Talk:Sevastopol/Archive 2

Status change
The Sevastopol city council has unilaterally declared itself a federal subject of the Russian Federation today, in a separate development from AR Crimea choosing to hold a referendum on a similar subject. How should the article treat this? Should we say that the status of the city is now disputed? Kiralexis (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The city council's actions have no basis in international law, and by all accounts is still part of Ukraine (as does the Ukrainian Constitution specify). There needs to be a discussion in the near future as to what we will do with all of these articles, because by the looks of it, there will not be a fair referendum and Crimea will "vote to secede" from Ukraine. Thus begins a whole slew of vandals changing every instance of Ukraine to RUSSIA. I've been fending these off all day, but I'm sure the cyber attack will intensify.


 * We should look towards other topics of the sort (like Kosovo, which is still part of Serbia by their accounts, and Abkhazia, which is part of Georgia). Wikipedia should reflect that the status is disputed (as a "breakaway republic" from the majority internationally recognized boundaries of Ukraine), but in no way should we remove any mention to Ukraine regarding the legal status of Sevastopol, Crimea, and anything else under their jurisdiction. I suggest starting up a discussion on Talk:Crimea, because I'm almost positive it will be the subject of many edit wars, and lots of 3RR in the future. Let's solve this before it happens,  Facebook like thumb.png DDima 05:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The BBC news is reporting serbian president has recognised crimea as part of russia so the crimea is partially regonised by the international community as part of russia and russia is in de facto control the article should be changed ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Wikipedia generally leans toward de facto control, but we should follow the lead of what was done with Azawad places, or what is done with Abkhazia places. I've posted an example infobox here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm.. Never heard of Azawad. It gives me hope that Crimea will return one day :) Hopefully soon... Regardless, the infobox option you listed is much better than the status quo, which would be going back and forth between vandals and the like. However, before Russia takes any moves on Sevastopol and Crimea (within their own jurisdiction, and I mean by adding them to their state territory), this article, and the other Crimea-related geographical articles should remain for Ukraine. Hong Kong can vote to become a part of South Africa if it wanted to, but it still won't be a part of it unless South Africa recognizes it as that (just giving a fictitious example) Facebook like thumb.png DDima 08:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In my experience, in critical situations like this, vandals and POV-pushers are usually drawn to the infobox first (with the next favorite activity of theirs being wholesale replacement of "Country A" with "Country B"). There's not much that can be done with the latter (besides being vigilant, that is), but the first can be easily addressed by removing the infobox altogether (a consensus is needed for that, of course). Based on how things have been developing thus far, Crimea and Sevastopol are bound to end up in the perpetual state of limbo, when Russia claims them a part (and a federal subject) of Russia, and internationally they are not recognized as anything but a part of Ukraine. Juggling Russian/Ukrainian infoboxes, or discussing a third alternative in endless circles (along the lines of what's been happening at Talk:Soviet Union lately), isn't something anyone is eagerly looking forward, I presume? Same goes for all other populated places in Crimea&mdash;if the infoboxes are removed and the political situation is clearly explained in text, that should alleviate at least some of the disruption. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 12, 2014 ; 15:49 (UTC)
 * Sevastopol is a part of Ukraine. Do not change ststus to russian becaus it is false! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotterUA (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "false", but a sort of territorial dispute; see treaty on admission . Seryo93 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Objectivity obliges Wikipedia as being en encyclopedia not to assuming which country's law is right. On other pages at the Wikipedia about disputed areas the country which controlls it gets the label, for example: Arunachal Pradesh, Tawang District. It is also the most rational solution at any kind of encyclopedia not to comply with that what local or international law dictates, but the absolute physical characteristic. In this case maybe Ukraine, maybe Russia 'should' hold the label, but in reality it is the former for now. I understand it is quite a rare ocasion to see borders changing, so people don't have many opportunies to excercise their objectivism. So please consider keeping consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.154.186.151 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on neutrality in Crimea-related articles
CodeCat (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea partially recognised internationally as part of russia.
Serbia has recognised Crimea as part of Russia as reported by the BBC news crimea should now be regonised part of russia as russia has de facto control and has partial international recognition for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliehelyes (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Russia not yet recognises it as part of Russia... YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does as of today.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014 ; 17:28 (UTC)
 * No. Today Russia and Crimea signed a treaty. Now this treaty has to be ratified by the Parliament of Russia. Then a Russian law would be adopted admitting Crimea into Russia. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the Treaty in its entirety, you'll see that while it takes full effect upon ratification, it is applied in practice from the day it was signed (today).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014 ; 17:37 (UTC)
 * No. It says that the treaty would be applied retroactively. But it doesn't have any force until it is ratified and the law is passed. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not say that "it will be applied retroactively". It says, verbatim, "...временно применяется с даты подписания и вступает в силу с даты ратификации" (...is temporarily applied from the date of signing and takes effect on the date of ratification). In other words, for practical purposes the treaty is considered to be in force now, even as it must eventually be ratified to have full legal power. On a side note, Putin's minions are probably gathering right now as we speak, to ratify it ASAP :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014 ; 17:50 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. They said they'll ratify it and pass the law closer to the end of the week. Still, I don't really know how to deal with it. I think here we should emphacise on "takes effect", so officially it's still independant. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Takes effect" can be interpreted in different ways, I agree, but in absence of a source specifically dealing with this issue all we can do is guess. From what I've read in the news, it seems to be a general trend to regard the treaty as taking effect immediately pending ratification (and that, of course, is within the framework of Russian–Crimean relations, not on the international scale). And seeing how only two countries recognized Crimean independence in the first place, it's kind of moot to talk about the status being "officially independent". For all intents and purposes, it is internationally considered to still be a part of Ukraine. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014 ; 13:26 (UTC)

The majority of countries in the world do not recognise it as part of Russia - so it is for the time being a fringe viewpoint that the Crimea is part of Russia.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Possession is nine tenths of the law and Russia consider it to be part of Russia. And Russia is not a fringe state. Maybe it is not de jure but it is de facto Jack Bornholm (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Possession is nine tenths of the law"? In what law are we talking about? International law, or the law of the school yard? Its about sourcing, recognition and weight. Not "Finders, keepers" -- JOJ Hutton  02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have You been in Russia lately? And by the way, there is really no such a thing as international law, it is simply a work in progress accepted by some but not all nations. I take no side in this conflict. But refering to finders keepers the situation have some similarities to the Californian Republic of the summer of 1846. Back then it was California that was finders keepers. Jack Bornholm (talk)
 * I forgot. The law we are talking about is original an part of the Roman Law but the modern use is from the United States as far as I know, in the case Hatfield versus McCoy. It was an normal saying in middle age Europe. Dont know if there was any cases anywhere in Europe at that time where it was used, but I would be surprised if there is not. Jack Bornholm (talk)

Guys, lets create two papers: Sevastopol (Russia) and Sevastopol (Ukraine). Both of them will have links to another. Both of them will be editable. It will provide both sides to continue working on actual events. 46.39.249.161 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there two cities called Sevastopol now? CodeCat (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, and it is totally controled by Russia. But we should give Ukranians possibility to express themselves and describe future events of remote Sevastopol goverment (if it will be). There are two papers for Abkhazia in Russian. But yes it is only paper in English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia. Maybe yes, we should just mention about Ukraine and West. But if someone wants to create "Sevastopol (Ukraine)" we should allow him to do it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.249.161 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

De Facto vs De Jure
The entire argument can be explained as De Facto VS De Jure. While the US, EU, China, and everyone else may, De Jure, recognize that Crimea and Sevastopol are parts of Ukraine, none of them can deny that, De Facto, Russia has control over the area.

If you want to get things back to a neutral stance, you need to flat out bluntly spell that out in the intro. 198.96.35.90 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * De Jure the city is in both Ukraine and Russia according to their constitutions (positions of other countries have no formal consequences), while de facto the city is in Russia. Hence first country in the infobox should be "Russia (disputed)" and second "Ukraine". Debi07 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But at the same time, the city is "more de jure" in Ukraine because it has wider international recognition. It's not so clear-cut... CodeCat (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But what has more weight at wiki: de facto or de juro? Could somebody give a link please? 46.39.249.161 (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Twin cities?
After the Russian occupation of the Crimea, what happens in the relationship between the twin cities of Sevastopol in Russia (Moscow was not signed until March 18, 2014)? --SokoWiki (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 🇷🇺 Moscow (March 18, 2014)
 * 🇷🇺 Volgograd (November 19, 2013)
 * 🇷🇺 Saint Petersburg (2000)
 * 🇷🇺 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (2009)
 * 🇷🇺 Belgorod
 * Admission to RF doesn't affect twin-city status (because, by design and definition, it was always the city's prerogative to establish twin city relationships with other cities, not central gov't one). Seryo93 (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

New map within the Crimean peninsula
Check out this bad boy that the guys at the Graphics Lab/Map workshop did for us for free!



Make sure you say thanks to @Kelvinsong for this!

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice Jack Bornholm (talk)


 * Awesome. Totally in favor of adopting this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In favor of what? There is no proposal to add this anywhere. One may be bold and add it to the article some place if one wishes. There would be no need to propose bold edits, unless they are contentious. JOJ  Hutton  21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Current Situation
The lede does not describe who controls Sevastopol today. This should be addressed. Jd2718 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Two countries have competing claims, and the situation is adequately described further down in the intro. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It could at least be said that it's currently under Russian control? CodeCat (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * People don't talk enough about the victim in edit wars - the users of the encyclopedia. The opening requires close reading to understand. That's not right. Dense prose because editors disagree? Jd2718 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the prose could use some cleanup. It could probably be more clearly stated in the intro, although not in the lede, that Sevastopol is at least de facto controlled by Russia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the word is "occupied". This was the word used to describe the situation in various countries in 1939-45.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm no fan of Putin, but the Hitler comparisons seem just a tad hyperbolic. It's clear that while Russia militarily controls Crimea -- and I think the proper way to describe the presence of Russian troops between 26 February and 18 March is indeed "occupation" -- they enjoy a considerable element, probably constituting a majority (although I don't believe the referendum was a credible indicator), of popular support. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I will edit the opening of the lede, without changing the content, to make the current situation clearer. I'll disentangle that special status the city has within the peninsula from the current dispute. I will attempt to limit my work to style/clarity. Jd2718 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I traded "Black Sea" for "eastern Europe", and dropped the specifics of Sv'pol's special status in Ukraine (and Russia), while leaving mention that there is a special status. Other than that, I created one separate paragraph that says - internationally recognized as part of Ukraine - Russian soldiers are there - Ukrainian soldiers are not - dispute is ongoing. I hope this helps. Please work on improving it. Jd2718 (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks very good to me right now. Thank you for your edits. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Switch to Moscow Time
Crimea has switched to Moscow Time on 29 May, 2014, however that change is still no updated on the map of the Time in Europe. Can someone please update the map as soon as possible. 99.225.193.121 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bias in Crisis section
In the section on the 2014 crisis in Crimea does nothing to acknowledge the controversy over the legitimacy of the referendum, such as including the fact that the actual results of the vote were leaked later and show that the turnout was much lower and support of the referendum was not nearly as strong.

If this is seen as pro-West or biased, it is because the west is actually correct to doubt the legitimacy of Russia's democratic practices, given their track record of corruption. I only think it is in the best interests of the users of this encyclopedia to know that there is some major doubt about whether or not Crimeans truly wanted to join the Russian Federation.
 * Report was dealt with in Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014 (in short, it was neither Council report, nor absolutely correct). Either way, I'm going to mention, that official results are under high doubt. Seryo93 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

npov
Under the current political section it is not mentioned at all, that the parliament was under "armed occupation" (quoted from the article of the "de jure" prime minister of the Crimea)...

Therefore: Definitely very one sided view portrayed. 188.98.179.224 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Seryo93 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

POV in the opening paragraph
"In March of the same year, being an almost strictly Russian region (more than 90%) and wanting to be safe from the armed pro-Ukrainian extremists that terrorized other pro-Russian cities, Crimeans asked for a referendum to take place. Since all the commotion in Kiev had frightened the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and, at the same time, gave rise to a nationalist feeling, the Crimeans quickly voted to be annexed with the Russian Federation."

The efforts among many folks to fight the Ukraine/Russian Federation conflict on this Wikipedia page compromises the usefulness of this article. It should be clear to all that the sentences above, which are in the introductory paragraph, are (1)unsourced and (2)fail the neutrality test.

I am making substantial changes to this paragraph, hoping to restore this entry to what it should be - an article about a city, not an ideological tug of war for Wiki editors with incompatible politics.

Numberonealcove (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol is not internationally recognized as part of Ukraine
First, the resolution is non binding. Second, only a majority of countries voted for, not all countries did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously the aggressor country and its puppets did not vote for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukraine is the aggressor with Maidan and all.--207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)
 * I am laughing my rear off at that comment about "Ukraine is the aggressor". Are you on drugs, anon IP?  That comment clearly and unequivocally identified you as a putin-paid Russian troll.  There is no need to continue this thread any further.  --Taivo (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * China does not recognize Sevastopol as part of Ukraine, so there is no international recognition of Sevastopol as part of Ukraine as stated on the article.--206.126.83.126 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another of putin's Russian trolls makes his opinion known. --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. You're looking for the RT news comment section or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

1954 transfer of Crimea and Sevastopol: myths and facts
Section should be rewritten. It's not very informative about transfer itself. Almost exclusively represent opinion of one researcher. Why is dispute between Luzhkov and Lukiniuk so imporant that it occupies whole first two paragraphs? And date, procedures and actors of transfer are not even mentioned. Looks like crude WP:SOAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.223.200 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed most of this. It definitely violated WP:UNDUE and probably a few other Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian status line
Any reason to remove "federal city option" from infobox? AFAIK, it was a long-standing param (present since March), deleted without explaination on 20 December. See also this diff: "Undo for WP:NPOV concerns. Just paving over the dispute is a gross violation of Wikipedia's neutrality". --Seryo93 (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See also this discussion. --Seryo93 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion there. --Taivo (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Listing Order
Am I the only one who believes Russia should be listed first? The citizens of Sevastopol have wanted nothing to do with the Ukraine and Kiev has no control over the city. Further, Russia takes primacy alphabetically. Therefore, listing Russia before the Ukraine in all instances of their dual mention in this article (and one could argue, in all articles in this subject) is more typographically and editorially sound.

There is simply no reason beyond pro-Kiev sentiment to list the Ukraine first. Anybody care to change my view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.44.164 (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the same logic apply to Moscow? After all, France and Poland have both occupied Moscow in the same way as Russia occupied Sevastopol in 2014-15.  France and Poland take primacy alphabetically.  Someone could argue using your logic that France and Poland should be listed before Russia in all instances in the article on Moscow.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Except that France and Poland have no control over Moscow and Moscow's people have no overwhelming popular desire to make Moscow a part of either country. The comparison doesn't hold and listing the Ukraine first has therefore not been sufficiently challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.44.164 (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, there is no evidence of any "overwhelming desire". Even the Russian special forces troops that conducted the so-called Crimean referendum have described on Russian media how the vote was rigged by 1) preventing pro-Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar voters from reaching the polls, 2) by driving Russian voters from poll to poll to vote multiple times, 3) by determining the results beforehand, and 4) listing "Join Russia" and "Stay Independent" as the only options to vote for without a "Stay in Ukraine" option.  So your argument of "overwhelmingly support" is simply Russian propaganda.  Second, as with all such disputed territories, the invaders and occupiers are not given priority in Wikipedia.  The legal status of Crimea and Sevastopol is still as constituents of Ukraine.  Third, Crimea is still part of an active war zone and until there is a treaty or some other kind of emerging status quo vis a vis the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Wikipedia does not respond to every twist and turn of an active war.  Crimea is part of Ukraine for now with Russian invaders occupying Ukrainian sovereign territory.  Therefore de jure status takes precedence over the invasion force.  --Taivo (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Invasion? Dude, the Crimeans have wanted to be a part of Russia long before this. If you think the issue came out of nowhere, you must not have been following it. Have you even met a Crimean? They wanted this. They have wanted this since the fall of the Soviet Union. The will of the Crimean people should come before any consideration based on what Kiev wants and what international law says. I'm on my phone now, but I can find you tons of objective reporting later about how the majority of Crimeans are pleased with the way things developed. The Ukraine has no claim, and this "occupation" was a liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.174.170 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people who live in the Crimea are not Crimeans. Half the native Crimeans emigrated after the conclusion of the 1854-56 war; having been liberated by the French and the British they had no desire to live under Russian occupation again.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IP, you seem to be rather ignorant of Crimean history. Crimea is legally part of Ukraine and was invaded by Russia.  The Crimean Tatars, the native population of the place, certainly have no desire to be part of Russia since Russians have discriminated against them, deported them, stolen their land, destroyed their places of worship, arrested and executed their elders, etc. for centuries.  They are the only "Crimeans".  Russians in Crimea are nothing more than invaders, occupiers, oppressors, and bigots.  --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Legally part of the Ukraine due to Khrushchev transferring it over. And who are you to say that Russian Crimeans aren't real Crimeans? They were born there. It's their home. What, just since they aren't tartar they're somehow not really Crimean? And you call *me* ignorant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.174.170 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Khrushchev legally transferred it to Ukraine. Done deal.  Legally.  There was nothing legal about Russia's invasion and illegal claim to have annexed it from Ukraine.  Unless UKRAINE gives its legal stamp of approval to the transfer of ownership, then it is not legal.  And, yes, Crimea is Tatar land and the Tatars unanimously want to stay in Ukraine because of overt Russian oppression and discrimination.  The Russians have no title to Crimea--whether over Tatar land or over Ukrainian land.  --Taivo (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If Crimea is Tatar, it may as well be Greek. Oh, and England belongs to the Celts and the Ukraine to the Neanderthal man. Ethnic nativism is a slippery slope of reasoning and a faulty way to argue, buddy. The law is irrelevant. All that matters is what the people living in a place - who were born and make their homes there - want. I know the listing order won't be changed until Kiev inevitably rolls over and gives up, but Crimea doesn't want to live under the Ukraine. That is literally all that matters and that makes Russia right in this case.


 * Your "only tatars matter" nonsense is the kind of thing that leads to mass deportations and genocides of non-native ethnic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.44.164 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2015
 * I haven't said that "only Tatars matter", but they matter just as much, or more, than the Russian special forces who rigged the so-called "referendum". And the Ukrainians who live in Crimea matter, just as much, or more, than the illegal Russian invaders and occupiers.  And the law matters.  Your "might makes right" comment simply reveals that you are one of putin's paid trolls, who don't matter to Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Russia will not be listed first because there is no WP:CONSENSUS for it. That is all that matters. Your objections are irrelevant, as other editors on this page (who have actually bothered to create accounts, I might add) prefer to maintain the status quo of listing Ukraine (whose claim to the peninsula enjoys widespread international recognition) first in the infobox. Feel free to keep complaining about it, but don't expect the situation to change anytime soon. Perhaps we can revisit this if and when either Putin or the elected government of Ukraine concede their claim to the peninsula. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sevastopol during WW II
Section reflecting Sevastopol during WW II is very brief. Specifically the occupation period is not reflected at all. Information about outstanding occupational regime with mass extermination of prisoners and civilians and forced labour could be added, including demographical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovitalii (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Sevastopol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120301020947/http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/29585/print to http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/29585/print
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120301020957/http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/46037 to http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/46037
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150813122142/http://sevsovet.com.ua/index.php/2011-06-30-23-44-03/12395-na-sessii-gorodskogo-soveta-utverzhdeny-rezultaty-obshchekrymskogo-referenduma-16-marta-2014-goda to http://sevsovet.com.ua/index.php/2011-06-30-23-44-03/12395-na-sessii-gorodskogo-soveta-utverzhdeny-rezultaty-obshchekrymskogo-referenduma-16-marta-2014-goda

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015
Please change Sevastopol, Ukraine to Sevastopol, Russia as it belongs to Russia. Thanks

72.185.192.39 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Would be a contentious edit. Please discuss first.  Cannolis (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkish name
According to Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) an alternative foreign name can be present in the lead if it's "used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". Cleary not the case for Turkish. --78.84.54.139 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, also note that it was added just recently by a user who's been having fun by adding lots of irrelevant foreign names to various articles. --78.84.54.139 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks quite convincing to me. Any objections to removing Turkish name from the lead? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Turkish language "is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I must disagree, User:Toddy1. Crimea was never inhabited by Turks, but by (Crimean) Tatars.  While the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty over the peninsula, it was never occupied by Turks.  The Turkic occupation was by Tatars.  Thus, a Turkish name really isn't appropriate here.  The Tatar name, yes, but not the Turkish name.  --Taivo (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But something like half the tatar population left after the Crimean War. They had been liberated by the allies in 1854-56, and did not want to go back to living under Russian rule.  Their descendants speak Turkish and live in modern Turkey.  So Turkish "is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place".--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That simply doesn't count, Toddy1. Many German immigrants settled in Paraguay, so should the Spanish or Guarani name be listed for Germany as a matter of course?  Of course not.  Once a people leaves its homeland, any future languages they may speak are irrelevant to the naming of the homeland.  The plain English meaning of "group of people which used to inhabit this place" is the language they used "in that place", not any subsequent languages they may have learned in their travels.  Otherwise Pakistan must bear the name of every language in Europe and the Middle East because of the Romani and Domari who have migrated out of there.  Do you seriously want to see the Hungarian, Serbian, Vlach, Sinte, Greek, and Bulgarian names of Pakistan appear in the lead paragraph there?  Of course not.  The Turkic language that was actually spoken by a significant percentage of the people in Crimea was Crimean Tatar, not Turkish.  --Taivo (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Pointless images
Hi all. I deleted two images as they added nothing to the article and were not related to any of the text in the sections in which they were contained. I thought this would help improve the article but my change has just be reverte. So I ask, what do the images add to this article to justify their inclusion? Qaz1984 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you think the images are pointless. One shows the victory monument in relation to the people; this gives a good idea of its scale,etc. The other shows a patrol boat in front of what looks like an old-style masonry battery.  Both the boat and the battery are features of it being a naval base.--  Toddy1 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no problems with the images continuing where they are in the article. I just don't see that they relate to the sections they are in. Not a problem though - you obviously think they should be there, so fine. :) Qaz1984 (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sevastopol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311134846/http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/11_03_2014_1 to http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/11_03_2014_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nationality of the city (re in specific Demographic-section)
Given that the city is de-jure a part of Ukraine, as well as considered as such by the EU and most of the UN, I would argue that the sentence "The population of Sevastopol proper is 418,987 (01.01.16),[41] making it the 46th largest city in Russia and the largest in Crimea." under demographic is either partial or counter-factual, since it implicitly argues the city being a part of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.165.228 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sevastopol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211231807/http://sev.gov.ua/en/administr/ to http://sev.gov.ua/en/administr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What is right name of the city in English — Sebastopol or Sevastopol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.94.213.193 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sebastopol Oxford dictionary says English name is Sebastopol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.94.213.193 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
Right now the wording is like this:

"On 20 February 2014, Russian armed forces seized control of the Crimean peninsula."

This is technically correct, I have no objection here. However had, there is literally no context put onto it, such as the prior overthrow (and it was one) of the elected government. Considering the fact that secret agencies of every country may destabilize other countries - and we only have to look at history - I feel that the article as it is is NOT as neutral as it should be. It is fine to mention facts; but it is not fine to omit some facts in the wording and forget the context. IMO two arguments should be mentioned: first, the happenings preceding the actions of Russia; second, Russia's stance on NATO coming closer (and this was, IMO, the primary motife for the action since Russia did not want to be cut-off from its fleet and see US nukes stationed there - but the latter part is my own opinion; the articles on wikipedia should be as objective and neutral as possible and by omitting the prior context, there is an attempt to unilaterally shift all blame again on Russia, which the "mainstream" media are doing anyway. Note: I am NOT against the facts. I am just not seeing the neutrality as-is in the current wording of the main article). 2A02:8388:1641:8380:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with context is that these are recent events. If we were dealing with events 50 years ago, we would be able to look at books written by historians who had gone through Russian archives, etc.


 * So for now, which bits of context are relevant is a matter of opinion. Wikipedia policy on this is: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."


 * My understanding is that there was a shift in the Russian leadership's view of the world in 2007. They switched from emphasising increasing prosperity to Russia's place in the world. This suggests that the Western financial crisis of 2007–2008 was the key, and that Putin's team did not have their heads in the sand, unlike those in the West.  However unless you can find serious books or journal articles that spell this out, it cannot go in the article.  Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Section 2.5
Seems incredibly one-sided / biased. Like it was written by RT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarpez (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Error
"Crimea had been home to Germanic Goths until the 18th or 19th century" - obviously not! 146.90.249.143 (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

trolleybuses
there's 15 lines of TBuses, not 14 №№1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 10к, 11, 11а, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 76 and don't work 2, 8, 13, 22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Шахник (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Status
Why does this article treat this city as a disputed territory? That's a mistake! The city is territory under illegal Russian occupation under international law such as the Golan Heights, which are from Syria, but are illegally occupied by Israel. See: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 and Russian-occupied territories. Mawer10 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Ukraine claims it and most countries regard it as Ukrainian territory while Russia has control of it and also claims it? Therefore it is disputed territory as listed in list of territorial disputes. Mellk (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Initially I agreed with you, but after analyzing the list of territorial disputes I saw that it shows Golan Heights, Eastern Jerusalem and West Bank as disputed territory, despite international law I recognize them as under Israeli illegal occupation. At the same time, I have not found any sources that describe Sevastopol or Crimea as disputed but occupied territories. Therefore, with international law as the main reference, I believe that the article should emphasize the illegal Russian occupation, in the same way that it emphasizes the illegal Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and Palestinian territories. Mawer10 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Crimea is indeed shown as a disputed territory (which it is) in RS. Consider e.g. . Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. But the article should at least mention in the introduction that the Russian annexation of the city is illegal under international law. The way the article talks about Sevastopol makes the Russian annexation seem to have some legitimacy, when in fact it doesn't.
 * "Sevastopol, along with the rest of Crimea, is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine, and under the Ukrainian legal framework the city enjoys special status. However, de facto it is administered by Russia, which annexed Crimea in 2014 and regards Sevastopol as a federal city.". Emphasis mine. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The city has retained an ethnic Russian majority throughout its history.
The page does not contain any informations about demographic history of the city. Russian Empire did not have Ukrainian ethnicity. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Persecutions of the Tatar minority in Sevastopol

 * https://ctrcenter.org/en/news/7815-v-okupovanomu-krimu-89-osib-peresliduyutsya-u-spravi-hizb-ut-tahrir-krc
 * https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/russian-forces-targeting-ukrainians-tatars-in-crimea-council-of-europe/2615585

Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of a large amount of content from the infobox
@Cordyceps-Zombie Would you care to explain why you removed a large amount of content from the article? Simply listing facts about a place, such as a time zone, or providing information about the current government administration in that place, is not POV pushing, and your edits can be considered to be WP:VANDALISM as you are removing a large amount of content without a proper reason. Michael60634 (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Wolbo You are going to explain how it is POV pushing to include longstanding information in the infobox. Otherwise, I'll be undoing your WP:VANDALISM. Michael60634 (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)