From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Crimean peninsula)
Jump to: navigation, search

Linguistic groupings[edit]

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

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)

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


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

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

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

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)

Then this is a question of legal interpretation and there are diverging opinions on the matter, even among the jurists. To simply declare it illegal would not be impartial. But the same could apply to the referendum. Maybe it would be best to continue to classify it as a "controversial referendum", instead of an illegal one. --Pedro Gomes Andrade (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


Discussion closed. The user who started it is indefinitely blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I suggest to change word "authorized" (US Treasury cite) to word "controversial" because "authorized" is pro-Russian and "unauthorized" is pro-American. No propaganda! No one should authorize self-determination act but local people. Amitashi (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Crimea at the time of the so-called "referendum" was part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Ukraine did not authorize the referendum so it was, indeed, unauthorized. Your "pro-American" comment shows your own bias. The US had nothing to do with the invasion and subjugation of Crimea by Russia. --Taivo (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

At the time of the referendum there was no legal government of Ukraine since the Verkhovnaya Rada had illegally removed the President.Moryak (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using 'unauthorized' as it is a fact that the Ukrainian government had not authorised it. That said, the most important point is not whether the referendum was authorised but whether it allowed the people of Crimea to express their view. 1984Qaz (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Which it did not, 1984Qaz. There is widespread evidence that ballot boxes were stuffed, Ukrainians and Tatars were denied access to polls, and Russian Special Forces troops voted as if they were Crimean residents. --Taivo (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And the evidence for your statements is what? Is it even plausible that the vast majority of Crimean residents were not in favor of joining Russia since Kyiv had managed to shower them with less than benign neglect for almost 25 years?Moryak (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

While it's possible that an honest and fair referendum might have resulted in a 50-45 choice to leave Ukraine, we have no evidence one way or another. All we have is a rigged and fraudulent referendum run by the Russian Special Forces whose results were known beforehand and dictated by the Kremlin. Strelkov, one of the masterminds of the Crimean invasion, has detailed what the Russian forces did in Russian media. --Taivo (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Please remeber the history of Crime, the expulsion of many nations (not only Tatars), the colonisation by Soviet people. French people colonised Algeria but had to leave, the Russians don't want to leave Crimea, Baltic states, Karelia. Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Taivo. You are entitled to your views even if they are at the extreme end of possible interpretations of what happened in 2014. All the evidence I have read about Crimea suggests opinion poll evidence supports the idea that the majority of the people of Crimea preferred to be part of Russia than part of Ukraine. Of course, you may believe that even if true that fact would be irrelevant as Crimea should not have the right to express such an opinion. Be that as it may, even if there were instances of malpractice, there is no doubt that a huge proportion of the population turned out to vote for unification with Russia. We can't, therefore, just ignore the referendum: we need to find a way to describe it and include it in the article. I think 'unauthorised' - which is sourced - sums up the situation perfectly. 1984Qaz (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
No referundum under guns is a real referendum.
Some day Russia may organize a referendum in Monaco or Chelsea.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Even a referendum under guns is a referendum. Of course, the Crimean authorities could have simply followed the Kosovo precedent and simply declared independence without a referendum so at least there has been a referendum for us to discuss. I understand that the Ukrainian government would never have granted permission for a referendum even if 99% of the population had demanded one so there was no 'legal' route available for those who wished for Crimean reunification with Russia. If Ukraine really believes that the people of Crimea want to return to Ukraine it should offer an internationally monitored referendum in Crimea as a solution to determine the future status of Crimea - of course they won't do that because they realise that there is a high chance that the people would opt for Russia and Crimea would then be internationally recognised as Russian. 1984Qaz (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Even a referendum under guns is a referendum. - where? In Nazi Germany? Xx236 (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion on the "huge turnout" has no basis in fact, 1984Qaz. I don't doubt that a majority of Crimeans might have illegally voted to join Russia if there were a fair and honest referendum. But there was no fair and honest referendum and there is no reliable evidence that even a majority of Crimeans cast ballots. There is, however, evidence that Russian soldiers were casting ballots, that there were multiple ballots per person cast in Russian areas, and that there was rampant voter suppression in Ukrainian and Tatar areas. You're just pushing a false "self-determination" narrative that doesn't exist in the factual world. But the referendum was illegal under Ukrainian law. It doesn't matter what the locals want if the action is illegal. At the time of the referendum, they were a region of Ukraine that had been invaded by a foreign power. --Taivo (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter what the locals want if the action is illegal" - so even if the referendum had been totally free, fair and had returned a massive majority in favour of the unification of Crimea with Russia, the referendum would still have been illegal so the result should be ignored? Well I suppose democracy means different things to different people.
But the issues remains as to how we should describe the referendum in this article. I still thing 'unauthorised' is the best adjective as it is an uncontroversial statement of fact. 1984Qaz (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
If the people of Texas voted to secede from the United States, it would be an illegal act, and, just as it did in 1861, the United States would enforce the law of the land, by military force if necessary. Democracy isn't about voting, it's about the whole body of citizens making laws that are applicable to all. ALL Ukrainians are subject to the laws of Ukraine. Yes, the vote was unauthorized, illegal, and controversial (because it was not conducted by any law or with any level of fairness or oversight). --Taivo (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
There is undoubtedly a tension between the UN recognised right to self-determination and also the UN concept of the territorial integrity of countries. Sometimes countries concede that a component part of the state has a right to self-determination - as demonstrated by the UK allowing Scotland an independence referendum in 2014 - but more often than not the component part has to resort to force to free itself from the state of which it is a part. (For example, Eritrea eventually secured independence from Ethiopia and South Sudan eventually secured independence from Sudan.) Kosovo is now on the road to securing independence from Serbia after 'illegally' declaring independence without a referendum and Serbian efforts to assert its 'territorial integrity' were stopped by NATO bombing. Crimea is similar to the Kosovo situation in the sense that outside interference has allowed the component part to break away from the state of which it was a part. It is different in that while Kosovo had a war, no war was fought over Crimea: instead Russian forces secured the territory to enable a referendum to be held without it being prevent by Ukrainian forces. While it may be highly likely that Russian forces would have stayed whatever the outcome of the vote, or would have fixed the result to justify keeping control of the territory, that does not prove that that is what happened. Opinion poll evidence suggests that Crimean's did support being part of Russia rather than part of Ukraine and still do. That does not take away from the referendum itself being illegal or the possibility/probability that the vote was not as overwhelming as the official results suggested. However it does mean that we have to accept that the Crimean people may have got what they wanted. Whether they should be allowed to get what they want is an entirely different point: the Ukrainian government position is that what the people of Crimea want is totally irrelevant and they should be forced back to be part of Ukraine regardless of their wishes. So, is summary, while the referendum may have been 'unauthorized, illegal, and controversial' it may have been the only way for the people of Crimea to get what they may have wanted. 1984Qaz (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Crimea is a huge military base system but we discuss here human rights and the referendum. Navy, you full (Bill Clinton).Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Language to list first[edit]

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

I don't think that's true, but I may be incorrect. Please show a link to demonstrate that Russian was listed first before 2014. --Taivo (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any particular preference as to which language is listed first. What does concern me is that there is POV edit warring in the ES, but no discussion taking place on the page. Actually, I think the solution is to follow an alphabetical listing as was the case at the inception of the article here (which answers Taivo's question). I've tried to trace back the first instance of the <!-- NOTE: Russian is listed first because it is the predominant language of the region; languages are listed in order of percent of users in region --> hidden comment being added, but there is nothing is the talk archives to suggest that it reflected any form of consensus. Retaining it is provocative, and POV editors are going to keep up the disruption until such a time as editors actually form a consensus as to presentation. Hidden comments carry no weight outside of being suggestions. The reader can't see them and understand what the rationale behind the sequence is. If this were a !vote, my choice would be alphabetical order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, the article was properly developed here with Ukrainian as the first language listed on 6 March, 2014; remained stable (through multiple edits) until this edit on 24 March, 2014, where it was changed to some form of bizarre chronology (according to the ES); after another hefty chunk of traffic, it was changed to Russian as primary here on 24 March, 2014 as a unilateral decision (which I'd characterise as being a pretty sloppy rationale: particularly as eyes were on this article for far more obvious POV changes throughout a high profile event). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone got a random number generator? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm predisposed to leaving lots of hidden shouting comments. Whoever can create biggest and most intimidating ALLCAPS wins... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that there isn't any consensus as to which order languages should go in the body of the article, I don't believe it to be particularly productive to add yet another parameter to the infobox (as was done here. All it does is replicate the ethnic groups, plus the RUC order (based on population percentage as is not intuitive to the reader, and is just as likely to be interpreted as reflecting the order importance). Whichever order is applied to the body should also be applied to the infobox. As for how many versions of the ethnic groups and languages are useful and informative for the infobox, I'll leave the final decision to consensus. Personally, I find it to be overkill as the languages and ethnicities are dealt with (and wikilinked) in the lead of the article in no uncertain terms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think Russian should be listed first, as the language of the majority of speakers. And I'm very much against Russia's hostile takeover, so it can't be said that I'm biased. CodeCat (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that there's been a fresh outbreak of interest and opinions in the article, I'd like to move to resolve this ASAP. When it comes to such minor issues, I think the next best thing to a 'random number generator' is a substitute 'random' system, being alphabetical order. This has been implemented for ages on the Kievan Rus' article, for example, where there are also 'part of the history of ...' templates (i.e., Belarus, Russia, Ukraine). In that way, no POV arguments can be introduced. If I'm going to !vote, it's for Crimean Tartar, Russian, Ukrainian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Alphabetical, or by number of speakers. I don't know what you mean by "...reflecting the order [of?] importance". The reader isn't going to look at the list and think this makes the Russian language more important (although in respect of Crimea, it could be argued it is). It might imply to the reader that Russian is the de jure official language of Crimea, which would only be the case if Crimea is part of Russia, and thus an endorsement of Russia's claim. However, Russian is a recognised regional language of Ukraine, in respect of Crimea and a number of other Oblasts. Also, Russian was used by the authorities in Crimea before the annexation by Russia, and thus was a de facto official language (in that the language was used officially). Overall, I think if the reader has a reasonable understanding of the language situation in Crimea, they will not see the listing of the Russian language as endorsement of Russia's claim. But a less knowledge reader might. I don't see any good reason to list Ukrainian first.
I added the languages to the infobox because it is... informative. If anything, the list of ethnic groups is less informative since it doesn't give any information about the proportion of each. It is possibly even misleading as there are other minority ethnic groups present in Crimea, and only listing the three implies there are only three. On the other hand, the list of languages is a list of native languages, of which there is actually only three. This is generally how those fields are used, for example at Ukraine, where the percentages are listed. It would be better to remove the ethnic groups, and include the languages.
Rob984 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago?[edit]

The referenced text should be summarised. Now a propaganda phrase is quoted.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In what way does this title make any sense? In 1954 the government of the Soviet Union controlled by the Communist Party headed by Nikita Khrushchev took an executive decision to administratively move the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. "Russia" did not exist as such, and the RSFSR certainly was not involved in the Soviet leadership's executive action.Moryak (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@Santamoly: I've reverted due to the tripod site being non-RS, and concerns about NPOV (and WEIGHT) with its insertion in such a bare manner. The notoriety quote appears to actually come from this book, and appears a little nuanced in the context of the full sentence and the surrounding paragraphs - looks like most notorious may have been from the perspective of the Soviet Union under Stalin. For further nuance on the matter, see (for instance) this and this. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The odd thing is that this edit by Santamoly uses the tripod site as a source for the "quotation", and then misquotes it.
If someone were to use the book as a source, they should not cherry-pick the quotation. What the books says is the Stalin and his colleagues perceived all the non-Russian ethnicities in the Soviet Union as being disloyal, with the Baltic Germans and Crimean Tatars as most of all.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to a typo of a typo? It could have been corrected with a simple note. With all due respect, the Tatar collaborators were not deported on a whim. Perhaps you could propose a more useful explanation from a more reliable source? These were not heavenly angels (I apologize if some were your relatives, or you had other relatives on the wrong side of the fight), and some explanation for their deportation would be helpful to the reader. Otherwise it would appear that you are leaning toward supporting revisionist propaganda. In these cases, discussion before reversion is always preferable so that other editors don't get the wrong idea about why you're reverting without discussion. Cheers! Santamoly (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. 06:30, 30 December 2016‎ Santamoly made edit to the article
  2. 06:50, 3 January 2017‎ Xx236 started discussion on the talk page
  3. 07:02, 3 January 2017‎ Xx236 added policy objection to his/her post on the talk page
  4. 07:15, 3 January 2017‎ Hydronium Hydroxide reverted Santamoly's edit to the article
  5. 07:48, 3 January 2017‎ Hydronium Hydroxide added to discussion on the talk page
-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Santamoly - Which nations are heavenly angels?Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You describe yourself as a retired dilettante. Xx236 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What is revisionist propaganda? Critics of Stalin?Xx236 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Course of Modern Jewish History is about Jewish history rather than about Tatars.Xx236 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Xx236, I really don't have any idea what you're talking about. Like your first comment ". . .kind of Miss Congeniality election", none of your other comments make much sense. Who is "Miss Congeniality"? What does "Jewish History" have to do with Crimea? Of course, there's also the possibility that you're an apologist for Hitler's Nazis. Maybe they're insider jokes for a select audience? Or your comments are influenced by outside environmental factors? I have no way of knowing - or responding. Regardless, may I politely suggest that what's happening in the remote recesses of your mind are insufficient reasons for instigating the reversion of a (mostly legitimate) edit. Santamoly (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The edit fails:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Santamoly, I (obviously) agree with ^^this^^. It's in no way a simple black and white issue:
  • Somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand Crimean Tatars (CTs) participated in "self-defense battalions".
  • There were many motivations for participation, but a significant one appears to be CT nationalism rather than any relationship to Germany and/or Nazism. If the peninsula had happened to have been invaded by Allied forces, then many CTs would probably have sided with them too. And it wasn't black-and white alignment with the Germans anyway: "these Tatar units usually sided with whoever was strongest in the area and could not be automatically counted on by either the Germans or the [Soviet-aligned] partisans".
  • Between 20 and 50 thousand CTs fought in the Red Army. Motivations there were also varied.
  • ~240 thousand CTs were exiled as collective punishment.
  • The accusation of mass collaboration was repudiated by the Soviet Union in 1967.
Furthermore, the correct place for (nuanced) detail on the issue of collaboration is not at this page, but (currently) at Deportation of the Crimean Tatars (though the edit you made would be unlikely to survive there if repeated in the same manner). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • By Miss Congeniality election I understand discussions of the type "Who was worse - Hitler or Stalin" or "Who was the best president of the USA", based on feelings or stereotypes. I prefer Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands". Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Course of Modern Jewish History" was suggested as the source of the accusation.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • See the top of the page "Avoid personal attacks".Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

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

It would be the best if you add templates.
There are many of them already.
Probably general templates are needed regarding the whole text or selected paragraphs.

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


I made this change because I thought the previous wording was out of date, implied Ukraine was continuing to host the Russian fleet in Ukrainian Sevastopol, under the terms of the 1997 Peace and Friendship Treaty, when Russia seized both Sevastopol and Ukraine, in 2014, and the two countries are in a defacto cold war. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Before being annexed...[edit]

"Before being annexed..." (opening paragraph) then leads on to describe geographical features that remain true. Revision required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Information about book that predicted 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea says nothing about Crimean culture[edit]

Currently in Crimea#Culture there is written that "Vasily Aksyonov published "The Island of Crimea" in 1979, in which he predicted the annexation". Since Aksyonov is not a writer from Crimea this book (nor he) says nothing about culture/the arts of Crimea. Unless there is a good source that states that the book somehow influenced the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea information about the book only belongs in the Wikipedia article about Aksyonov. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Small "Ancient history" section[edit]

I have to say, I was pretty astonished by the amount of horrendous errors in this section. Basic stuff such as the Alanic language, an Iranian language, was listed as part of the obsolete/hypothetical Ural-Altaic languages, whereas the unknown Hunnic language was also somehow listed as part of the same obsolete/hypothetical language group. To add to that, oddly enough, the Iranian Scythian/Sarmatian languages were listed as if they are not a part of the Indo-European family tree, whereas the uncertain Cimmerian language was listed as an Indo-Iranian language. Last but not least, the Mongolic language was also mentioned as if they were part of this obsolete/hypothetical language family (the "Ural-Altaic languages").

I just made a few clarifying edits/copy-edits, and added the missing (verifiable) occupants in the history of Crimea.[1] Feel free to add those which I might have forgotten to add. Anyhow, the section is in quite a dire need of a proper expansion, with sources, in the (nearest) feature. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The section was utter crap (excuse me) and there were many more errors than just the ones you noticed. Honestly I fail to see how (incorrectly) listing the language family of every people some editor managed to remember who ever set foot on Crimea is helpful. Also more than half the people listed did not inhabit the peninsula during any times that could be called "Ancient" (i.e. Byzantines, Kievan Rus', Mongols, Khazars... these are all clearly medieval and yet they were included). I've removed the bulk of it.--Calthinus (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. A good decision. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)