Talk:Crimea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 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.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cimmerium[edit]

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

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

I have to say that the extensive use of pre 20th century sources in the name section is way past what WP:PRIMARY allows and looks increasingly like WP:OR. In my view, (1) we should not be making any references to an Italian derivation or to the Cimerians/Cimmerium other than being an antiquarianist explanation without basis (2) we should strip out all the pre 20th century primary sources (3) we should use the National Geographic piece and explanation (linked to above) and the Brill E. of I. article also linked to above (4) and leave in the alternative derivation from the Etymology Dictionary. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
A relevant Byzantine usage of the term is found in a newly-discovered seal of a Byzantine general of the early 11th century as of “Πο<σ>φορ(ου)”, i.e., of the Cimmerian Bosporos. viz. Constantine Zuckerman. “Byzantium's Pontic Policy in the Notitiae Episcopatuum.” La Crimee entre Byzance et le Khaganat khazar, Paris, 2006. p. 224. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Jews?[edit]

Hello,

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

Jews are a race as well as a religion (see the difference between Jews and Judaism), Christianity is not a race, only a religion. Therefore it isn't racism. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Except it isn't really is it? Which group do Ethnic Russian Jews fit into ? Russians or Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.104.65 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
They fit into the ethnic group they self-identify with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2015; 16:10 (UTC)
Every Soviet citizen had a citizenship and a nationality (in this case Jewish). In other cases, a citizen's nationality might be Tatar, or German, or Ukrainian, etc. But there is no Christian nationality in Russia. Such a thing doesn't exist. Russian Jews have a constitutional right to live and vote in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. There is no Christian Autonomous Oblast in Russia. Foreign Jews may not be familiar with the concept of the JAO, but it's time they got used to it since, like the Jews in Russia, it's existed for eons and it's not a big deal. Santamoly (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions[edit]

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

Since Russia controls Crimea, all general sanctions applied to Russia are also applied to Crimea. Only sanctions against individuals can be specified as "Russia only". There are no sector sanctions that apply to Russia, but not Crimea. Every country outside the EU that has applied sanctions has applied a different list, but they all include sector sanctions and not just individual sanctions. There are sanctions 1) against the Russian economy and financial transactions (affect Crimea), 2) against Russian businesses (some affect Crimea), 3) against Russian individuals (don't affect Crimea), 4) against Crimean businesses (affect Crimea), 5) against Crimean individuals (affect Crimea), 6) against Donbass individuals (don't affect Crimea). And outside the EU, every country placing sanctions has a different list. There's enough complexity that "2014-2015 sanctions against Russia" can have its own article (if it doesn't already). Just as with the history of Crimea's relations with Ukraine and the Soviet Union, we summarize here and have more detail in separate articles. Listing just those sanctions directed overtly at Crimea is too simplistic since many of the sanctions directed against Russia also affect Crimea. And this paragraph doesn't even mention sanctions against Crimea and Russia by Ukraine--which levels another layer of complexity since it involves more complex relationships involving banking and social service payments. --Taivo (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You did not answered my question, how can now reader find out, which sanctions are imposed on Crimea, since this article is about Crimea. Sure that sanctions against Russia have its own article, but this is not the place for it. Or could be, if you really want to list all of them. But should be speciffied here, which are specificaly applied against Crimea. With your edit it is now all mixed, and readers have no chance to find out, which sanctions-and by which country are agains Crimea applied. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Sanctions are subject to change and just these days they have been directed at a Crimean port in addition to other sanctions on Russian individuals and companies. You need to find out the status of sanctions through searches because nobody can update this page to keep up with rapidly changing policies in Washington and usually followed by the EU.
Let's call a spade a spade: The sanctions are directed at Russian entities and individuals as a punishment with the ultimate goal that Russia might be hurt enough to give Crimea back to the Ukraine. At the other end, sanctions are hurting the EU finances, Germany in particular, just as much - at a time when Greece requires a lot of money.
The billions from the EU, required to put Ukraine on a good economic path, are obviously reduced by not having to fund Crimea which amounted to 5 % of Ukrainian population. Russia is now funding Crimea, and the EU saves some money there, probably a billion $ a year, as 20 billion annually for 20 years have been mentioned as requirements for Ukraine to be in the Western fold.
Sanctions change all the time, check with other media what they're at at the point in time when you want to know. 58.174.193.77 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
And after your edit, it is even factually wrong, Japan or New Zealand etc. don't prohibit dock their ships at Crimean docks or prohibit sale of goods etc.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of your English is confusing and the pronominal reference is ambiguous. You ignore my main point--that sanctions are complex and not so simple as you want to lead readers to believe. You ignore the fact that sanctions against Russia as a whole also apply to Crimea. You ignore the fact that Russia's invasion of Crimea is the root cause for sanctions in the first place. Readers who want to find the details of which country sanctions Crimea for what will need to read another article, but your original wording that sanctions have only been imposed by the EU and the US is factually misleading. --Taivo (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That is what you do not understand. All my references are related to the Crimea, not Russia. Sanctions against Russia as a whole also do not apply to Crimea. Sanctions against Russia are targeted against Russian individuals and entities. Different sanctions are targeted on Crimea, and are imposed only by the USA and the EU. If you think that I am wrong, please provide relible sources. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The article currently says:

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

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

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

Done. (Your estimate of 15 minutes was about right, Toddy.) I don't have any skill at the fancy formatting of web references, so someone else will have to make them pretty, but they are there nonetheless. --Taivo (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Where it is done? References you added describe sanctions against Russia, not Crimea. Where is that Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. targeted sanctions at Crimea? Different sanctions are targeted on Crimea, and are imposed only by the USA and the EU. Still waiting for reliable sources.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Jirka.h23, if there are statements in the text that you think are unsupported by citations, please make a bullet-pointed list here (explaining why you believe that the current citations do not cover it). If you have some other point that you think ought to be mentioned in the article, why not propose some wording here, along with citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Economic sanctions listed by me are imposed just by the USA and the EU, as this was original edit. Wording is now proposed in article. It could be separated, because after Taivo edit it is all confusedly mixed. Also, Taivo references are moved to the relevant sentence. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Jirka, as I have said before, and as the text in the article clearly states, the sanctions were levied because of Crimea. That alone makes them relevant here. And all sanctions against Russian businesses and the Russian economy affect Crimea since Russia has de facto control over Crimea at this time. You keep trying to minimize world indignation against Russia. And I only included sanctions which were levied in the so-called "First round" in March and April 2014. I could easily justify listing all anti-Russian sanctions since Crimea is at the root of every sanction as the first cause. And every sanction, whether levied in the first round or later, that affects the Russian economy does affect Crimea. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not said that they are not relevant, add them if you want. Where you get that? I said that economic sanctions listed by me are imposed just by the USA and the EU, and after your edit it is all confusedly mixed. Wording is now proposed in the article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop trying to minimize the scope of sanctions against Crimea. Canada listed Crimean individuals in its sanctions and the sanctions by EU aspirants also include Crimean individuals. I've properly referenced it all. While Japan's sanctions do not directly target Crimea, all the others do. (I've left Australia in the first paragraph since I can't find the Aussie list of first round sanctions yet). --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop your edit warring. If you take two seconds you will see that all my changes are referenced. If your English is not up to the task of reading the sources, then you need to ask about specific references. --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thats why they should stay in the first paragraph, as they listed individuals and not the following economic sanctions. Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No. You have insisted on a division between 1) sanctions against Russia that affect Crimea indirectly and 2) sanctions imposed directly against Crimea. Sanctions against Crimean individuals should be in the paragraph focused directly on Crimea. That's the division you wanted--Russia versus Crimea. That's what you got--Crimean individuals in the Crimea paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If you are not willing to provide reliable sources that Canada, and several other countries prohibit the sale of goods and technology and list ports where cruise ships cannot dock. Your edit is wrong and against wikipolicy. Source it or stay away from it. Thanks.Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Before you actually post something here, please actually read what I wrote. Sanctions against Crimean individuals are relevant here. You are simply trying to promote a pro-Russian bias by artificially restricting what kinds of sanctions you will recognize. The sanctions regime against Crimea and Russian includes 1) sanctions against individuals (some of them Crimean), 2) sanctions against businesses (some of them Crimean), and 3) sanctions against financial institutions (some of them Crimean). Stop your edit war since every single statement I have made is properly sourced. --Taivo (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Taivo, what pro-Russian bias are you all the time talking about? This is not place for some pro-whatever stuff. This is encyklopedia, it should include just factial data, this all were my edits about. Communication with you is very difficult (if not almost impossible). When you firstly edit my paragraph, this looks like all selling of goods, prohibited support of tourism etc. was related to Russia. It was not, they were just to some individuals and institutions. Now it is better, but still, I do not see anywhere sourced that also Canada etc. are imposing all these sanctions against Crimea. If I am wrong, I would support your edit with no problem. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Footnote 54 is the list of individuals and entities sanctioned by Canada ([1]). Under entities are a number of Crimean companies and ports. --Taivo (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So if does not apply following sentenses to Canada, and sanctioned by Canada are just some individual a entities, it should be mentioned but in a separate way (sentense). This is really confusing. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No, Jirka, it's only confusing because you want it to be. The sanctions by Canada are no different than the sanctions by everyone else. Read the entire act if you are confused. No one else is confused. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
At this point, Jirka, you are crossing the line into WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. --Taivo (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You really do not see a difference between sanctions to few individuals and companies in Crimea, and: Banning provisions of any EU services directly relating to infrastructure and tourism activities, listing seven ports where EU cruise ships cannot call, also listing houndreds of goods banned, stops European entities from buying real estate, acquiring shares in Crimean firms, and providing loans or financial services; also cover supplies to foreign consular missions, hospitals, and schools, as well as work to maintain safety of existing infrastructure or to protect human health and safety or the environment ... ? Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
At this point, Jirka, you have definitely crossed into WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. I have provided appropriate references to show that all of these countries listed in the second paragraph have enacted sanctions against Crimean companies as well as against Crimean individuals and that those sanctions are far-reaching in their scope. --Taivo (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You said that they are no different than the sanctions by everyone else. Canadian sanctions in your source clearly state, that they are imposed only on designated persons and entities. This 12 EU sources claim in article: 1) that designated entity now means any Crimean entity, 2)it is prohibited to sell, supply, transfer, or export goods and technology to anyone in Crimea or for use in Crimea, article 2)D it is prohibited to provide services directly related to tourism activities in Crimea, it is prohibited for any ship providing cruise services to enter any Crimean port, etc. etc. Because in the first case, sancions do not affect ordinary people in Crimea (not involved in Crimean annexation), it is now prohibited for any Crimean people or someone willing to use it in Crimea. (Designated people could before anyway buying it from second hand). The ban goes much further than previous Crimean sanctions (which is even sourced in the first reference).Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Your English simply doesn't make sense. You are trying to split hairs that are not there. The references are there, the wording is correct. You're simply pushing your pro-Russian POV to make Crimean sanctions into strictly an EU and US affair. They are not. --Taivo (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I really do not have time for this. If you still do not see this significant difference, then I give up. References are not there, the wording is not correct. Anyway will somebody correct this sooner or later, because it is factually incorrect. Bye. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

De Facto Control?[edit]

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

That's a good catch; thank you. I've made the correction, but you do know that you could have easily made it yourself, right? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 30, 2015; 17:01 (UTC)
"De facto" means "from fact". It is a fact that Russia is in control of the Crimea; hence, their control is de facto. The term doesn't imply anything about whether or not such control is contested, unless it is contrasted to the de jure situation. Arbolus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference Link[edit]

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

Putins Vengeance[edit]

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

the Crimean Tatars were deported[edit]

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

Sevastopol navy base[edit]

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

Status of Crimea (and Palestine)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure wording[edit]

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015[edit]

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

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

The Crimean war 1854 1856[edit]

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

History: who controled[edit]

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

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

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

That's mostly fine except the last part since the article is Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Volunteer Marek  15:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Look suggestions in the Talk:Crimea#To_use_Rissian_Empire.2C_Crimea_in_Russian_Civil_War.2C_USSR.2C_Ukraine.2C_Russia_in_the_history_section — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoKiev01 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Greeks are an ethnicity of Crimea[edit]

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

The infobox is for contemporary information and what Greek population still exists in Crimea is miniscule compared to the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, Tatars, and Russians there. There is virtually no contemporary Greek presence in the peninsula, so it deserves no place in the infobox. We might as well list Scythians since they were in the peninsula prior to the Greeks. --Taivo (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Greeks are the extant indigenous population of the Crimea. For the U.S., by way of example, the indigenous Native American plus the Alaskan Native population is .009 of the population; the Native American by itself is likely only half of that. I don't expect there is a WP threshold % that resolves people's significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talkcontribs) 17:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Significance is determined by percentage of extant population. The three or four Greeks who still live in Crimea do not count as "indigenous population". They were invaders and colonizers who took the land from the population that was there before them. They are utterly insignificant as a population or cultural element in Crimea. The Greek influence on Crimea was pretty much wiped out as the Mongols and Tatars conquered the area and then the Black Death finished out what was left over 600 years ago. That means that "indigenous" now falls to the Tatars since they were the population before the Slavs showed up. There is simply no Greek population to speak of on Crimea and hasn't been for centuries. Apparently you didn't even look at the infobox at United States because there is no listing for "Ethnic groups" as there is here. And even if there were, WP:OTHERSTUFF means "Who cares?" We're talking about infobox usage and the "Ethnic group" listing in infoboxes is not "historical", but contemporary. --Taivo (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Taivo. On top of which, the claim that the Greek community is extant is unsourced. The article makes no reference to it. It does make a sourced reference to 70,000 Greeks being deported by Stalin (presumably that was the entire remnant community). So without any reference in the body of the article and no supporting WP:RS it's certainly not going in the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
A new Nero! “… the arbiter of life and death for nations.” (Seneca, De Clementia 1.19.8) By what proportions is this justice meted out? for “a false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is His delight.” (Prov. 11:1). An understatement of a 1000-fold! Not to be undone, DeCausa avers the Crimean Greeks wholly extinct. Despite massive ethnic cleansing from Crimea—which proportionally rivals that of the khanate Tatars—their residual proportion exceeds that of indigenous Americans (viz. U.S. article in-chief). Evidently, a source of consternation—that a single Crimean Greek would have escaped the Soviet NKVD dragnet—they remain in the cross-hairs.
Of the Bosphoran Kingdom Cicero wrote: "It were as though a Greek fringe has been woven about the shores of the barbarians." (De Republica, ii, 9) Tachypaidia (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
So you don't have any sources for an extant Greek community in Crimea then. Thought not. DeCausa (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you clarify what it is that you are contesting? Are you saying there is a discontinuity of Greek presence in Crimea? If so, rather than attempting to cover a 2,700 period, could you identify where I should focus my rebuttal? Tachypaidia (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't really know what you're trying to say. The only issue is whether you have a source that shows there is a Greek community in Crimea in 2015. Whether there was a Greek community in Crimea in any previous period in history is irrelevant to the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we're on the same page--not sure how showing there is a Greek community in Crimea in 2015 answers to my assertion that the Greeks are 2,700 indigenous people of Crimea. Anyway, the 2014 Crimean census counts 2,877 Greeks or the 12th largest minority in Crimea. Does that suffice? Tachypaidia (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
In other words, there is a trivial number of Greeks in Crimea, not worth mentioning and included in "other". The ethnicity box is not intended to show every single minority in Crimea. I have an American friend who owns land in Crimea. Should that mean we need a line for "Americans" as well? As the 12th largest minority minority in Crimea, even if we were to list all the trivial minorities in Crimea, we would have to list all of the top eleven before we even considered listing Greek. As it is, the number of Jews and Armenians on Crimea also fails to rise above "trivial" in my book, so if you wanted to eliminate them, I wouldn't disagree. But you have failed to show why the trivial number of Greeks should be listed. --Taivo (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Tachypaidia, we're talking about this edit where you added Greeks to the Infobox, right? You are very definitely on your own "special" page all by yourself. (1) The Infobox lists current not historic ethnic groups. (2) It currently lists the top 3 ethnic groups: Russians (1.5m), Urainians (345,000) and Tartars (232,000). To include the allegedly 12th largest ethnic group we would have to include ethnic groups numbered 4 to 11 as well. A huge list in a small Infobox of 12 ethnic groups down to a minuscule one with allegedly a couple of thousand people is just riduculous. You're wasting people's time here. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I completely agree with DeCausa. I got confused as well and was talking about the box under "Demographics". Greek definitely, positively, without a doubt does not belong in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
First, I'll take that as a concession of your prior assertion that the Crimean Greeks are extinct. Secondly, the Crimean Greeks are the indigenous peoples of the Crimea (2,700 years, which is, in a sense, unfathomable). Not unlike the indigenous American Indian (whose % of total populations< 1%), warranting delineation. It may be convenient to resort to simple numerical counts to judge inclusion, but the history of multiple deportations, especially under Stalin (70,000 Greeks) with mass executions speaks otherwise. Tachypaidia (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Their history is utterly irrelevant. They don't exist on Crimea anymore in any number other than a tiny, inconsequential, unimportant relic. And there is no evidence that the Greeks living in Crimea are actually descendants of the pre-Mongol/Tatar population and not post-Tatar replacements. And even if they were, by some miracle of history, descendants of the earlier Greek colonists, they are still not part of the ethnic makeup of Crimea in 2015 any more than the Armenians, who outnumber them. --Taivo (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, on a count basis, the Greek percentage is less than the Armenians so they would constitute less of the ethnic makeup (the Jews are the 10th largest minority). Nothing to note there. (Though you seem all to earnest too "eliminate" the number of the Armenians and Jews). OTOH, on the legal question of who is to be designated the indigenous peoples of Crimea, it is of singular significance. On this same question: "The Greeks were here before you and me" - President V. Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talkcontribs) 12:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no parameter in the Infobox for "designated indigenous people", whether or not President Putin is a reliable source for that. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
What, where parameters? You asserted: "The only issue is whether you have a source that shows there is a Greek community in Crimea in 2015." Apparently, the parameters have changed. Tavio claims that "Significance is determined by percentage of extant population." He also avers a grim algorithm on determining indigenity (genocide annuls it). Or, succinctly, in his words, "Who cares?". The Greek, Tatar, Armenian, and Jewish peoples are the genocided populations of Crimea. Allowing that the "info box" may be intended solely for listing the highest percentages (if so), why the exclusion of the Greek population (the sole surviving indigenous (and genocided) peoples) from the demographic box, while the Jewish population (10th ranked) is included? If you find the question to be a "waste of time", then tap out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talkcontribs) 11:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Tachypaidia (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

In the table under Demographics, if you include all ethnicities that outnumber the Greeks, then I have no problem including the Greeks. But the infobox at the top of the page is for the primary ethnicities--Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar. --Taivo (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you have no source for this, it is just your assertion. Still no explanation why Jews (a specially-designated minority by the Ukraine Verkhovna Rada, along with the Greeks) are given in theDemographics, but not the Greeks. 108.45.44.48 (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't read my previous comments. I don't know why the Armenians and Jews are on that Demographics chart. I didn't put them there. I don't need a "source" for not treating Greeks as if they are something special. They're not special with regard to Crimea. They are a tiny minority of people. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
In spite of the apparent hostility to the topic, there still remains value in providing some background to the Greek presence in Crimea. The small numbers of Greeks in Crimea doesn't explain the existence of significant Greek ruins. There are no "Jewish" ruins in Crimea, but there are notable Greek ruins. The Russians go to great length to document and record minorities and minority rights, right down to the smallest percentage such as the Greeks because they see value in the history. All the relevant genocides and purges are known. So the commenters above ought to admit that some explanation is needed. It's a huge and glaring omission and deserves more than the contentious opinion of some above commenters, e.g. "Their history is utterly irrelevant". At the very least, if the belligerence above can't be overcome, links to the substantial articles on the Greeks in Ukraine could help to explain the small numbers of Greeks remaining in Crimea. It's a good question. Santamoly (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You need to see the whole context, Santamoly. The context is that Tachypaidia wanted to include Greeks as an ethnicity of Crimea in the infobox. It has nothing to do with the article text at all. The Demographics box listing got dragged into the discussion and it was also clear that the Greeks are not large enough to include there either. But that doesn't mean at all that the former Greek presence on the peninsula should be ignored in the article text. Quite the contrary. But all we are talking about here is 1) the infobox and 2) the table in the Demographics section. Not the text of the article. But I have to laugh about your comment that the Russians care about minorities. While they count their minorities to demonstrate their "care" for minority rights, their actions are utterly the opposite, with a long and continuing history of deportation, extermination, and imprisonment of minorities. Just ask the Crimean Tatars if the Russians care about minority rights. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

2014 Census should be[edit]

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

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

Well, I don't know what I can add to my previous comment. First, you need a source for the census. Second it cannot go in the table and be put on par with the previous cens...censi (?) since it was taken under, ummmm, "special circumstances". Volunteer Marek  06:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
1st- I have added the source. 2nd- It was taken under common circumstances => by administration that controlled the territory. Recognition or not recognition the 'de facto' administration can't influence other side of the topic. And I would be grateful if you could add some other censuses, e.g. by Crimean KhanateLeoKiev01 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Or you (Marek) can add under the "2014 census" that Russia annexation is not recognised by the World. But repeating the fact does not improve the section. LeoKiev01 (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The URL cited does not lead to a page containing the claimed numbers. There is a URL that does contain census data. The numbers claimed in the article are only for the "Republic of Crimea" entity, not the whole of the Crimea (i.e. they are taken from rows 143-280 of the this source. The percentages appear to have been calculated as a proportion those who gave their nationality; this is dubious. It would have been better to have calculated percentages of the whole population, and to have had a percentage of "not stated".
If 2014 census data are to be used, it would best to use the data in rows 5-142, which refer to the whole of the Crimea. Any citation should make explicit what is being referred to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I Agree that both Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol people should be counted. But now I see in 2001 census that: 1) Data is for republic only without Sevastopol!![1] 2) Percentage is not division by all quantity of people but only who say their nationality'. It is mentioned in the Ukranian version of the report as "які вказали національність". [2] So what data are we using? LeoKiev01 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/crimea/
  2. ^ http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/crimea/

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

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

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

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

Current situation is:

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

Being proposed:

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

Why?

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

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

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

There were no objections. Done. LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The previous version accorded with neutral point of view; your attempted new version does not, so I have partially reverted it. I have accepted your addition of "Crimean Khanate (1441–1783)", since this is NPOV. It now looks like:
  1. Crimean Khanate (1441–1783)
  2. Russian Empire (1783–1917)
  3. Russian Civil War (1917-1921)
  4. Soviet Union (1921–1991)
  5. Autonomous Republic within Ukraine (1991–2014)
  6. 2014 Russian annexation and aftermath
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

The 2014 Russian annexation is not generally recognised.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is not recognised! And it is mentioned many times in the section. But general style сan maintain: Crimean Khanate, Russian Empire, Civil War, Soviet Union, Ukraine, Russia. It is not recognised but we write facts only. For example, I can not go to Crimea free because of fact that there are Russian border guards. And you didn't answer about "Autonomous Republic within Ukraine (1991–2014)". I want to see just Ukraine in the header of the section like Sovet Union or Russian Empire. Am I not right? LeoKiev01 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you are not right. WP:RS tell us that the global community do not recognise the RF as having legal claims on Crimea, hence the sub-headers reflect what RS tell us. "I want to see" is your WP:PPOV... which is irrelevant to Wikipedia articles and how they are structured. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Censuses[edit]

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

Saying that because the "nationality" field was mandatory in a USSR passport, it followed that the census would have the nationality of everyone is original research. You need the census to say that the number was zero.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
A census is not a passport. People filled these in with information they were prepared to disclose, just as is done now. If they did not want to ascribe a 'nationality' or 'ethnicity' to themselves, they did not respond. There are a multitude of reasons as to why they would not want identify themselves with any particular nationality or ethnicity. The nationality field in a Soviet passport was the representation of which SSR they were citizens of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Look here - Soviet Union passport. It had an ethnicity. A man of age 16 had to select ethnicity of one of parents. So there was ethnicity in a Soviet passport. And there was an official list of ethnicities. it was changed from census to census. For example, 1959 - 126 ethnicities, 1979 - 123, 1989 - 128. ru:Пятая графа#В СССР. And 1,201,517 - it is not who stated ethnicity but who was counted. LeoKiev01 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This page helps you understand the 1959 census with respect of nationality. Code 99 is for Национальность не указана. This page gives the census by nationality for the Ukrainian SSR; there are 911 people in the the census listed as национальность не указана (code 99). So now you need to find a page that gives a breakdown of the Ukrainian SSR by region.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In the 1959 census, the source for nationality for the Ukrainian SSR as a whole gives a total (41,869,046) that includes the 911 whose nationality was not stated. (I checked in Excel.) This page, which is by gender gives the same total for Ukraine (41,869,046), and the total for the Crimea as 1,201,517.
The source for nationality for the Crimea gives the total for the Ukrainian SSR as 42,859,046, and the Crimea as 1,201,517. It does not include an others category.
Clearly the others figure in the table in the article was calculated by subtraction. If we assume that the 911 people whose nationality is not stated were distributed evenly in the Ukraine, then you would expect about 26 to be in the Crimea (911 x 1,201,517 / 41,869,046).-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In a nutshell, LeoKiev01's table does not conform to WP:CALC, but is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mentioning the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in headings[edit]

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

I think this ought to be discussed.

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

I concur; it warrants discussion. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you we can discuss this. First of all, census. For example, the 1989 census. It was carried out by Sovet Union on the whole territory of the Soviet Union ( All Union Census or Whole Union Census - Всесоюзная перепись населения). It was not Uk or R SFSR. Secondly, the republic (the region) inside USSR. Of course we can tell about RSFSR and UkSFSR again. Especially in the current situatoin when two opposite teams are glad to kill another for mentioning Ru or Uk. But it was one country and one people. Crimea and Sevastopol (like any other territory of USSR) was managed from Moscow, the capital of USSR. Sure, it was managed from Kiev too but in some economic activity not politic. So I think if we speak about some real politic control we should mention USSR. The transfer can be mentioned in the section as an important fact (for future borders especially). LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

Satellite image revision request[edit]

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

Selectively using 'illegal'[edit]

Just a question: We know that the Crimean referendum in 2014 was illegal as it was not in accordance with the constitutions of Ukraine or Crimea. We also know that the removing of the Ukrainian president in 2014 was also illegal under the Ukrainian constitution as it was done with less than the required proportion of MPs voting for that proposition.

So why do we include 'illegal' when describing the referendum, but not when describing the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for describing the removal of the president as illegal? If the answer is yes, then in my opinion you should describe the overthrow of the lawful president as illegal and cite sources. If the answer is no, then you have answered your question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The source for substantiating that the removal of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was illegal would be the Ukrainian Constitution Article on impeachment. The conditions for impeachment were not met but the president was politically removed nonetheless.Moryak (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources no longer support the text[edit]

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

Within days, unmarked Russian forces took over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, also occupying several localities in Kherson Oblast on the Arabat Spit, which is geographically a part of Crimea. Following a controversial - and illegal under both Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions - referendum, the official results of which showed majority support for joining Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared independent Republic of Crimea, absorbing it into the Russian Federation, though the annexation was not recognised by Ukraine or most of the international community.[1]
  1. ^ Alec Luhn (18 March 2014). "Red Square rally hails Vladimir Putin after Crimea accession". The Guardian (Moscow). Retrieved 24 December 2014. 

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

Ah! Now I understand. The "source" was added in an edit on 24 December 2014 by an editor.[2] The edit added the following text, and the source was meant to support that, which is does to some extent.

Then, in March 2014, Russia signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared independent Republic of Crimea, absorbing it into the Russian Federation, though this is not recognised by Ukraine or most of the international community.[1]
  1. ^ Red Square rally hails Vladimir Putin after Crimea accession The Guardian, accessed 24 December 2014

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

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

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

Within days, unmarked Russian forces took over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, also occupying several localities in Kherson Oblast on the Arabat Spit, which is geographically a part of Crimea. Following a controversial - and illegal under both Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions - referendum, the official results of which showed majority support for joining Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared independent Republic of Crimea, absorbing it into the Russian Federation, though the annexation was not recognised by Ukraine or most of the international community.[1]
  1. ^ Alec Luhn (18 March 2014). "Red Square rally hails Vladimir Putin after Crimea accession". The Guardian (Moscow). Retrieved 24 December 2014. 

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

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

Ethnic cleansing[edit]

Surely the article should mention the many cases of ethnic cleansing in the Crimea in the past 250 years. For example, why did an editor remove the murder of Jews by the Germans during the Great Patriotic War?[3] -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat:, @Iryna Harpy: and @Tobby72: your opinion would be valued on this question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that both the massacre of Crimean Jews (Holocaust) and forced deportation of Crimean Tatars are important events in the recent history of Crimea and should be mentioned. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted, Tobby72. The content and source you wanted to add was extremely WP:POINTy and out of place in the context of the article.
Given that this is a broad scope article about Crimea, the 'quick fact' approach strikes me as being WP:UNDUE. If there is anything to be said on the matter, why only one instance of the persecution of Crimean Tartars? Surely, if such content is WP:ITSIMPORTANT to the article, there should be a dedicated section for the treatment of the closest thing the peninsula has to an indigenous people is warranted. What is being pointed to is merely one of 250 years of abuse. The cultural cleansing goes on, as attested to by a documentary made just a couple of years before by an Australian adventurer (see On the Trail of Genghis Khan). This included a violent attack on Crimean Tartars by a town of Russians who won't allow them to access the market which is, itself, built on a sacred site. A couple of words on post-WWII Soviet treatment doesn't even begin to address the issue: it's simply lip-service to a single incident which can be easily dismissed as being an isolated contextual footnote in history. "Ah, but that was in Soviet times" just doesn't cut it. Either it's tackled in more detail or it's undue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, as a matter of interest, I've found the relevant section on YouTube here at approx 1.46.00. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Most recently I've tried to add this brief text and source: "The Germans and their collaborators killed approximately 40,000 Crimean Jews." Yitzhak Arad (2009). "The Holocaust in the Soviet Union". U of Nebraska Press, p.211, ISBN 080322270X
Strongly disagree, Iryna Harpy. I don't think that the persecution of Jews and Holocaust — mass murder of 40,000 Crimean Jews — is "WP:UNDUE" or "WP:POV pushing" (diff, diff) or "out of place in the context of the article" (WWII-related section). -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the amended version, however I do still see it as being undue given the lack of information provided about Crimean Tartars who feature throughout Crimea's known history. There isn't even an estimate of how many Tartars were 'deported' in that period. Of course the Holocaust stretched to Crimea, and an atrocity is an atrocity, but such facts are presented in other nation-state/regional articles in a balanced manner, reflecting the impact on the indigenous and other populations. The information is not balanced... in fact it reads as trumping the consequences for the Tartars. And where do the Crimean Tartars get so much as a sub-subsection in any of the subheaders? Even the 'Culture' section is dedicated to far more recent Slavic cultural references. The entire article is a POV battle for Slavic supremacy as if there were no history prior the first Russian annexation. Just because Slavs appear to be of the mindset that it was some sort of cultural wasteland, and that Tartars are non-entities, the article should not read like the Slavic version of events, nor that of the Holocaust. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "... Crimean Tartars who feature throughout Crimea's known history ..."
— Crimean Tatars and Nogais were Turkic/Mongol invaders from Central Asia, the khans were descendants of Genghis Khan. Their ancestors include enslaved and raped Slavic women who were victims of the slave trade. The truth is that Crimea was inhabited by Iranian-speaking Scythians and Alans (related to Ossetians), Greeks, Byzantines, Armenians, Jews and Crimean Goths centuries before the invasion of Tatars. Slavs actually have a long history in Crimea. There were reportedly twice as many (Slavic) slaves as Muslim free people in Crimea in 1667. - [4]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that the deportation and persecution of the Tatars shouldn't be mentioned (so should the Holocaust).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, Volunteer Marek. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Whoa! ;) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Even I agree with you, Marek, on this one! It is another festivus miracle, I say! :-D--91.51.92.158 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I have no problem with Crimean Tatars. I'm just saying that Tatars or Cumano-Kipchaks (Turkic tribes related to present-day Kazakhs) in Crimea and region north of the Black Sea are not indigenous but are settlers like the Russians and Ukrainians.
It isn't pleasant, but it's still not as bad as Ukraine's treatment of ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians in Odessa, in Mariupol, in Donetsk or in Kiev. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said Iryna. Also, let's not forget that only the ruling elite were Turco-Mongols, the "Tatar" polity were Cumano-Kipchaks known as Polovtsi before that and had been there for centuries (and before that as the Huns who in turn descended from some sort of Sarmatians no doubt). And Genetic studies [5], [6] are showing that Slavs (especially Polish) have more genetically in common with Kirgiz than they do with Europeans further west anyway. YuHuw (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The difference between Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (country)[edit]

Hallo there

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

I have waited a week and no editor has answered my question. I take it, therefore, that there was no valid reason to revert my correction of the mistake. I will wait another day and then make the correction again if no one else can be bothered to make the argument why the error in the article should remain unchanged. Qaz1984 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I've now corrected the error referred to above. I'm surprised that no editor has tried to explain why they reverted my previous attempt to correct the error - I assume they now realise that the error does require to be corrected. Qaz1984 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Qaz1984: My apologies for not responding sooner. For some reason, I missed the fact that you'd started a new thread here. My quibble was merely a reflection of my own preference for wikilinking to an entire article. Given that the anchor you've linked to in another article is more pertinent in context, however, I would agree that it's a better choice. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

en-ipa[edit]

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

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

The Persians[edit]

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

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

Politics section[edit]

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

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

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

Hello Toddy1. It seems to me that any article on an area that covers its history, geography, economy, demographics and culture, should also have a section that covers its politics. i think the section should briefly contain the kind of information that would be common in any other politics section of any other article. My first attempt at this was reverted on the grounds that it was not recognised by most countries - not on the grounds that it was not an accurate description of the reality, but the fact that it was not recognised. Ok, so I tried in my second attempt to introduce a politics section without making reference to how Crimea is governed - and that attempt was reverted as it said nothing about the internal politics - precisely what my first attempt was trying to do!
How about a third attept, in which we describe that the Ukrainian position is that the legislature is the Supreme Council of Crimea, currently dissolved, and the Russian position is that the legislature is the State Council of Crimea? Qaz1984 (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Something like this has been discussed before at Talk:Crimea#Politics. Anything you propose needs to meet the objections raised - or alternatively, you need to explain on the talk page why those objections are no longer applicable.
Whatever you propose needs:
  • To cover the subject adequately in one or two paragraphs.
  • Citations to reliable sources.
  • Neutral point of view.
An obvious place to start is how people in the Crimea voted in the Ukrainian presidential elections in in 2004-05 and 2010. A table might be a way to do this. Be clear whether data is with or without Sevastopol. Then to show how people voted in local elections. Such a section would be the wrong place to mention the fake plebiscite held by the Russian forces of occupation.
I suggest that you try to develop it on the talk page. Given that the consensus was to not have a politics section, developing it on the talk page would avoid an edit war.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful advice. I have read the previous discussion about having a politics section and I can understand why - in April 2014 - the clear consensus was against having one. Rather than try to establish a new consensus, perhaps a compromise approach would be to merely include Politics of Crimea in the 'see also' section. Any objections to that? Qaz1984 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I've made the change I suggested above as I can't think anyone would object to it. Qaz1984 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

HRW - pervasive climate of fear and repression[edit]

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

Good find, but I think that it is more relevant to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article in the human rights section. Keeping this article as free from WP:RECENTISM as possible is the approach that's been adopted for articles on broad scope articles about regions/countries/nation-states where an overview of the history, economy, etc. should remain the primary objective. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The Annexation seem to be finished, seed the lead In July 2015, Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev said that Crimea had been fully integrated into Russia. Dee also Date 20 February 2014 – 19 March 2014[1] (24 days) If the Annexation describes also the current state, the article should be extended. Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Phasing out the Ukrainian sections[edit]

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

IP 72.196.216.21, please pay attention to the template boxes at the top of article talk pages. Please be sure to read through archived talk carefully, plus read WP:NOTADVOCATE. We follow what reliable sources have to say on a subject because it's not our job to make up our own articles as we go along. Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
"Thanks for your attention"? You messaged me and threatened to ban me from Wikipedia. Why do that on my page? Why speak cordially to me here, then threaten to ban me on my page? That shows a major lack of integrity. I've done nothing wrong, you talk about POV pushing, but when I post something you clearly disagree with, you threaten to ban me. Who really comes off as biased then? 72.196.216.21 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
An article's talk page is not the venue in which to air your grievances about being pulled up on your behavioural problems. There are no 'threats' on your talk page, but template warnings building up incrementally throughout this month since you began editing. Deleting warnings on your own talk does not mean that they never existed: per WP:OWNTALK, "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.", therefore it is taken to be an indicator of your having read and understood prior warnings.
The structure of your 'proposal' demonstrates that you have neither bothered to read through the archived history for this article, nor paid attention to the fact that this is not the only article on Crimea. Read through this article carefully, checking wikilinks to the related articles. Read through the talk pages (including archived talk) of this and related articles. Think carefully on what you are proposing, as well as the ramifications of what you are proposing, before you post. Think carefully about whether the phrasing of your proposal sounds professional, or whether it sounds like the simplistic, POV observation you've actually come up with. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not POV, it is fact. If I fly in to Simferopol I go through Russian customs, not Ukrainian. You're the one who made this personal by sending me a message that threatened to ban me because of a question I put on the talk page, whilst acting friendly on the Talk Page, which shows a tremendous lack of integrity. But whatever, I'm done with you. If you want to ban me for a personal grievance, then go ahead. Although I think you lack moderator privileges, and from your antics I've witnessed thus far, the reason for this certainly does not allude me.
So, that all being said, I'm opening this back up for talk, as to whether it'd be best to recognize the situation on the ground in the Crimea. 72.196.216.21 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It was never removed from here as something to be 'talked' about, so I fail to see how you're opening it up again. That said, you've failed to even qualify what is to be somehow 'purged' from this article. It's a broad scope article about Crimea (the history, geography, climate, economy, etc.) and is not subject to WP:RECENTISM, and it's WP:NOTNEWS. There are other articles that deal explicitly with any 'current affairs' aspects: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, Political status of Crimea, Republic of Crimea, Autonomous Republic of Crimea, plus multiple WP:SPINOFF articles... so I don't actually see how "phasing out the Ukrainian sections" [sic] even applies to an umbrella article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy is quite right. This is an overview article and to "phase out" the Ukrainian sections is equivalent to rewriting history. Crimea is Ukrainian and has been Ukrainian legally since 1954. You can't phase that out or scrub it so that it looks Russian. If Ukraine ever officially cedes Crimea to Russia, then "de jure" will no longer be appropriate, but as long as Crimea is simply invaded territory without any legal basis, it is de facto Russia, but de jure Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

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

You have to admit then, that there is something of a grey area, and room for interpretation. Take Taiwan for example, if you search it, Wiki retrieves you an article about the Republic of China, which is officially recognized by almost no one, claims de iure rights on the Chinese mainland, which in turn has de iure rights on Taiwan. But the Taiwanese article side bar doesn't state, de iure PROC, de facto ROC, and same with the China page, no de iure PROC, and de facto ROC. You see this quite a bit actually, North Korea does not recognize South Korea, but this is not stated. Sakhalin island is another, Russia's annexation of the southern half was highly frowned upon after WW2, and is still an ongoing dispute, as southern Sakhalin is still claimed by Japan. In the Sakhalin article however, the de iure claims of Japan are not shown, nor is the de facto control of Russia explicitly stated. The same is true of the Falkland Islands page, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, etc. Where the side bar does not mention de iure vs. de facto. The annexation of Crimea was absolutely an act of war, but I guess the real question that it boils down to, is how many years must past before annexations in war are recognized on Wikipedia, and I think this is the grey area. There is no uniform consensus it seems as to when another country's claims are no longer relevant, and how long it takes that relevance to fade. Going off of "page law" (get it? play off of case law), it seems that there would be case enough for removing the de facto, and de iure claims. 72.196.216.21 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Each case must be considered on its own merits. The examples you mention are all very different. One of the key issues is UN recognition as 'de jure' means within international law (and not just domestic law). Since the current UN position is that Crimea should not be recognised as part of russia, it remains appropriate that Ukraine's 'de jure' claim should be stated here. Are there any other bits of the article that you believe should be changed? Qaz1984 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
IP 72.196.216.21, you're merely introducing your own WP:OR here in order to support your WP:POV. Wikipedia is strictly WP:NOR, yet you're continuing to flounder around creating parallels no reliable sources have made or discussed. Continuing such a discussion is a waste of everyone's time because neither you nor your opinions are reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

reunification[edit]

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

If the word reunification was an official name it should be written here in quotation marks.Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Xx236: Yes check.svg Done "Reunification with Russia" now in quotation marks per WP:RS. 'Reunification' never used by any sources other the RF. In fact, RS discuss the 'annexation' of Crimea and the defunct conceptual state of 'Novorossiya' as irredentism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Red terror[edit]

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

It's alluded to in this article, but probably needs to be developed as a separate article as in both the Russian and Ukrainian wikis. There's really a lot of comprehensive content to address that merits an article in itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is actually one of the most famous historical events in Crimea, widely covered in literature, even in poetry by Maximilian Voloshin who lived there at this time. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Referendum[edit]