Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I removed the phrase regarding water: Salgir is too small and polluted to be the water source. Anyway. it's not important - we don't usually specify where do cities get their water.AlexPU

Salgir is too small and polluted to be the water source.

O-la-la! Who told you this?! I've drunk water from Salgir many times, and I'm alive, you know. %))) And a half of the city is provided with Salgir water from the city's storage pond.

Don Alessandro 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is a water reservoir on the Salgir upstream of Simferopol, though I am not sure how much of the city's water comes from there. Jbhood 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Greek etymology of Symferopol maybe is partial wrong: The substantive "symferon" (Συμφερον)" ancient greek meaning is closer to advantage/profit/interest/benefit - anything is good to someone. See here (Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon) ^[1] b. in neut. as Subst., συμφέρον, οντος, τό, use, profit, advantage... Vardos (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Greek or Russian, but we need to be consistent with ourselves. We currently say:

The name comes from the Greek Sympheropolis (Greek: Συμφερόπολις), meaning city of common good. in the Etymology section, and The name Simferopol is in Greek, Συμφερόπολις (Simferopolis), and literally means "the city of usefulness." in the Russian Empire and Civil War section. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian is my mother tongue but it is nothing to help. We did not adopt any words of 'symf' root. Better ask Greek people. As far as I know Crimeans use 'usefulness' meaning, at least it is the literal translation of 'город пользы'. But 'pol'za' in Russian is not neutral term, it is very positive, more like 'beneficial'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:71FC:6800:69FD:9933:E987:DBAD (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On other pages at the Wikipedia about disputed areas the country which controlls it get 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 83.17.84.82 (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in Crimea-related articles

CodeCat (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit since I did not see any value (interchanging Russia and Ukraine), and it was immediately reverted without any explanation (no explanation was given for the orifinal edit either). If explanation is not forthcoming, I am going to bring the article back to the original state per WP:BRD.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response in a day, reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Simferopol. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1991/499101.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505040249/http://www.airport.crimea.ua/en/home.htm to http://www.airport.crimea.ua/en/home.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot

• Digital Valley (Tsifrovaya Dolina)

silicon industry, computers, wafers and microelectronics, it, other related. --~~ sameha

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Simferopol. 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/20090220104841/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=15.05.2008&rf7571=1186 to http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=15.05.2008&rf7571=1186
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220104859/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A007?rdat1=15.05.2008&rf7691=2477 to http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A007?rdat1=15.05.2008&rf7691=2477
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610082817/http://www.heidelberg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1123765_l1/index.html to http://www.heidelberg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1123765_l1/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During the past couple of weeks a few users (me included) have been edit warring on this page. Most disagreements seem to follow from the propriety of references to Russia's de facto control over the city and Crimea at-large. This edit war has led to some redundant passages such as the opening statement "Simferopol is [...] in Crimea, Ukraine. Simferopol [...] is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine". Ommitting Ukraine in the very first line, I think, made sense in the context of the entire paragraph, where the situation is explained. A similar issue arose in the section pertaining the 2014 referendum. Now we end up with two sentences about the international non-recognition of the results separated by a sentence on the city being named capital of a new Russian federal subject in Crimea. References in the infobox were also removed (federal subject within Russia, current [Russian] website of the city, etc.). I would like to point out that in similar cases of territorial disputes, such as the conflict in Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh, this information is displayed in the infobox (similarly, the wiki page about Stepanakert/Khankendi doesn't open with the line "Khankendi is a city in Khankendi district, Azerbaijan"). Even in cases such as Idlib, where the current occupiers do not demand seccession but merely aim to replace the current government, there's an entry on the infobox showing current control of the city with a wikilink to their corresponding Wikipedia page.

Summing up, I believe some of this edits negatively impacted on both the readability and the informative aspect of the page. With this in mind, I have changed a few things, which I hope will maintain the article neutral while remedying some of the failings I consider to exist. Of course, I could well be wrong. I would welcome feedback especially from user: Volunteer Marek and user:Dmytro91, but also from user:Mellk. Ostalgia (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Simferopol, Ukraine” or “city, country” is standard on Wikipedia. The “internationally recognized as part of Ukraine” is there for obvious reasons. This isn’t a “territorial dispute” - calling it that is a gross violation of NPOV and pushes Russian nationalist disinformation. It’s an occupation. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think not calling it a territorial dispute is violating NPOV and constitutes disinformation. We are supposed to reflect the fact that the annexation is not recognised internationally, which we are at present doing, but we are also supposed to show information that reflects the current, real, status of the territory, which does not mean condoning or supporting anything. Allow me to once again point you out to the example of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh - the fact that the territory is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan doesn't mean we can just pretend the [completely unrecognised] Republic of Artsakh doesn't exist, and that there's not an administration, a military, and a population there that are not only not Azeri but also beyond the control of Azerbaijan. However, if you ask an Azeri, they will most likely tell you that there is no dispute, that (quoting you) "it's an occupation".

I will not revert until I hear back from you. Ostalgia (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We ARE reflecting the current, real, status of the territory. It’s occupied. Per international law. I’m not going to comment on AA issues per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not, and you're violating NPOV in the process, first by deleting information that quite clearly reflects the reality on the ground, and then by your choice of language (see WP:NPOV, especially "Prefer nonjudgmental language" and "Words to watch").

The fact that it's a disputed territory should be self-evident and entirely uncontroversial, but it can additionally be surmised from its listing here, as well as from media coverage (see for instance [[1]]) and even academic studies (see [[2]]). Similarly, to refer to it as annexed and not merely occupied is not arbitrary but based on numerous sources from across the world and the political spectrum (see [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]]), not to mention the fact that the corresponding Wiki article is titled Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Now you may disagree with all of that, but in order to do so you would have to label Boris Johnson, the Independent, the WaPo, Anadolu Agency, Reuters, the Deutsche Welle and the Brookings Institution as Russian propagandists pushing (and I quote you once again) "Russian nationalist disinformation".

As for you dismissing comparisons per WP:OTHERSTUFF, allow me to quote from the article: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. [...] [C]omparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case." I pointed you to Stepanakert, classified as a Good article by Wiki standards, and the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh equivalent of Simferopol. Ostalgia (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly there is a difference between say Lviv and Simferopol. Crimea was annexed by Russia. Treating it as disputed territory I do not think is "Russian nationalist disinformation" and has been the practice on WP for the past 8 years. Otherwise this will require all Crimea, Russia, Ukraine articles to pretend otherwise. Consensus on this is clear despite attempt at mass changes and it needs to be consistent. Pro-Russian POV would be treating Crimea as rightfully reunited with Russia after totally legitimate referendum that reflected the will of people who wanted to escape tyranny of Kiev junta etc Mellk (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know how you think "illegal sham referendum" is more NPOV than the original, "unconstitutional referendum". Please explain, thank you. Pavlodon (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You JUST created this account a few minutes ago in order to edit war across multiple articles. Volunteer Marek 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia There is no consensus for such changes, to say that it is not a disputed territory. If consensus develops on the talk page for different wording, then sure. Mellk (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is “no consensus” for Russian nationalist irredentist POV which tries to pretend that these areas are part of Russia. Volunteer Marek 07:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]