Talk:History of Crimea (1991–2014)

Nomination of Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Received request to merge the Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea article into the History of Crimea article on {17-10-2022}. The existence of this article would be like the existence of an article about Brazilian sovereignty over Rio de Janeiro or American sovereignty over Florida. Merge with History of Crimea, other parts could be moved to Autonomous Republic of Crimea or the article itself about Crimea too. Mawer10 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your analogy with Florida is off. More like Spanish sovereignty over Florida or United Kingdom sovereignty over Florida given that Ukraine hasn't had sovereignty over Crimea for years (I understand the possibility that they might have it again in the future). – wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is way off. Ukraine, not Russia, has legal sovereignty over its territory in Crimea and elsewhere. Russia has violated Ukraine’s sovereignty by its invasion, military occupation, and unrecognized annexation. —Michael Z. 17:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article was intended to cover the period of Ukrainian control over Crimea from 1991 to 2014 allowing for the history article to be less weighted to the recent past. It's fair enough that sovereignty in the title is too contentious.  How about period of control or some more neutral term?  Let's not have another argument over who has sovereignty over Crimea.  JASpencer (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So is it actually History of Crimea (1991–2014)? —Michael Z. 20:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your intention in creating this article may have been good, the article on History of Crimea is now a shorter one. However, the right of this article to exist is questionable. All the content contained in it can and should go to the articles I cited above. I suggest you create a template about the history of Crimea to make it easier to find related articles and in chronological order, so this article doesn't have to exist under the argument of organizing or summarizing. Mawer10 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The period between 1991 and 2014 was a distinct period so I'm not sure that the idea that it's a dubious article holds much water. That's not the same as saying that the article needs a new title. JASpencer (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that this debate has run into the ground so I'm removing the merger proposal template. I've tried to address the issue by changing the title, which seemed to be the main bone of contention rather than the need for a separate article. JASpencer (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

New title : Crimea in the post-Soviet era (1991-2014)
I've changed the title to "Crimea in the post-Soviet era (1991-2014)" as "Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea" was seen by some - probably justifiably - as suggesting that Ukraine somehow lost sovereignty in 2014 which is the centre of the current dispute. Feel free to suggest alternatives in this section. JASpencer (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2023

 * 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 to History of Crimea (1991–2014). (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Crimea in the post-Soviet era (1991–2014) → History of Crimea, 1991–2014 – The two period disambiguators contradict each other as the “post-Soviet era” did not end in 2014, and is or was it an “era”? Worse, “post-Soviet” is an anti-descriptor, defining the subject by something it is not and that no longer exists. We don’t define subjects like the “post-British United States (1776–1945),” or, for that matter, the “non-Soviet United States,” either, because these expressions do not define the respective subjects. —Michael Z. 16:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment should it be a comma or parentheses for the years? Not sure.  The switch to "History of Crimea" sounds good, though. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Walt Yoder, it should be something like History of Crimea (1991–2014). "Post-Soviet" is simply not needed here. But comparing it to "post-British United States" or "non-Soviet United States" is absolute nonsense. "Post-Soviet" is a widely used term in RS. Mellk (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is used, but that doesn’t make it good. Post-British USA is precisely parallel nonsense. Better to use a positive term, like post-independence, than an exclusionary one. —Michael Z. 01:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was not good, it would not be widely used in RS. Who should be the judge on whether it is "good" or not? Mellk (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - simpler, fairer, a beautiful title Red   Slash  07:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Prefer setting the years in parentheses, as proposed by Mellk, but the comma is acceptable as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Biased article
The article is completely biased and has no logical sequence. There is a great deal of "cherry picking" on facts from various sources without proper explanation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article does not even mention that situation with Sevastopol in 1993 was brought in front the UN Security Council and a resolution was made. The article also does not mention the 2003 Tuzla conflict that was inspirated by the Russian Government and later downplayed as some initiative of the local government of neighboring Krasnodar Krai. The article does not mention multiple statements made by the Russian Government including the President of the Russian Federation that the Russian Federation has no territorial disputes with Ukraine and there are no ethnical tensions in Crimea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)