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.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The article says that the Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 171 years and ended in 1954. It's unsourced and utter original research. It's like saying that Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1954. Why were my changes reverted [1]? I honestly tried to fix it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unsourced, nor is it original research. Nowhere does it say that "Ukraine annexed Crimea". It was transferred by the USSR central government from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR, which is what the article and sources says. RGloucester — ☎17:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source for the statement that Russian rule lasted for 171 years and ended in 1954. And a source for the way the "annexations" are enumerated (1 and 2). According to WP:NOR, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought". --Moscow Connection (talk)
There are multiple sources cited in this article, as well as in the other annexation article, that provide the information you mention. Take the time to click on them, and all will be apparent. As for the number "171", that's an example of WP:CALC. The sources cited, such as this one, give the dates. Basic arithmetic is not considered WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely original research to say when, as the article calls it, "Russian rule" ended. If there are no sources, the sentences are violation of WP:NOR and must be removed. By the way, the source you provided just says something about 1783, it doesn't say which month and which day it was. (And the source is very low quality for something historical like 1780s events.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article, and actually click on the citations. There are a plethora of good quality book sources. The New Republic article clearly states that "Russian rule" ended in 1954 (and that it started in 1783). The Fisher text also makes this clear. WP:CALC allows for subtracting 1783 from 1954 to reach 171. The precise date of the first annexation is given as 19 April 1783 by the Anderson text, and others cited here. I'm not sure what you're going on about. RGloucester — ☎19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say "Russian rule" ended. Actually, it correctly states that the 1954 event "formally amounted to bureaucratic relabeling". (What I want to say is that this so-called Russian rule ended in 1991 and that Wikipedia shouldn't invent cute-looking numbers like 171. If no reliable source ever said "171", it's a good indication that it is something completely new that was invented by a Wikipedia editor.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The New Republic article says "Moscow forfeited the peninsula", &c. The Fisher text says that Crimea was "given to Ukraine" and "removed from the RSFSR", and "transferred to Ukrainian jurisdiction". Russian rule is not Soviet rule. The practical effects of the change are separate from the de jure transfer to Ukrainian jurisdiction and the end of Russian jurisdiction. Reliable sources do say 171. These sources do, and there are others that say so as well. Nothing here has been invented. Perhaps you have trouble reading English text? It is very clear in many of the texts cited here, not just the two I've discussed. RGloucester — ☎20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have trouble reading English text? — see WP:PERSONAL. "Moscow forfeited the peninsula" — it's just stupid and should be completely ignored as something said for effect and with the future developments in mind. USSR was ruled from Moscow, Moscow couldn't forfeit anything. I don't know what's clear to you from which sources. First you said "171" was a result of calculation, now you say reliable sources say "171", but you still haven't provided any. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"171" is WP:CALC, but the sources provide the dates. If the sources say Russian rule started in 1783 and ended in 1954, that means that there were 171 years of Russian rule. The sources do indeed say "171", by virtue of the dates they give. That's the whole point of WP:CALC. We are not going to defy logic here. The use of "Moscow" above is an example of synecdoche (pars pro toto, part representing the whole). The source quickly follows with "Russia was giving up Crimea", hence my inclusion of "&c." I don't need to provide any other sources, because the sources we have here are very clear. However, I will oblige you briefly. Here is a Washington Post article: "Russia gave it to Ukraine". Here is a book by Raphael Shen: "In 1954...Moscow transfered...Crimea from Russia to Ukraine's jurisdiction". What more do you want? RGloucester — ☎21:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the link, now I know who was the user who added the original number to Wikipedia. I really think it should be rediscussed... But I see... --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My gut reaction was to respond in defence of the WP:CALC, but, on second thought, I think that's a bit oversimplified. I've replaced the 171 with "many years", as a vaguer figure seems more appropriate. The dates remain in the prose. RGloucester — ☎22:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to resolve this rather small issue by simply stating that it, along with Ukraine, remained within the USSR until Ukrainian independence. Hope it helps. Nuke (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t check the talk page before making a related edit, that was reverted by User:Seryo93, with the comment “Russian means inclusion into Russia. Ottoman Empire, to which Crimean Khanate was formerly dependent, is also "Imperial".”
The current text is factually wrong, because the Crimea wasn’t “ruled by Russia” from 1783 to 1954. “Russian rule” doesn’t mean “inclusion into Russia,” it means rule by the Russian state or by Russians. The Crimea was first ruled by a Russian puppet government (1776–83), then the Russian empire, then fought over and occupied by several factions, including brief self-rule by more than one entity, and finally became part of Bolshevik Russia, which had no political nor legal succession at all from the Holstein-Gottorps’ empire. Then in 1922, the RSFSR joined the Soviet Union and the Crimea was no longer under Russian rule, but international Soviet rule. Its rule did not change in 1954, because the Russian republic didn’t have rulers nor rule anything (it didn’t even have its own supreme soviet, being ruled by the all-union one. Both Ukraine and Russia were ruled from Moscow, by the government of the Soviet state.
I am happy to discuss improvements to the language, but I am restoring my change for now. —MichaelZ. 2018-02-25 23:35 z
WP:STATUSQUO says, that "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.". Furthermore, you seem to be wrong on many parts, Soviet Russia (even after 1922) had its own organs, including "legislative" ones (namely, Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR for 1938—1991 period, All-Russian Congress of Soviets and VTsIK before that), although they, like all-Union ones, were rubber-stamping bodies until perestroika and downfall of the USSR. Second, even in the USSR framework Crimea wasn't under "international Soviet rule", that is, a union republic status. In 1921–1945 Crimea was the Crimean Autonomous SSR within the Russian Federation (RSFSR), in 1945–1954 it was Crimean oblast within the RSFSR, in 1945–1991 it was Crimean oblast within Ukrainian SSR, and briefly in 1991 it was Crimean ASSR within Ukrainian SSR. Never it was "on equal footing" with Russia or Ukriane, it was either part of Soviet Russia or part of Soviet Ukraine. Since sources (as it was stated above) link termination of the Russian rule to 1954, so we can say the same. So yes, Crimea was for many years part of the Russian polity — of Imperial Russia (1783–1917) and of Soviet Russia (1921–1954). And yes, concern about "ruled by Russia from 1783 to 1954" is already addressed by removal of the WP:CALC figure of "171 years" (see also this talk). So, I restore the consensus version. --Seryo93 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quoting the second sentence of WP:QUO. How did you miss the first sentence?: “If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.”
You say I’m wrong, but your justifications are wrong. Having organs, or a rubber stamp, or being “part of the Russian polity” is not “Russian rule,” and your byzantine wording seems to indicate you’re aware of it.
Nothing in the Soviet Union was ever under “Russian rule,” any more than it was under Ukrainian rule or Georgian rule.
But okay. I will improve the wording. —MichaelZ. 2018-02-26 20:09 z
Word Russian, unlike Russian language (where exists clean distinction, between Russian in ethnic sense (русский, russkiy) and Russian in sense of "related to Russia" (российский, rossiyskiy), has, aside language, two meanings, ethnicity-related and Russia-related. When we talk about, say, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, we talk, foremost, about intervention by Russia as a state, regardless of which ethnicity one or another "Russian" combatant/participant in it has. So, it is pretty correct to say about Russian rule as long as we consider it as a "rule by Russia", be it rule by the Russian Empire or by Soviet Russia. "Russian" here means rossiyskiy (related to Russia, not necessary its modern form), not ethnicity. A clarification can be indeed made, however. --Seryo93 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t make sense of your argument. The Soviet state and Soviet citizens ruled Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etcetera, from 1922. The Russian republic and Russians did not rule the Soviet state. In 1991, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine decided to leave Soviet rule and dissolve the Soviet Union. —MichaelZ. 2018-02-27 15:45 z'’
I’ve updated the intro with a summary of the history 1783 to 2014 pulled out of the reference template. —MichaelZ. 2018-02-27 16:55 z
Following a discussion which has occurred on my talk page, I would like to solicit other opinions. It is my view, and in line with the stylistic choices on the main articles related to this topic such as Ukraine, that unnecessary use of the definite article with respect to "Ukraine" ought to be avoided wherever possible due to the contentious natureofitsinclusion.
However, 675930s (talk·contribs) argues that "the newly independent Ukraine", "sounds nicer", and has gone so far as to insinuate that English is not my first language and that I'm just being emotional. I believe that a higher standard than aesthetics ought to be applied given the contentious nature of the wording, and the fact that the definite article is being applied to "Ukraine." Seeing as how a productive conversation with this editor appears not possible given what has occurred on my talk page, I'd like other editors' opinions on the matter so that a consensus may be reached. Thank you. Kakurokuna (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everybody, I very much recommend you read Kakurokuna's talk page as our arguments have been made in more detail.
In summary, my case is that "the independent Ukraine" is a natural English construction of DEF+ADJ+NOUN that is also seen in "the newly independent Finland" – it does not imply that the name of the state is "the Finland". It is not even possible to express implications of "the Finland" with the DEF+ADJ+NOUN structure as the independence era of Ukraine/Finland's newfound independence are definite. Furthermore, Kakurokuna has yet to support their argument with another example of DEF+ADJ+NOUN being an incorrect structure.
Which Ukraine is being referred to at the end of this sentence? If the answer to the question could possibly be "the independent one", I rest my case. 675930s (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. The driving question is "what was annexed in this event"? There is a consensus over here that the Khanate in general was annexed, not just Crimea itself. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indeed Crimea is less than half of the territory of the Crimean Khanate. Therefore, substantial changes will need to be made to the article to cover this situation. Furthermore, this change excludes the part of Crimea that was formally part of the Ottoman Empire itself, including modern Sevastopol. You can see it on the map present in this section. Further discussion about whether we should change the topic of the article and how to do it is required, and currently the RM has not seen any of that. SuperΨDro12:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taurida oblast, 1792The proper subject of the article is already the annexation of the Crimean Khanate, but it is very unclear about it, using “Crimea” for its territory, or as a shortcut for “Crimean Khanate.” There was no “Independent Crimea (1774–1776)” (as a heading states) if you mean just the peninsula: only an independent Crimean Khanate. The pre-annexation treaties mentioned recognized the khanate’s rights to territories in the Taman Peninsula, the Kuban, and Ochakiv county on the west bank of the Dnipro, for example.
Oppose given the current state of the article which seems to focus on the annexation of Crimea itself (though this may be due to Crimean Khanate and Crimea being used interchangeably). E.g. in the first sentence: The territory of Crimea, previously controlled by the Crimean Khanate, was annexed by the Russian Empire. Modifications to the article seem necessary before the proposed title can be used, as suggested above. Stowgull (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, it restates the exact same thing later with “as the Taurida Oblast,” which was not just the peninsula, making it clear that it does not mean the peninsula alone. —MichaelZ.19:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I think the article is too ambiguous with its usage of Crimea and Crimean Khanate (especially in the lead where there are multiple links to articles just about the peninsula) to justify the move. The clarifications are far longer down in the article, which will most likely be overseen by most people. Stowgull (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The common name for this subject is 'Annexation of Crimea', as demonstrated by the principal source used in the article, Fisher's The Russian Annexation of the Crimea 1772–1783. This overrides any concern about precision. Nothing is gained by making the title more complex in a manner uncommon in reliable sources. As for the definition of 'Crimea' itself, that seems like a tangential subject to this article. Of course, the name 'Crimea' has historically referred to the Khanate, as a form of pars pro toto... RGloucester — ☎13:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s practically all true. Except that the interests of the reader mentioned in WP:TITLE are served by using names for what they represent today. The WP:CRITERION of recognizability recommends using the “name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.” For 100.0% of such people, Crimea refers to the peninsula and not to the territory of the Crimean Khanate. Only those that have already studied the subject and have much more than passing familiarity will know that. Until it is renamed, it remains misleading to most readers. —MichaelZ.18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it may be even more pars pro toto than that. Crimea#Name tells us that Qırım comes from the name of the settlement now called Staryi Krym and “some sources hold that the name of the capital was extended to the entire peninsula at some point during Ottoman suzerainty (1441–1783).” In English, the region was called Crim Tartary (as opposed to Great Tartary which ran all the way through Siberia), and the peninsula was also still called the Tauric peninsula into the 19th century.
Does the Crimea, as Fisher uses the name, actually correspond to only the Crimean peninsula? The name can be short for Khanate of Crimea or the Crimean state. If you look at the maps in Fisher (pp 159–162), they show the Crimean Khanate 1700, the Independent Crimean Khanate/state 1774–1783, Tavricheskaia Oblast’ after 1784, and Novorossiiskaia Gubernia after 1796, but do not label the peninsula as a separate geographical or political object. It is clear that most of the important centres are in the peninsula, but “The Khanate itself comprised the rest of the peninsula and vast stretches of steppeland from Transylvania to the Caucasus” (5). —MichaelZ.19:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title reduces the extent of the annexation to the peninsula, which does not accurately reflect the annexation of the Khanate, as the maps above show. I am therefore in agreement with the nominator that the proposed title better fits the WP:PRECISE criterion. Pilaz (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Russian Empire' bit is a disambiguator. If we could get rid of it, we would, but we can't. It only exists for Wikipedia purposes, per WP:DAB. Of course it will not appear in RS... RGloucester — ☎22:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title is misleading. What was annexed is the Crimean Khanate, not Crimea (Crimean peninsula). The Khanate was much bigger. The text and the scope of the page should be adjusted accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Southern part of Crimea was formally part of the Ottoman Empire itself, not the Crimean Khanate
Southern part of Crimea (including modern Sevastopol, Yalta etc) was formally part of the Ottoman Empire itself, and not the Crimean Khanate. And this part was annexed by the Russian Empire as well. The last move on the one hand expanded the scope of the article, but on the other hand, reduced it. @MzajacCaenus (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier the entire Khanate belonged the Ottoman Empire, didn’t it? Forcing the Khanate’s “independence” was part of the process of annexation (a recurring theme). Near the bottom of the article we learn that “Later that year, the Ottoman Empire signed an agreement with Russia that recognised the loss of Crimea and other territories that had been held by the Khanate.”
These are all details that don’t need to be reflected in the title, because fortunately there is a whole article about them. I still feel the move was an improvement. —MichaelZ.17:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Khanate was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. But the southern part of Crimea was never part of the Khanate, and was directly ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Caenus (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I warned about this problem when the proposal to adopt the current title was made. The scope of this article as it was created is and always has been the "annexation of Crimea", not the khanate. RGloucester — ☎02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, I was able to confirm that these directly-ruled territories (Kefe Eyalet) were incorporated into the Khanate with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774. Therefore, the present title remains valid (if still distasteful for other reasons). This content has been incorporated into the article, citations included. RGloucester — ☎08:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.
.svg)
.svg)
.jpg)