Talk:Crimea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

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

Here are the differences.

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

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

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

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

Contents

[edit] Крым

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

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

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

[edit] Liberation of Sevastopol

Sevastopol was not re-occupied but liberated, because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Languages

[edit] "Official languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[edit] Hungarian language?!?!

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

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

[edit] Polish language?

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

Moved from User talk:Ukrained:

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Ukrainization"?!?!

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

, despite repeated efforts to switch to Ukrainian

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

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

[edit] "Radical nationalist forces"

I also removed the following unclear passage:

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

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

[edit] 1954 Transfer

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guys: I would outline the proposed article as:

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

Uapatriot 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top level domain

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

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

[edit] Disputed

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

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

[edit] usage of "the"

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

"Crimea" and "Ukraine" formerly were used with article "the", but now are used without it. You can check it everywhere - in the Encyclopaedia Britannica for example.
And who gave you the right to delete newer, more complete versions
Here in Wikioedia each of us has equal rights. And I did not delet your version, I simply removed your "the"s. And I will insist on this version of usage, because these are the rules of the modern English language.
Don Alessandro 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As no answer was given, I revert. Don Alessandro 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed for Version 0.7

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

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

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

Ilyak 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Demographic predictions

Let's get this straight.

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

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

[edit] De-anglicisation - Krym vs Crimea

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

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

[edit] Tatars

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

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

[edit] Yuri Luzhkov speech and aftermath

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