Talk:Sevastopol/Archive 1

Tolstoy
Anyone think we should mention Tolstoy's The Sebastobol Sketches in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack58 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 July 2005‎ (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.138.12 (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2006‎ (UTC)

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 or 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)

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 (,, 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. 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 [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 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: 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.
 * 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.

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)

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. &mdash;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)


 * Don't Russians think Ukrainians are all Russian, anyway? There are plenty of Russian cities whose populations are not majority Russian. I don't Russia running to defend their rights. Quite the opposite, in fact.

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. ,, (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)

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)

   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. 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

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)

Speculations
I have removed the following fragment:
 * A potential coup in the city was discussed in connection with Russian-Georgian war and Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia. It was suggested that

Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. We do not speculate on potential coups and disasters unless there are clear indications that the conspiracies are in progress Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, this policy tells the following: "

It also tells that whole articles about anticipated events may or may not be appropriate: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

Clearly, this is not a separate article, and claim is verifiable per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we put every crook's "analysis" into our articles, Wikipedia will quickly degrade into the yellow press domain, as opposed to what's expected from an encyclopedia. Imagine filling articles with expectations like the US soon taking over the world, or, say, Estonia officially adopting the "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" policy in the near future (I'm sure we can find this and more by the likes of Prokhanov, for example).
 * If you absolutely must add these speculations somewhere, do it in a single article that deals with political relations (as well as possible trends) between the two countries, like Russia–Ukraine relations. --Illythr (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. --Illythr (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We must include all sourced and notable views per WP:NPOV, and I am sure this view is important enough (at least significant minority view) to be included. Please explain/justify why do you think this specific view should not be included. There are many publications of that kind in press. If you insist, I can add much more references.Biophys (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see this ref, for example.Biophys (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't provide all views at all. From WP:NPOV - "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." As this is obviously a fringe political view, it is being removed the article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "obviously a fringe political view" is not an argument. I repeat: please justify why do you think this specific view should not be included. Wall Street Journal as not "yellow press". Not enough references? I can easily add more.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is another reason; did this coup occur? No, it did not. It's a fringe view from a Nostradamus wannabe which did not occur, and as such, does not even warrant a mention in the article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not you read my reply above? WP:CRYSTAL tells precisely the opposite:

and so on (please read above).Biophys (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With this logic I can go ahead and insert Prokhanov's similar "analysis" about the US being the world's enemy No1 into articles like Atlanta or New York. The guy does hold a notable position in Russia and has been called "the leader of patriotic opposition," after all. Don't you see that not every minute analysis that portrays Russia as the archenemy of all that is free belongs into an encyclopedia article? If this particular concern has been raised by more than one such analyst (hopefully forming some kind of significant minority view), their opinions can be added to some article dealing with such things in an amalgamated form, like "In the wake of Russia's involvement into the 2008 S Oss conflict, a number of Western analysts have expressed concerns that Russia may invade Crimea in the near future, because (really good reasons equivalent to the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali go here)(sources)" --Illythr (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding more references about this view is certainly fine. That's not a problem. However, this specific analyst expressed existing fears in a very clear fashion, which justifies his citation. He explains that Russia does not need to "invade Crimea" with tanks. All they need is an internal revolt, and in fact Ukraine is now in a state of political crisis.Biophys (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, the opinions of Alexander Prokhanov (you are talking about) and Dugin are completely appropriatem as they are important and influential ideologists in contemporary Russia.Biophys (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What you want is WP:UNDUE in this article. Additionally, it is evident that you are using WP as your own personal WP:SOAPBOX, as you are intent on only including material which fits with your own POV, without due consideration to overall WP:NPOV. All analysts express themselves in a clear fashion, that's what analysts are paid to do, but justify his complete citation it does not. Also, Dugin is not as influential as you are making out. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeating one thousand times WP:UNDUE is not an argument. If there is a "majority" opinion your are talking about (you did not even tell what this "Majority" opinion is!), you must be able to source it, just as I source "minority" opinion.Biophys (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From this source: They could declare Russian sovereignty over a smaller city (Alushta, Evpatoria, Anapa) or a stretch of inland territory. The guy seems to believe Anapa is a Ukrainian territory. And all those good editors discuss this information noise? C'mon nothing interesting here ... Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More refs

 * Fear that Sevastopol may be next port of call for Russia
 * Ukraine-Russia tensions rise in Crimea
 * Russia's Next Target Could Be Ukraine by Leon Aron, Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2008

Greek name
In the etymology section it says:

"In the west of the city there are well-preserved ruins of an ancient Greek port city Chersonesos founded in the 5th c. BC. The name means "peninsula" reflecting its location and is not related to the ancient Greek name for the Crimean Peninsula, Chersonēsos Taurikē ("the Taurian Peninsula")."

Well if the Greek city's name means Peninsula and the Name of Crimea meant peninsula, then yes, those name are related, they mean the same thing.

нпе —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.212.213 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have a Ukrainian map in three languages, on which is written "Sebastopol".--Юе Артеміс (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean the map is made in Ukraine.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and also the Webster's (both 11th and 12nd edition) use the variant Sebastopol, not Sevastopol at all. 83.78.83.85 (talk)
 * And also see Sebastopol Sketches by Tostoi. No one says Sevastopol Sketches! 83.78.83.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

Soviet decorations
The war-time decorations given to cities by the defunct Soviet Union might be relevant to mention in the text, but they are not noteworthy enough to be included in the city template. --Taivo (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC

Those awards are not a dim and dusty footnote as you would like to make them. Just in case you may not have noticed, the most important of the city's decorations from the "defunct Soviet Union" - the city's "hero" title medal - is both a prominent part of the city's official crest and is so specifically included in the legislation officially defining the city's symbology. While the Soviet Union is defunct it does not mean that the awards bestowed at that time have instantly or permanently been withdrawn, nullified, or otherwise disappeared.Федоров (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is therefore relevant to place them in the text of the article, but the information is not noteworthy enough about contemporary Sevastopol to place in the city template. They are not relevant to the modern city of Sevastopol.  --Taivo (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please remind me and others why YOU are the arbiter of what should or should not be included. It would appear that in this context your thoughts are as valid as are mine.Федоров (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the following: Provide a contemporary reference to the city's Hero status by its officials to prove its relevance to the modern city. That should solve the issue. --illythr (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If contemporary city leaders use or cite the decorations in any meaningful way, then we have something to discuss.  Otherwise, these defunct decorations are nothing more than historical trivia, not relevant modern information about Sevastopol.  --Taivo (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like such a reference (September 2010): Украинское правительство считает необходимым установить почетный караул возле Вечных огней и организовать возложение венков к могилам Неизвестного солдата и Неизвестного матроса в городах-героях Киеве, Керчи, Одессе, Севастополе; г. Симферополе и областных центрах.  (translated) The Government of Ukraine deems it necessary to install a honor guard at the Eternal Flames and organize the laying of wreaths to the graves of the Unknown Soldier and Unknown Sailor in Hero Cities of Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol; Simferopol and oblast centers. --illythr (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While that seems to be a useful reference, a single reference such as this, especially when the usage is in the context of a WWII memorial, is rather flimsy evidence that the decorations really mean anything to contemporary Ukrainians. Are there references that occur out of the WWII/memorial context?  --Taivo (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the country's 2006 law on Sevastopol referring to it as "місто-герой" ("Hero-City"). The city's governmental site sports a banner on pages about its council's decisions, where all the decorations are listed along with the title "Мiсто-Герой Севастополь" (example). Just googling the phrases "Мiсто-герой Севастополь" or "Город-герой Севастополь" yields hundreds of hits on the gov.ua site alone. The same goes about Kiev, by the way. --illythr (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so there seems to be evidence here that the Soviet-era decorations are still relevant to the government of modern Sevastopol. --Taivo (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This Wiki article on Sevastopol has in it a link to the official city website. That website contains the current OFFICIAL city legislation that describes the city's current OFFICIAL crest which, in turn, depicts the Soviet Union awarded "Hero" decoration to the city.  For those who may be sight impaired, this Sevastopol Wiki page also quite clearly depicts in full color the city crest with the Soviet era "Hero" decoration prominently displayed.  In closing, Taivo, please explain your qualifications to assert authoritative editorial policy (that asserts an override on others' inputs) with regard to Soviet era decorations earned by the endeavors and accomplishments of Sevastopol's residents whose sons, daughters, and grandchildren still live there.Федоров (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The presence in the city crest is not relevant to a separate listing of the war-time decorations of a defunct power. The question is not whether the city's crest incorporates one of the decorations, but whether contemporary city leaders refer to the decorations in any positive way or use them in the city's promotions.  They don't, so the decorations are just historical trivia and not notable enough or contemporary enough for inclusion in the city template.  --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue in your one person quest as ultimate arbiter of this point. Yes, I am involved in studying Russia - also all of the other former parts of the Soviet Union.  Actually, I have also been to Sevastopol as guest of the authorities there.  On your identity page it says you do languages.  Need I remind you that we are talking about history and politics when we discuss the point in question.  This is not a semantic or etymological issue.  I take the city of Sevastopol's own determination of the importance of the Soviet era decoration into account.  This is not my personal assertion as are your points.Федоров (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As of this point you have taken no account whatsoever of the "city of Sevastopol's own determination of importance". You have simply shown that the decoration is on the city's coat of arms.  That is hardly an endorsement by the contemporary city leadership that these decorations mean anything whatsoever to them or to the people of Sevastopol.  You have provided no references and, actually, have made no assertions other than the coat of arms issue.  You have presented no proof of your assertions whatsoever.  I should also remind you that Wikipedia runs on consensus-building.  You have made no attempt here to build a consensus for your opinion that these decorations are anything more than historical trivia.  I should also remind you that if an editor self-edits his or her post before anyone responds to it, then it is not appropriate to address anything that they have edited out upon further reflection.  Respond to the post as it exists when you post, not as it existed before anyone responded.  I also remind you that Wikipedia doesn't operate on personal qualifications in this or that field, only on reliable sources.  It wouldn't matter if I were a plumber in Fairbanks; we edit anonymously without reference to personal qualifications.  By WP:BRD you edited, I reverted, now you must build a consensus for your addition.  That's the system.  --Taivo (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In follow your comments on "consensus" I count that at the moment your point of view is the minority by a factor of 3:1. Gnesner, myself, and Illythr are in favor of including the Soviet era awards.  By this measure YOU are the lone voice insisting that your edit outweighs those of three others.Федоров (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a problem counting, Fedorov. At this point, no one has expressed a view except for you and me.  And, I remind you, "consensus" is not a vote.  It is a "coming together".  --Taivo (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Economy Sevastopol hosts some other notable industries, such as "Phiolent" — Ukraine's largest power tools manufacturer. it is incorrect - Zavod ’Phiolent’ JSC located in Simferopol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Новиков Паве (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The colours used on the weather box
You may have noticed that two editors have been changing the colours on the weather boxes for Ukrainian cities for the past two months. There is a discussion of what colours they should be at Talk:Lviv. Please contribute, even if only to say that you don't care, but you just wish they would stop changing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing needed
Sevastopol merits a better article. An English speaker with knowledge of the topic should clean up what apparently are awkward, prolix translations from Russian or Ukrainian in various places. Sca (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but don't “throw out the baby with the bath water”. Not only good language, but good content too, is needful for Sebastopol -- А.Крымов (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

largest port
I doubt it very much. Ukraine's other large ports Yuzhne and Illichivsk are situated in spatious steppe limans (thus virtually endless) while Sevastopol is between mounts. Neither Panamax nor Suezmax visit Sevastopol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.72.233.80 (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, largest can be defined by number of other conditions, not necessarily the water depth in port. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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 15:47, 30 June 2005 (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 17:17, 30 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Aquar just was a tatar village, not related to Sevastopol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.58.251.5 (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2007‎ (UTC)

So-called "Mayor"
I don't think it is necessary to include Alexei Chaly in the infobox or anywhere in the article. His so-called "election" had no legal ramifications. It's the same as me declaring myself President of the World while a few thousand of my "compatriots" surround me and support me like cheerleaders. He does not even possess Ukrainian citizenship.. Regardless, Sevastopol does not even have the position of Mayor, since it is governed by the Ukrainian constitution and in accordance with its laws; it has a presidential appointee.  DDima 03:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Distinguish municipality from city in lede
As an English speaker reading this article for the first time, I think the lede should explain that Sevastopol (if I understand correctly) refers to both a municipal area and to a city within that area. I found this very confusing. The maps and lists of villages within the area indicate that the "municipal region" is larger than the city. But this is not explained until very far down in the article (e.g., geographical section), and it is never explained completely explicitly with an idea to dispel confusion of the first-time reader. I could try to introduce this clarity myself but since I am ignorant of nuances I might make mistakes. I suggest that someone who knows the topic well should introduce text into the lede, and perhaps other places, that makes it very clear that the word "Sevastopol" refers to both a larger "municipal" area as well as to a smaller city, and that the article is (it appears) the primary article about both of them. --Presearch (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can please explain why my correction of this nonsense /ˌsjivæˈstoʊpəlj/ pronunciation keeps being reverted? The pronunciation /ˌsjivæˈstoʊpəlj/ is not correct in Russian, Ukrainian or English. The source cited gives the pronunciation of the "Ukrainian and Russian name" as /sʲivaˈstopəlʲ/, which is clearly not an English pronunciation since it contains /a/, /o/ and secondary articulation, none of which feature in English phonology, it doesn't say /ˌsjivæˈstoʊpəlj/ anywhere and claiming that to be an alternative English pronunciation is original research and wrong. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree it is problematic. Merriam-Webster attests both stresses in English (stress on /væs/, stress on /stoʊ/ or /stɒ/); I hadn't added the latter before because the OED-cited transcription covered it "well enough"; but I am going to add it now, for the following reason. It is a thoroughly English-language-accent version (and thoroughly supported by RS) of the stress-on-/sto/ version, whereas the OED-cited transcription, as you said earlier when editing, is trying to "coach" English speakers into approximating the ru/ua pronunciations. Now, in fairness, that coaching is not horrible (I know your hackles are raised—you might reply "yes it is horrible!"—but bear with me); for example, if you hover over /sj/ and /lj/, it tells you /sj/ 's' as in 'suit' and /lj/ 'l' as in 'lute', which is not objectionable, although it means more to BrE than it does to Gen AmE because Gen AmE has yod-dropping. However, I agree the "coaching" transcription is problematic, because it tries to treat the first vowel as /i/ (which an English speaker would not do unless s/he was trying to imitate ru/ua) and tries to treat an unstressed vowel as /æ/ (which is the single biggest flaw of the "coaching" transcription, IMO, because the syllable is unstressed, and therefore not reducing that vowel to /ə/ or /ɨ/ would only happen if the person was ESL, overthinking/overlearning, having a minor brain/tongue "blip", or imitating ru/ae to the point of going outside normal stress and vowel reduction in English. It's pretty clear that the "coaches" chose it for the latter reason (to approximate ru/ua). But before anyone blasts that as an affectation, one must keep in mind that it is not all that horrible. If an English speaker is visiting a place, there is nothing wrong with tuning one's accent to help communicate there with less of a foreign accent. However, Wikipedia ledes are not about teaching English speakers how to imitate non-English accents., plus or minus yod-keeping /sj/ and /lj/, is the naturalized English homolog of the ru/ua pron; it is "the English way of saying the stress-on-/sto/ version." Which is why the "coaching" transcription should at least begin as /sjɛvə/ rather than /sjivæ/, even if one didn't change anything else about it. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts performed under claim of NPOV violation without explanation
On 19 March I performed a substantial change to the article's lead to reflect that Sevastopol is in dispute by Ukraine and Russia. The text added would reflect the following when including previous changes not performed by my person:

I provided references that clearly show the dispute, the accession, and the failure to recognize all this by the majority of the international community. I have also tried to discuss these changes with the person that performed the reverts but he chose to close the discussion on his talk page even though he initially requested that I engage him there rather than here.

These changes adhere to WP:NPOV as the policy states very clearly that, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." As it is now, the article fails NPOV as it states that, "Sevastopol is a Ukrainian city" when my changes state that it is a disputed territory claimed by Ukraine to be one thing while Russia claims another—regardless of what the majority of the international community thinks (which is also mentioned in the text I added).

As Wikipedians we must put our personal feelings aside and present stuff "as is". Right now no one can state that Sevastopol is a Ukrainian city. They can only claim but not make statements which is different.

So, having said all that, why exactly is the text I added being removed and reverted?

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No outside entity recognizes Russia's claim, so putting Russia's claim to the region on the same level as Ukraines universally recognized claim to the region violates WP:UNDUE which is part of WP:NPOV. It's neutral to discuss the fact that there is a dispute, but it's not neutral to make both "claims" on equal levels. JOJ  Hutton  19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would argue that outside recognition is not the only criterion that determines a claim's noteworthiness. The fact that the peninsula is de facto under control of Russia gives the claim a lot more weight. It doesn't seem right not to mention the situation when the territory is for all practical intents and purposes outside Ukraine's control. Ahnoneemoos' version may not be ideal in every aspect, but it's pretty darn good. Just my two rubles worth, anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014 ; 19:49 (UTC)
 * You are referring to WP:GEVAL which states pretty clearly that, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented [...]" However, Russia's claim is NOT a "minority" nor an "extraordinary" claim. It's a pretty big freaking deal when one of the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council claims a territory for itself. Evenmoreso when that member has the second largest nuclear stockpile in the world, has the third largest military expenditure in the world, and also happens to be the 8th largest country in the world by GDP. You have also failed to explain how does this violate WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV when this matter is backed up by reliable sources. Like I told you before in your own talk page as you requested: Wikipedia is a collaborative work, if you believe something to be NPOV or having undue weight then simply tag it with npov-inline or with undue-inline but performing full reverts as you are doing is not in the spirit of what we do here as Wikipedians. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some reliable sources that refute your claim:
 * The Wall Stret Journal: "Russian President Vladimir Putin moved to annex the breakaway Ukrainian region of Crimea but sought to reassure Ukrainians by saying Moscow has no further designs on its southern neighbor's territories." "Mr. Putin signed treaties formally annexing Crimea and the port city of Sevastopol, which has long had a separate administrative status."
 * UPI: "Russia's Constitutional Court recognized the treaty on Ukraine's breakaway Crimea's reunification with Russia, the court's chairman said Wednesday. Parliamentary approval was expected to quickly follow." " Crimea declared its independence and said it would seek reunification with Russia, which sent thousands of troops to the peninsula, despite Putin's denials."
 * Businessweek: "Ukraine said it would pull its military out of Crimea and fortify its eastern border with Russia as European leaders struggled to come up with a unified response to punish Vladimir Putin for annexing the breakaway Black Sea region ."
 * The Wall Street Journal: "A chorus of Western leaders railed against Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday for signing a treaty to annex the breakaway region of Crimea, but divisions immediately emerged in Europe over how to punish Moscow for the move."
 * Bloomberg via SFGate: "Ukraine ordered the removal of its military from Crimea and said it will strengthen its deployments on the country’s border with Russia a day after Vladimir Putin cemented his grip over the breakaway Black Sea region."
 * The Independent: "Events over the past weeks have highlighted Kiev’s impotence in this breakaway state now annexed by Russia ."
 * Time: " Its unilateral secession from Ukraine after a Sunday referendum and de facto annexation by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday drew the ire of Europe and the U.S. as well as the revolutionary government in Kiev, which Moscow refuses to recognize and which looked on impotently as Russian troops fanned out across the peninsula."
 * New York Post: "Ukraine made plans Wednesday to yank all its troops out of Crimea as Russian forces seized two more Ukrainian military bases in the disputed territory ."
 * The Wire: "Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council chief Andriy Parubiy announced the withdrawal plan Wednesday in the wake of the escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia over the disputed territory. "
 * This doesn't seem to be a "claim by Russia only" as you allege. Reliable sources from the USA and from the UK have established clearly that Crimea and Sevastopol broke away from Ukraine and that they were then annexed by Russia.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sevastpol and Crimea are recognised by Russia as being part of the russian federation(The largest country in the world,6th largest economy by PPP)it is also de-facto part of Russia(even before this controversy russia basically rented this city from Ukraine and had done since 1991). It is also recognised by Serbia and Syria as part of russia. It is also recognised as part of russia by numerous partially recognised states such as ,transnistria,abkazhia and so on. For the city to still be described as a ukranian city is not factual and I expect wikipedia to be a factual resource. Sevastpol is really a ukranian city? A ukranian city using russian roubles and on moscow time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Ukraine has recalled its ambassador in Armenia for consultations after Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian said Yerevan had recognised the referendum in Crimea, according to Interfax-Ukraine news agency.-Armenia has also recognised it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)