Talk:Sevastopol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Deletion of Fleet dispute section

I'm reverting the section concerning the Russia-Ukraine Black Sea Fleet dispute, because it seems to have a lot of information. If someone feels it needs NPOV, then please rewrite it thus. Don't delete without explanation. —Michael Z. 21:26, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

It was just another volunteer Russian propagandist, Michael. There's more to come I'm afraid. AlexPU
Russian propogandist? Hey, pal, it is Russian city with 80+% Russian population think in the same way of what you call propaganda! Keep your mind clear.--Forties 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastopol

what about sebastpol, california, usa?

Well that's spelled differently, and it's at Sebastopol, California. Adam Bishop 20:11, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is noteworthy, though, that the city in Crimea is still spelled sometimes Sebastopol in British press. -Irpen June 30, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
There are many cities that share names, for instance, there's also a Saint Petersburg in Florida. Tev 05:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aqyar

The article is incorrect "Sevastopol" was not founded in 1783. It was founded earlier by the native Crimean Tatars who called it Aqyar. What Potemkin did was to rename the same settlement. For somehow related stuff see: Potemkin village. Calling whose who disagree vandals does not wash it. 81.213.0.98 30 June 2005 15:47 (UTC)

Well, you will have to back up your claim with respected sources to have it mentioned in this article and back it up very substantially if you want it to be in the article as a main version of the town's foundation. For example, Britannica's Sevastopol article somehow doesn't know about your version. Quote from Britannica:
"West of the modern town [Sevastopol] stood the ancient Greek colony of Chersonesus, founded in 421 BC. Originally a republic, Chersonesus (Heracleotic Chersonese) became, in turn, part of the Kingdom of Pontus, of the Cimmerian Bosporus, of the Roman Empire, and of the Byzantine Empire. In 988 or 989 Prince Vladimir of Kiev captured the town and was baptized there; he restored it to Byzantium, but it later passed to the Empire of Trebizond and declined into insignificance. In 1783 the Russians, having annexed the Crimea, began the construction there of a naval base and fortress, named Sevastopol the following year."
Please don't take this personally. This has nothing to do with trying to diminish Crimean Tatars. -Irpen June 30, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
Aquar just was a tatar village, not related to Sevastopol

[edit] Tolstoy

Anyone think we should mention Tolstoy's The Sebastobol Sketches in this article?


[edit] On Aqyar

Listen, Sevastopol was founded on the place of former Chersonesus, NOT Aqyar. Your article sounds offensive for people who live in this city (like me). It is Russian city, founded by Russians on the place of former greek-roman-bizantine colony.--Forties 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) !

Is there a Tatar name for the city? --Illythr 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no tatar name of the city. The name assigned to city was Cherson (!) to the name of Chersonesus, but due to mistake of state employees was assigned to other city which is now known as Kherson in Ukraine.

It is fact.

I do promise to raise this question on Sevastopol local internet and jointly appeal to Wiki administration if you will continiue your PRO-tatars talks here! Delete and NEVER restore this name again! --Forties 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you trying to use legal threats instead of engaging in a civilized discussion? I briefly looked over the other wikis and most of them have "Aqyar" listed as a Tatar name. The Tatar Wikipedia entry is actually called "Aqyar"! Here are a few sources I just Googled up as well. [1],[2], [3] (Russian and Ukrainian) --Illythr 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, forget it. There's no sense to talk to Russophobic person. I even agree that Sevastopol was founded by chechen rebels during times of Ottoman Empire, subordinated to US Bush administration,.. and there're a lot of drunk bears on the streets. --Forties 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I also sure that Wiki is not free source and dependable on pro-Western policy. --Forties 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, considering that I was called a pro-Russian POV-pusher a few times and that my native language is Russian, I find your statement fairly amusing. Oh, and you avoided answering to my arguments...
Well, Wikipedia is not a democracy, although the Western views are indeed usually predominant, I'm afraid. In this particular case, however, the only problem is your apparent inability to defend your edits with reliable sources. I take it, you're new to Wikipedia and are still unaware of how it works, seeing conspiracies all around as you do. I think that if you take a calm, reasonable appoach to your activity here, you'll be fine. Check out your talk page, I think you have a new message there... :) --Illythr 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sources?? I do promise when I'll have a time I'll provide them- not just some quick (!) references but deep investigation. There are A LOT OF info on Sevastopol foundation and subordination. Currently, you play the one role of pro-western propaganda.

Where you live there? And tell me how person who is far from Sevastopol wrote article on Sevastopol?! Have you even been here, pal?!--Forties 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, I've been to Sevastopol. For about a day. :) But: If you look at the article's edit history, you may see that I've made only a few edits to it, it order to restore NPOV. Hey, check out the article on Pluto. How could people, who live VERY far away from Pluto write an article on the dwarf planet? ;) As for my role here - I try to keep blatant POV out or at least ensure that it's properly referenced and attributed. --Illythr 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Subordination

Do you have a source on that subordination thing? Your word on it will not be accepted, you know. --Illythr 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is your turn to search for sources on Sevastopol subordination. You speak with citizen of Sevastopol who live there 30+ years. Forget tatars, forget Ukrainian subordination. Sevastopol never been transferred to Ukraine- neither 1954 (it was not subordinated to Crimea), nor later. Sevastopol due to its status of USSR BLK Naval HQ had/has its own unique status and ALWAYS subordinated to Moscow DIRECTLY. --Forties 17:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking with an anonymous user, I'm afraid. Are you saying that Sevastopol is currently subordinated to Moscow? PS: Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ --Illythr 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I said that until now legal status of Sevastopol is unclear. It remaines subordinated to Russia Federation (because until now legal article on Sevastopol status was not reviewed by Russian officials). So it is under Ukraine but remains Russia's city. Read below also my comments on subordination --Forties 17:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, with the Russian-Ukrainian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership of May 1997, Russia officially recognized Ukrainian sovereignty over the area, regardless of any previous arrangements. --Illythr 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Russian-Ukrainian Treaty of Friendship.." is not a legal document for international disputs on territory. ~"The State Border Law between Russia and Ukraine" which accepts it is NOT signed and probably will not be signed in expected future. Russia's-Japanese relations is the same case. So juridically Sevastopol is Russia's city and probably Ukrainian.
Can you support this with an official source of some kind? The agreement was cited many times in this context as a deciding argument for Ukrainian ownership, even by those who would rather like to have Crimea as part of Russia (the latter with utmost dismay). --Illythr 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] etc --Forties 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The first source disproves your claims: The 1997 pact gave new legal status to the historical home base of the Black Sea fleet, which Russia inherited from the Soviet Union, and ruled out Moscow's territorial claims to Ukraine.
accroding to it "[..]The agreement on the Black Sea fleet base is one part of a bilateral treaty, the second part of which contains recognition of mutual borders," Sergei Ivanov said in televized comments. "Trying to revise the treaty would be fatal." The fatal in this case that status of the Sevastopol can be reviewed by Russia's side. It means that signed Treaty on Sevastopol doesn't have any international legal rights- it is not final document as the "Border Delimitation Law" is.--Forties 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't get how one follows the other in your logic. What Ivanov said, in human speak is: "If you revise the status of our base (first part), then we revise the status of the territories (second part)" - i.e. renounce the treaty. As the revision didn't happen, the treaty is still in force. I understand that Russia could have legally ended the treaty in December 2006 (it was signed for 10 years and prolonged automatically, if nobody decides to abolish it six months before the prolongation date). Besides, shouldn't the fact that Russia is actually leasing the territories from Ukraine point out their current owner? --Illythr 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The second source is obsolete - 1996 was before the agreement was signed. But it confirms your claim of Sevastopol being subordinated to Moscow, making your deletion of the corresponding paragraph legitimate. I'll add it.
Third source is about Poland and requires a fee to download. --Illythr 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I added/removed the relevant stuff, although I'd rather prefer to get the text of the treaty somewhere... --Illythr 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Pluto:) As far as I know there're no population there. Not good example. --Forties 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, would you require anyone writing about the Roman Empire to be a native Roman citizen? ;-) How about Sealand? --Illythr 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I live in Sevastopol: here and now. Not on Pluto or in Roman Empire times. Hopefully it is clear.--Forties 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This should make you more knowledgeable on the issue (if true), but doesn't give you any special edit rights to this article. --Illythr 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AlexPU, this is the second time you delete the same sourced information without providing any kind of proof that it is false. The Polish newspaper cannot be blamed with pro-Russian POV (in fact, the article has a somewhat anti-Russian tone). It appears to be reliable as a source as well [7]. Of course, it may simply be mistaken, but you must bring some sort of conclusive proof that it is. The texts of the Constitution of the UkrSSR (before and after 1978) would be such a source. --Illythr 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a little bit of research there; the city was indeed directly subordinated to RSFSR authorities. This was not changed during the 1954 transfer to UkrSSR (sloppily made). Only in 1978 was the constitution of the UkrSSR amended to include Sevastopol as an UkrSSR city. This change seems to violate the main USSR constitution of the time, but legitimacy of the whole thing is a hornet's nest better left untouched for now. --Illythr

[edit] Purported "Ukrainization" of the article

I restored my changes that were reverted as per following. Stuff like "presented as a gift" does not really fit an encyclopedic description of those events. "Transferred" is a factual word without the emotions. Again, "gift to mark a unification" is often used, and I see nothing wrong with this usage, in general, but not in encyclopedia, sorry. Many people now disagree with usage of "unification". Let's leave the debate of whether it was the "move under protection" or "unification" or, as some say "occupation" to the Treaty of Pereyaslav article itself. Here, we just call the event by the most neutral term "T. of P." and leave it to the reader and the other article to judge its meaning. Please note, that I do not take a position here regarding the debate on whether or not the transfer was justified and in the "unification" vs "occupation" debate. If anyone is interested in what I personally think about this, email me but this debate doesn't belong here anyway.

Finally, there is no question that there is indeed a persistent attempt to spread Ukrainization into the Crimea and the city as well. But "forceful" is a matter of opinion here and I doubt it is anywhere close to Ukrainization in other regions of UA, anyway.

As for the section on the Russian fleet, I don't know who wrote it but it sits here for a while. I did not follow the events too closely and I have no reason to remove the tag placed by another editor. I changed a tag to a more specific one, though. Also, please improve the section or explain here what's wrong with it, and, if possible, using serious facts rather than just calling it "Russophobic".

Thanks, and I am sure the article will move forward all right. Cheers, --Irpen 22:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks in Crimea, 2000+ years presence

I do not think it's right to underestimate the importance of ancient & medieval influence of Greek culture in the area of Crimea.

Most of the main cities have Greek names (Eupatoria,Sevastopol,Symferopol,Theodosia).

The word -polis at the end of each name means city in Greek.

at the wikipedia article for CHERSONESOS you will find more evidence on the matter.

Actually Sevastopolis is the byzantine medieval city Cherson-Chersonesos meaning peninsula thus including the whole Crimean peninsula to an extend.

As a tribute to that the Greek name Σεβαστόπολις is a piece of evidence it should be included in your article as well.

Regards.

Dear anonymous, I am not trying to underestimate the importance of Greek culture in the history of Crimea. You may note that I initiated the renaming of Chersones article into Chersonesos. However, this is irrelevant to the history of this particular city. Sevastopol, was found relatively recently and I am not aware of its relation to the Greek culture. Am I mistaken in that? --Irpen 08:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Irpen thank you for your answer. You also mentioned (according to Brittanica) that the ancient Greek and later medieval city of Cherson is in the outskirts of the newer city of Sevastopol. To me it seems self-evident the connection between Cherson & Sevastopol, they are different chapters of the same book; the history of Crimea and Sevastopol itself. Adding to that that Sevastopol as a name has a Greek origin and a Greek meaning (Sevastos = Respectable + polis = city) I still believe that the translation to the Greek language should be included in the article. Astavrou

Dear Astavrou, I haven't realized that the name of the city has a Greek origin. Of course, this warrants the mention in the article then. However, I would put it in a second paragraph, entirely devoted to the name etymology rather than just as another name of the city in the very first sentence. Something like that is done in the article Kamianets-Podilskyi. Please feel free to do that. --Irpen 20:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastopol - Victoria - Australia

A thriving population which is part of the Greater Ballaarat Area.Known as an area rich in history of gold mining and associated industries

[edit] NPOV tag

I can't see anybody actually editing or discussing the Russian naval base and Ukraine-Russia Black Sea Fleet dispute section. If nobody starts in a week, I'll delete the tag since I fully agree with the section. Cheers, Ukrained 20:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag refers to this section: Despite this, naval base command and Russian-backed organisations actually control the city, dominating its business and cultural life... etc, as it represents the Ukrainian POV on the situation in the following fragments:
  • ...considering it as temporarily parted from their country...
  • These activities are directed to promote the city's practical independence from the rest of Ukraine.
  • While Ukrainian-appointed authorities retain formal control of Sevastopol's life (such as of taxation and civil policing), trying to avoid confrontation with base command and Moscow-oriented groups. - this sentence is also incomplete. While what?
For all I know (being non-Crimean) all these statements may be correct, and I'm just being paranoid, facing all the Moldovan and Transnistrian mutual propaganda over here (I'm from Moldova), but I think it would be nice to either reword those parts, have them backed up with (apparently, at least) neutral references or also provide info on Ukrainization of those parts (like that issue with family name "translations" - opposing POV). Simplest of all would be just to delete that paragraph altogether, but I'd rather not... --Illythr 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Illythr. Thank you for answering my call for discussion. First of all, let me point you to the procedure here. As I can get from your post, you're not questioning the sense of the section. Anyway, you haven't specified what is your vision. So would you agree there's no actual dispute between us - so far the only participants of the discussion? Moreover, the Russian Group seems agreeing with the current version of the page. Having looked at the editing history, you would see that Mr. Ghirlandajo, a renowned pro-Russian troll, was editing the article today - but made no major changes. Thats why I think that your objections qualify only as <fact> or <unreferenced> tag.
Now back to your remarks. The first sentence you question reflects mere (VERY sad) truth as far as I know. References may be found so easily that nobody actually requests them :). The same is with the second sentence. It may be not only MASSIVELY referenced, but also legally proven. The third one contains some grammar mistake I guess. Really, while what? I'll think how to rephrase it with my poor English.
I'll look for references. But deleting the paragraph is a VERY bad idea. Ukrained 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
1) Well, yes, either the tags (or better yet, actual references ;-)), or some sort of "levelling" input from someone native to Crimea (pro-Russian, most likely) need to be added there.
2) Whether these sentences are truthful or not, they certainly must be properly referenced or rephrased, because they currently provide an analysis of, and not the actual things being done - something an encyclopedia should avoid. Especially on potentially explosive things like politics and ethic interactions.
As for my vision - here in Moldova we have Transnistria - a Crimea gone very bad. The entire conflict was spawned by the initial outburst of nationalism and power ambitions of local politicians (on both sides). The current situation is not getting any better with our politiciancs just throwing insults and propaganda at each other. I'm glad Ukraine managed to avoid this mess, but from what I gather, the issue is still very sensitive, what with its mainly Russian population and all. Thus, I believe that any statements concerning the situation must be as neutral and referenced as possible. --Illythr 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: I already toned down the tags in that section follwing this discussion. Ukrained 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian/Ukrainian language permutations

Aw, people, stop doing that! It's silly and certainly NOT the part of the article that needs to be worked upon! Considering that Sevastopol currently belongs to Ukraine, I think it's only fair to place the Ukrainian language first, though. --Illythr 23:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Of non-english names, the official one goes first. Yes it is Russophone, yes there are strong mutual sentiments, etc. etc. etc. By all means describe those things in the articles but leave the intro consistent with Wikistyle. I returned the Ukrainan name first.
On a side note, personal attacks by user:Ukrained ([8], [9], [10] and more) while not surprising anymore are still dissapointing and don't help at all in his desire to achieve whatever it is that he wants. --Irpen 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I contend that the city belongs to Ukraine. Can you cite a specific legal act which transferred the city to Kiev's or Sevastopol's administration or that Moscow ever recognized the fact? The Ukrainian is not spoken in the city. Besides, Russian is officially recognized as the second language of Crimea, to be used in official documentation and at courts. Therefore, I revert. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, please no jokes regarding challenging of the fact that Sevastopol, as a Crimean city, belongs to Ukraine. I take no position on the fairness, justice or common sense of the 1954 transfer. Let's leave it to a transfer article that Kazak will finish one day. As for the point what language they speak there, it is irrelevant for our naming convention.

Sevastopol was *not* transferred to Ukraine with the rest of Crimea in 1954. The whole transfer affair is quite illegitimate, of course, and will be reversed sooner or later. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1). Sevastopol really was transferred in 1954. The legasy of this transfer may be disputed, but the main fact is that it was transferred de facto. During the Soviet era Sevastopol gorkom and gorispolkom were always subordinated to Crimean obkom and oblispolkom.

Sevastopol gorkom and oblispolkom were PARTLY subordinated to Crimean. It is fact.
Sevastopol had financing from the budget of RSFSR not Ukraine. It is fact.
Sevastopol was an unquie city called "city of the central subordination" (means Moscow's). It is fact.
Currently, Sevastopol remains juridicially city of RSFSR and Russian Federation as successor of RSFSR. It is fact.
ALL THESE MEAN THAT SEVASTOPOL WAS NOT TRANSFERED TO UKRAINE in 1954. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forties (talk • contribs) 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

2). Tell me please, is there any country that officially does not recognize Sevastopl as a part of Ukraine? There are no such countries. If you think Russian Federation is, you're completely wrong. According to the Russia-Ukraine treaty of 1997 both countries officially recognize the existing borders. And according to the same treaty Sevastopol is a temporary base of the Russian navy until 217. Don Alessandro 13:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And Russian is not an official language of Crimea, read the constitution [11]. Again, it doesn't matter for us whether it is right. The Crimean constitution is clear:

1. В Автономной Республике Крым наряду с государственным языком обеспечивается функционирование и развитие, использование и защита русского, крымскотатарского, а также языков других национальностей.
2. В Автономной Республике Крым русский язык как язык большинства населения и приемлемый для межнационального общения используется во всех сферах общественной жизни.

Just in case, "государственный язык" refers to Ukrainian. --Irpen 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the latest law, Russian language is given the status of second official language in Kharkov, Lugansk, Zaporoshye, and Crimea. Read the news. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks, Irpen? A daemagogy! I'm ONLY and purely addressing your attitude towards editing articles, and most important, interacting with the group of officially renowned Russian trolls. And don't worry about my desires and goals: you're the last person I'd approach for help with those.
Ghirlandajo, I could actually tell you where exactly the Russian is given the status of second official language and suggest you to visit those places. But that would be a real personal attack so I'll refrain (unlike your little friend Sashok which is обкладывает even members of your Group). Ukrained 10:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Kharkov is an area of such, where the council earlier this year passed a law raising Russian as the official language, and watch personal atacks against the admin. --Kuban Cossack 11:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, Kazak, thanks for ignoring the recent trollish entry and not feeding it with a response. Now to the issue:

  1. The issue of what language the local population speaks is irrelevant for the purpose of this dispute (not that it doesn't matter in general)
  2. The decisions of the local authorities is a separate issue. Fist of all, the legality of these decisions is not yet clear (that is whether they are authorized to make it). Yes, I am aware of the European Charter that they claim gives them a right for such decisions. However, their opponents have their arguments too. Let's wait until the issue is settled, that is whether it would be challenged in court by the Ukrainian authorities, whether they will be invalidated by the presidential decrees, Rada resolutions or decision of the local governors that, as of now, are still centrally appointed in UA rather than elected. In any case, let it settle before using it as an argument
  3. Even if this decisions get de-facto established and accepted in UA (not at all guaranteed), they still speak of Russian becoming a second official language, no the official language of the region. Ukrainian remains the first one and, as of now, the only official state language in Ukraine. You may dislike it but that's how it is. Wikipedia is an international, not a regional project, as such it has to bow to the fact that these territories are part of the sovereign Ukrainian state and as such, list the national names first
  4. In the hypothetical situation (though unlikely) that Russian becomes indeed a second official state language in Ukraine, it would still be officially the second language (see above). In any case, the Ukrainian name goes first.

In no way any of this affects the article titles. The articles will remain Kharkiv and Luhansk until the international media changes how it refers to them. This is unlikely to happen, if you ask me, but only if and when it happens the issue of the article titles can be brought up again. For a very similar reason the capital article is called Kiev and not because more Kievans use Russian than Ukrainian in their everyday lives.

Now, let's further expand the article and not argue about the order of names. In the first line, the Ukrainian name goes first and others relevant names follow in the alphabetical order of the language names, that is: Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Slovak. Not all of them are applicable to all cases, but those that are go alphabetically. Let's get back to editing. --Irpen 17:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My two cent: the question about official status is not even discussed.
Russian is recognised as regional language in Sevastopol (as well as in Kharkov and Lugansk). I do not know detals but it looks like people now can coomunicate to the state in Russian. It seems also it can be also used as a working language of local state institutions but only along with Ukrainian. The official language remains only Ukrainian, unfortunately.--Mbuk 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, what's fortunately or unfortunately is a side issue. The combination of today's reality and WP traditions require that both names are listed and Ukrainian is mentioned first. Is anyone interested in anything else in the article? --Irpen 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References, references

This sentence, while might be true, is completely unsupported: "A few years ago, the Communist-dominated city council rejected a EBRD loan to renovate Sevastopol's poor sewage system, declaring that the project was intended to increase the city's dependence on the Ukrainian government and the West." Not only does it lack citation to support that the loan was in fact rejected for that reason, but it does not even name a date. I move for deleting it if citation is not provided soon. —jS 10:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)