline) into Iberia? AsianGeographer (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • They're not merged because they have the same name, they're merged because they're topics with a very high degree of overlap. CMD (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Exactly. As to why this article should be at Crimea and not the current mouthful, COMMONNAME is very pertinent — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:COMMONNAME, and others above. Not too long ago People's Republic of China was moved to China using the same arguments. Let's keep it simple and easy to understand. DDima 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, kind of. There should be a separate article about both the peninsula and the republic (Britannica, for example, has it that way). As long as there are two, I don't really care how this one is titled and which one should be started from scratch.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 7, 2013; 15:45 (UTC)
    • This move does not preclude two articles. However, this article as it stands now is about all aspects of Crimea. If you or someone else want a separate article only on the autonomous republic, it should be a new article, not a hijacking of this one. —  AjaxSmack  22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The previous move (above) was muddied by a content fork and grammar issues. —  AjaxSmack  22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other articles

This article has literally thousands of incoming wikilinks, many of them through redirects such as History of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea which would justify their own articles, as suggested above.

This does not mean a split as such, although some material may end up being moved. Rather it means a ground-up creation of articles on these topics, with a {{main}} link in the appropriate section of this article.

As I interpret the discussion above, there is consensus that there should be separate articles on Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Crimean Peninsula, and there's a rough consensus that the article on the Crimean Peninsula should be at the undisambiguated name Crimea. I'm not convinced that we've heard the last of that last decision, but for the moment, let's develop those articles and see where it leads.

Again, there should be a {{main}} link from this article (on the Crimean Peninsula generally) to Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

Other articles that come to mind:

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Such spinoffs should be made as the content grows. I already split off History of Crimea a couple of years ago when the history section got disproportionately large and the whole article was about 35K of prose. I'm not strictly opposed to a split for Autonomous Republic of Crimea although there are only two small sections in the current Crimea article that deal only with the republic (and the current article is still only about 25K of prose). I'm more opposed to a split of "Crimean Peninsula" since that would encourage large-scale duplication of material in the Crimea article (It's really a redundant content fork). Better to call it Geography of Crimea and populate it when the Geography section of this article gets too big. —  AjaxSmack  02:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree totally, when I said there should be separate articles on Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Crimean Peninsula I meant two articles total, not two in addition to this one. Later I said the article on the Crimean Peninsula should be at the undisambiguated name Crimea but obviously that didn't make it clear. What I meant is that this article, currently at Crimea, is on the topic of Crimean Peninsula and should stay that way, and that there's a separate topic Autonomous Republic of Crimea which needs a stub at least.
I love good stubs. Not everyone does. But the subject is so immense and so noteworthy that I think it would be worth splitting out several stub articles immediately, even if they have not a lot of information in them for the moment. IMO in the long term it would save us time and effort provided it didn't annoy people enough to make them merge them back... which it probably would. Pity. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I like stubs too but often in cases like this, the sub-articles languish and most of the editing dynamic takes place in the main article. It takes a lot of work to keep up with moving material out to the spinoffs. —  AjaxSmack  06:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree that can happen, but it's not what is happening here. Relatively new hands are already splitting the article in unhelpful ways. In this scenario (which is also common in my experience, particularly when the contributors have an interest such as living in the area or having ancestors who did which falls short of COI) it's very helpful for the older hands to set up a consistent and MOS-friendly structure of stubs, headings and wikilinks, particularly {{main}} links.
A good stub doesn't need a lot of content. What it needs is a clearly defined scope, a clear claim to notability, appropriate structure (a lead, an infobox if possible, at least one body section even if empty, and some standard footers particularly refs and categories and of course a stub template, in their standard order) and a reasonable expectation it will grow. Aye, there's the rub, that last is the hardest to assess by far. A talk page with at least one WikiProject template can help here, it's surprising how many old hands don't bother with a talk page at all when creating a stub.
My pet peeve in Wikipedia is hit and run, whether tagging an article or creating a sub-stub. It's to me morally and pragmatically wrong not to make available what you've learned on the subject, to save others reinventing the wheel. Or as a rough contrapositive, if you haven't any useful information to contribute in this way, then you shouldn't be tagging etc. in the first place. Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
If a separate autonomous republic article is created, it would be a duplicate of either this article or the current Politics of Crimea subarticle (strangely not linked as a main before now). As we have both, information can go in those. CMD (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Awesome... Category:Politics of Crimea and Template:Politics of Crimea and lots of good stuff...
But while there's some (valid) overlap between Politics of Crimea and History of Crimea they are different topics. Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Careful with the RV

Chipmunkdavis, I don't see any "long talkpage discussion" about the transliteration of Eklizi Burun. Please either explain why you think Eclizee Burun is a better transliteration of Еклизи-Бурун or restore my edit). Travelpleb (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that wasn't what I was reverting, and you could've just reinstated it, but now restored. CMD (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for changing that. Just be careful in future with the mass revert. It's like a Wiki A-bomb.Travelpleb (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea/Archive_1&oldid=1136539971"