From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Crimea Task Force.
WikiProject Russia / History / Politics and law (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Satellite Image[edit]

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)

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014[edit]

Occupied by  Russia[citation needed]

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}} (tec) 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg 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 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Kherson Oblast to infobox?[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

People, let's please do things in proper order. This proposal is part of what is already under discussion at Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea#Requested move, which unfortunately nobody has closed yet, but which — I believe – already documents a consensus for this move. Let's please not duplicate discussions about the same issue. Fut.Perf. 16:34, 24 March 2014 (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.

Crimean PeninsulaCrimeaCrimea 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)
  • [OpposeRob (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'[edit]

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)

communication by cleanup template[edit]


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 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)

ü"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). (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. (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

more on etymology and "Crimea" vs. "Crim"[edit]

With more search terms, the plot begins to thicken.

I can now document that the "Cimmerians" connection predates 1818.[httop:// ] 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 ([ 1688]):

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

[ Here] is an English source of 1697(!) which apparently refers to the peninsula as "the Crimea". [ Here] a 1699 mention of the "Tatars of Crimea" and the "Cham of Crimea". [ 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)


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)


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)

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)


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- 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Legitemacy in infobox[edit]

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)


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)

Real results published by the Russian Human Rights Office reveals Crimean Referendum fraud[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)


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 (talkcontribs) 10:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)



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 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

recent highly POV edits[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sing! 13:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)