# Talk:Annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire

The article says that the Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 171 years and ended in 1954. It's unsourced and utter original research. It's like saying that Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1954. Why were my changes reverted [1]? I honestly tried to fix it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not unsourced, nor is it original research. Nowhere does it say that "Ukraine annexed Crimea". It was transferred by the USSR central government from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR, which is what the article and sources says. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please provide a source for the statement that Russian rule lasted for 171 years and ended in 1954. And a source for the way the "annexations" are enumerated (1 and 2). According to WP:NOR, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought". --Moscow Connection (talk)
There are multiple sources cited in this article, as well as in the other annexation article, that provide the information you mention. Take the time to click on them, and all will be apparent. As for the number "171", that's an example of WP:CALC. The sources cited, such as this one, give the dates. Basic arithmetic is not considered WP:OR. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It is definitely original research to say when, as the article calls it, "Russian rule" ended. If there are no sources, the sentences are violation of WP:NOR and must be removed. By the way, the source you provided just says something about 1783, it doesn't say which month and which day it was. (And the source is very low quality for something historical like 1780s events.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please read the article, and actually click on the citations. There are a plethora of good quality book sources. The New Republic article clearly states that "Russian rule" ended in 1954 (and that it started in 1783). The Fisher text also makes this clear. WP:CALC allows for subtracting 1783 from 1954 to reach 171. The precise date of the first annexation is given as 19 April 1783 by the Anderson text, and others cited here. I'm not sure what you're going on about. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The source doesn't say "Russian rule" ended. Actually, it correctly states that the 1954 event "formally amounted to bureaucratic relabeling". (What I want to say is that this so-called Russian rule ended in 1991 and that Wikipedia shouldn't invent cute-looking numbers like 171. If no reliable source ever said "171", it's a good indication that it is something completely new that was invented by a Wikipedia editor.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The New Republic article says "Moscow forfeited the peninsula", &c. The Fisher text says that Crimea was "given to Ukraine" and "removed from the RSFSR", and "transferred to Ukrainian jurisdiction". Russian rule is not Soviet rule. The practical effects of the change are separate from the de jure transfer to Ukrainian jurisdiction and the end of Russian jurisdiction. Reliable sources do say 171. These sources do, and there are others that say so as well. Nothing here has been invented. Perhaps you have trouble reading English text? It is very clear in many of the texts cited here, not just the two I've discussed. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you have trouble reading English text? — see WP:PERSONAL."Moscow forfeited the peninsula" — it's just stupid and should be completely ignored as something said for effect and with the future developments in mind. USSR was ruled from Moscow, Moscow couldn't forfeit anything.I don't know what's clear to you from which sources. First you said "171" was a result of calculation, now you say reliable sources say "171", but you still haven't provided any. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"171" is WP:CALC, but the sources provide the dates. If the sources say Russian rule started in 1783 and ended in 1954, that means that there were 171 years of Russian rule. The sources do indeed say "171", by virtue of the dates they give. That's the whole point of WP:CALC. We are not going to defy logic here. The use of "Moscow" above is an example of synecdoche (pars pro toto, part representing the whole). The source quickly follows with "Russia was giving up Crimea", hence my inclusion of "&c." I don't need to provide any other sources, because the sources we have here are very clear. However, I will oblige you briefly. Here is a Washington Post article: "Russia gave it to Ukraine". Here is a book by Raphael Shen: "In 1954...Moscow transfered...Crimea from Russia to Ukraine's jurisdiction". What more do you want? RGloucester  — ☎ 21:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand what Moscow is an example of in the sentence. What I say is that at the time Moscow was the USSR, not just the RSFSR. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Moscow Connection, this has been discussed already on the Annexation of Crimea by the RF talk page. Unless you can find RS to indicate that the Russian SFR did not transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SFR, there is no argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the link, now I know who was the user who added the original number to Wikipedia. I really think it should be rediscussed... But I see... --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
My gut reaction was to respond in defence of the WP:CALC, but, on second thought, I think that's a bit oversimplified. I've replaced the 171 with "many years", as a vaguer figure seems more appropriate. The dates remain in the prose. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted to resolve this rather small issue by simply stating that it, along with Ukraine, remained within the USSR until Ukrainian independence. Hope it helps. Nuke (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Not necessary, as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is already mentioned and linked... RGloucester  — ☎ 02:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn’t check the talk page before making a related edit, that was reverted by User:Seryo93, with the comment “Russian means inclusion into Russia. Ottoman Empire, to which Crimean Khanate was formerly dependent, is also "Imperial".”
The current text is factually wrong, because the Crimea wasn’t “ruled by Russia” from 1783 to 1954. “Russian rule” doesn’t mean “inclusion into Russia,” it means rule by the Russian state or by Russians. The Crimea was first ruled by a Russian puppet government (1776–83), then the Russian empire, then fought over and occupied by several factions, including brief self-rule by more than one entity, and finally became part of Bolshevik Russia, which had no political nor legal succession at all from the Holstein-Gottorps’ empire. Then in 1922, the RSFSR joined the Soviet Union and the Crimea was no longer under Russian rule, but international Soviet rule. Its rule did not change in 1954, because the Russian republic didn’t have rulers nor rule anything (it didn’t even have its own supreme soviet, being ruled by the all-union one. Both Ukraine and Russia were ruled from Moscow, by the government of the Soviet state.
I am happy to discuss improvements to the language, but I am restoring my change for now. —Michael Z. 2018-02-25 23:35 z

WP:STATUSQUO says, that "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.". Furthermore, you seem to be wrong on many parts, Soviet Russia (even after 1922) had its own organs, including "legislative" ones (namely, Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR for 1938—1991 period, All-Russian Congress of Soviets and VTsIK before that), although they, like all-Union ones, were rubber-stamping bodies until perestroika and downfall of the USSR. Second, even in the USSR framework Crimea wasn't under "international Soviet rule", that is, a union republic status. In 1921–1945 Crimea was the Crimean Autonomous SSR within the Russian Federation (RSFSR), in 1945–1954 it was Crimean oblast within the RSFSR, in 1945–1991 it was Crimean oblast within Ukrainian SSR, and briefly in 1991 it was Crimean ASSR within Ukrainian SSR. Never it was "on equal footing" with Russia or Ukriane, it was either part of Soviet Russia or part of Soviet Ukraine. Since sources (as it was stated above) link termination of the Russian rule to 1954, so we can say the same. So yes, Crimea was for many years part of the Russian polity — of Imperial Russia (1783–1917) and of Soviet Russia (1921–1954). And yes, concern about "ruled by Russia from 1783 to 1954" is already addressed by removal of the WP:CALC figure of "171 years" (see also this talk). So, I restore the consensus version. --Seryo93 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for quoting the second sentence of WP:QUO. How did you miss the first sentence?: “If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.”
You say I’m wrong, but your justifications are wrong. Having organs, or a rubber stamp, or being “part of the Russian polity” is not “Russian rule,” and your byzantine wording seems to indicate you’re aware of it.
Nothing in the Soviet Union was ever under “Russian rule,” any more than it was under Ukrainian rule or Georgian rule.
But okay. I will improve the wording. —Michael Z. 2018-02-26 20:09 z
Word Russian, unlike Russian language (where exists clean distinction, between Russian in ethnic sense (русский, russkiy) and Russian in sense of "related to Russia" (российский, rossiyskiy), has, aside language, two meanings, ethnicity-related and Russia-related. When we talk about, say, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, we talk, foremost, about intervention by Russia as a state, regardless of which ethnicity one or another "Russian" combatant/participant in it has. So, it is pretty correct to say about Russian rule as long as we consider it as a "rule by Russia", be it rule by the Russian Empire or by Soviet Russia. "Russian" here means rossiyskiy (related to Russia, not necessary its modern form), not ethnicity. A clarification can be indeed made, however. --Seryo93 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I can’t make sense of your argument. The Soviet state and Soviet citizens ruled Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etcetera, from 1922. The Russian republic and Russians did not rule the Soviet state. In 1991, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine decided to leave Soviet rule and dissolve the Soviet Union. —Michael Z. 2018-02-27 15:45 z'’
I’ve updated the intro with a summary of the history 1783 to 2014 pulled out of the reference template. —Michael Z. 2018-02-27 16:55 z

Following a discussion which has occurred on my talk page, I would like to solicit other opinions. It is my view, and in line with the stylistic choices on the main articles related to this topic such as Ukraine, that unnecessary use of the definite article with respect to "Ukraine" ought to be avoided wherever possible due to the contentious nature of its inclusion.
However, 675930s (talk · contribs) argues that "the newly independent Ukraine", "sounds nicer", and has gone so far as to insinuate that English is not my first language and that I'm just being emotional. I believe that a higher standard than aesthetics ought to be applied given the contentious nature of the wording, and the fact that the definite article is being applied to "Ukraine." Seeing as how a productive conversation with this editor appears not possible given what has occurred on my talk page, I'd like other editors' opinions on the matter so that a consensus may be reached. Thank you. Kakurokuna (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey everybody, I very much recommend you read Kakurokuna's talk page as our arguments have been made in more detail.
In summary, my case is that "the independent Ukraine" is a natural English construction of DEF+ADJ+NOUN that is also seen in "the newly independent Finland" – it does not imply that the name of the state is "the Finland". It is not even possible to express implications of "the Finland" with the DEF+ADJ+NOUN structure as the independence era of Ukraine/Finland's newfound independence are definite. Furthermore, Kakurokuna has yet to support their argument with another example of DEF+ADJ+NOUN being an incorrect structure.
Consider the disputed sentence:
After changing hands several times during the Russian Civil War, Crimea was part of the Russian SFSR from 1921, and then was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, which became independent Ukraine in 1991.
Which Ukraine is being referred to at the end of this sentence? If the answer to the question could possibly be "the independent one", I rest my case. 675930s (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Southern part of Crimea (including modern Sevastopol, Yalta etc) was formally part of the Ottoman Empire itself, and not the Crimean Khanate. And this part was annexed by the Russian Empire as well. The last move on the one hand expanded the scope of the article, but on the other hand, reduced it. @Mzajac Caenus (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Earlier the entire Khanate belonged the Ottoman Empire, didn’t it? Forcing the Khanate’s “independence” was part of the process of annexation (a recurring theme). Near the bottom of the article we learn that “Later that year, the Ottoman Empire signed an agreement with Russia that recognised the loss of Crimea and other territories that had been held by the Khanate.”
These are all details that don’t need to be reflected in the title, because fortunately there is a whole article about them. I still feel the move was an improvement. —Michael Z. 17:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The Khanate was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. But the southern part of Crimea was never part of the Khanate, and was directly ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Caenus (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I warned about this problem when the proposal to adopt the current title was made. The scope of this article as it was created is and always has been the "annexation of Crimea", not the khanate. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, I was able to confirm that these directly-ruled territories (Kefe Eyalet) were incorporated into the Khanate with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774. Therefore, the present title remains valid (if still distasteful for other reasons). This content has been incorporated into the article, citations included. RGloucester  — ☎ 08:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.
voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire → 1783 Russian annexation of Crimea1783 Russian annexation of Crimea – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:CONCISE and WP:NCWWW. My proposal of this move was spurred on by the recent move of 'Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation' to Russian annexation of Crimea. When this article was created, its title was 'Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire', for parity with that article. Now that the other article has been moved, it does not make sense to retain this cumbersome title. Per WP:CONSISTENT, the two articles should use a consistent format, preferably the one specified by WP:NCWWW, hence my proposal for 1783 Russian annexation of Crimea.
My proposed simplification from 'Crimean Khanate' to 'Crimea' is based on both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. In reliable sources, the current title is almost never used, and is overly precise. An Ngram shows that this event has always been called the 'Annexation of Crimea' in scholarship, not the 'Annexation of the Crimean Khanate'. Furthermore, the two seminal sources on this subject, which are used in this article, are Fisher's The Russian Annexation of the Crimea 1772–1783 and O'Neill's Claiming Crimea: A History of Catherine the Great's Southern Empire. Wikipedia should follow reliable scholarship in using the common and most recognisable name, which is also the most natural. Given that it is used by the vast majority of reliable sources, this shorter title clearly contains sufficient information to identify the subject, and should be preferred per WP:CONCISE.Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Support - per the mentioned above. x2step (lets talk 💌) 06:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom. In the previous discussion, there was a lot of talk about precision. But the issue is that in 1783, Russia annexed not only Crimea, but also part of the Kuban. Although the latter was a part of the Crimean Khanate, this inclusion was mostly a formality forced by the Russians: In late August [1772], Catherine changed her mind on Nogay independence and instructed Shcherbinin, still in charge of Nogay affairs, to influence the hordes to submit to Sahip Giray. She recognized the difficulties involved in denying the Nogays the independence already given to them, and which they had shown so much enthusiasm in accepting The inclusion of the Crimean Khanate in the title obscures this point, creating the impression that Crimean Tatar rule over Nogais wasn't questionable. So, putting the Crimean Khanate in the title doesn't properly address precision issues, and other principles should be determinative. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per WP:CONCISE Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Other article should never have been moved. I don't care how they are named, but the more recent one is not PT for any ambiguous title. Srnec (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you, WP:RECENTISM is quite popular on Wikipedia these days. The only way to fix that problem would be to make another RM at that page. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 11:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Strongly opposed. Changing the name from a more correct one to an erroneous and misleading one makes no sense. The Crimean Khanate was annexed in its entirety (the entire territory, not just the Crimean Peninsula itself). The Crimean Khanate, in addition to Crimea itself, as of 1770-1780th included vast territories, such as parts of today's southern and eastern Ukraine, as well as Taman and Kuban. If the problem is that the title is "too detailed," I suggest using the title Annexation of the Crimean Khanate (I think that's sufficient, since such an event only happened once).And if we use Ngram, then let's use it this way. It shows that the frequency of use of Annexation of the Crimean Khanate is comparable to the proposed name. Especially considering that the proposed formulation could theoretically be used as a forecast until 2014.Devlet Geray (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, if you want to use this misleading name for the article. Then it will make sense to create different articles on topic such as 1783 Russian annexation of Kuban, 1783 Russian annexation of Taman, 1783 Russian annexation of Yedichkul and Yemboyluk, 1791 Russian annexation of Yedisan etc. Or maybe 1783 Russian annexation of continental territories of the Crimean Khanate. Devlet Geray (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
This is an example of over-precision not found in sources. 'Crimea' was and is used as a name for the khanate. Wikipedia is supposed to follow reliable sources. If Fisher's history, which is the seminal book on this subject, and the primary source used in the article, uses Crimea to refer this event, clearly 'Crimea' is sufficiently precise to identify the subject. Wikipedia is supposed to follow reliable sources, not come up with its own idea of whether a title is 'misleading'. Your Ngram is also incorrect. Please see the correct Ngram. The common name is clearly "annexation of Crimea". Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Your ngram is incorrect + misleading. As Annexation of Crimea may reffer to different events in history (such as German desire to annex Crimea in WW2 (Gotenland project), German annexation of Crimea as a result of Brest-Litovsk treaty, Soviet annexation of Crimea during the Russian Civil War etc + as a forecast for what may happen in the future. My ngram is more precise in fact. Crimea referred to the khanate as a whole being the political center of it may be right (like using Moscow instead of Russia in diplomatic lexicon, Bruxels instead of European Union etc.), but not in the case when we have to reffer to the whole territory of the state not to the part of it. I will propose using Annexation of the Crimean Khanate or leave the current variant as the precise one Devlet Geray (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Repeating the previous closure resume: The driving question is "what was annexed in this event"? There is a consensus over here that the Khanate in general was annexed, not just Crimea itself. Devlet Geray (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Your Ngram is not a fair comparison. If you want to compare titles with 'Russian' in them, you will see that 'Crimean Khanate' doesn't appear in sources at all. There is no evidence that 'annexation of Crimea' ever refers to anything other than the two Russian annexations. Look at the sources in the Ngram. This is a completely spurious claim and not how Wikipedia determines whether a title is sufficiently recognisable to be suitable as an article title. Again, we follow reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME, and titles need only be precise enough to identify the subject, per WP:CONCISE. I object to any title with 'Crimean Khanate' in the name, as being out of line with the vast majority of reliable sources, inconsistent with the other article at Russian annexation of Crimea, and less natural for any reader of this article.
As pointed out above, 'Crimean Khanate' is not even valid as a precise title in this instance because the Kuban, for instance, was de facto separate from the Khanate long before 1783. Then consider that the southern part of the Crimean Peninsula (Kefe Eyalet) itself was not even part of the Khanate until the Russian intervention described in this article. Your attempt to place a straitjacket on this article that is not found in reliable sources is basically WP:OR.
Consider, for instance, the 2014 annexation. In actual fact, Russia annexed two separate political entities, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and Sevastopol, which was administered separately as a city with special status. However, the article title is Russian annexation of Crimea, not 'Russian annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol', because 'annexation of Crimea' is the common name, and per WP:CONCISE, sufficient to identify the subject even though it is not precisely 'correct'. The same reasoning applies here. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
separate from the Khanate long before 1783 and this one is just a lie to say the least. Of course annexation of the Crimean Khanate was not a "one day event" it started at least with the start of Russo-Turkish war in 1768 and finished in 1791 with the annexation of Yedisan (and the current name by the way doesn't state one year - 1783. It is your names states the year, so you arguments for removal lacks any evidence). Since minimum 1768 part by part Russia took control over all the territories of the Crimean Khanate. For instance, under the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca Russia annexed town of Kerch and Enikale, these are towns exactly in Crimea. It was in 1774. According to your logic, the name 1783 Russian annexation of Crimea would be wrong (as not all Crimea was annexed in 1783). Then maybe start naming town by town? Or name it Russian annexation of Bağçasaray (as a capital)? Some other parts of the Crimean Khanate were annexed under this treaty in 1774 too - for example, the part of the Azov sea shore (where modern day Mariupol situated in). In 1791 Russia took control over Yedisan, which was part of Crimean Khanate when it existed. The Manifesto of Catherine II declares the territories officially annexed by Russia in 1783, namely Crimea (previously, Crimea, and then Taurida, could also be understood broadly as the territories of southern Ukraine and Crimea), Kuban and Taman (they have already been occupied by Russian troops by then, and of course by 1783 Crimean Khans had controlled nothing except for their palace, though I doubt it too, and no control of Kuban or even steppe Crimea can be talked about - the thing is in 1783 Russia made it formal - published an act that marked the annexation of territories that previously belonged to the Crimean Khanate to Russia, this act surely was not limited to Crimea - read it). So what I mean is that the khanate as a subject existed exactly until 1783, when the final chord in its history was the manifesto of Catherine II. The signing of manifesto should not be mistaken for the process as a whole. See the territories of the Crimean Khanate here https://old.bigenc.ru/domestic_history/text/3892808 or use other appropriate source.
Then consider that the southern part of the Crimean Peninsula (Kefe Eyalet) - as of 1783 and since 1774 it was part of the Khanate in fact and was annexed as a part of the Khanate, so the current name is absolutely appropriate. Devlet Geray (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
If due to some misunderstanding your move is still going to take place, I will definitely create an article 1783 Russian annexation of Kuban as an important hstorical event. And then all the other territories annexed from 1768 to 1791 one by one, united after all in the article dedicated entirely to the annexation of the Crimean Khanate. Be sure I find enough relevant sources to describe this important event, so the history won't be hidden under vague names like proposed anyway. This is the absurdity that would result from accepting the logic of the renaming proponents. But is there any point in creating entities by artificially narrowing the topic of this article? This is a question that you, who want to rename the article, should answer for yourselves. Devlet Geray (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Your argument about using a specific title in the sources used in the article also has nothing to do with Wikipedia's rules. Nowhere does it say that articles can only be written based on sources that use the specific title used in the Wikipedia article title. Even your unfair Ngram statistics shows that the name "Annexation of the Crimean Khanate" is widely used in scientific papers too, although being absolutely limited to one particular event in the history of humankind (as opposed to the alternative name) Devlet Geray (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
How can the annexation of Yedisan be considered an annexation of the Crimean Khanate? At the time of Yedisan's annexation, the khanate had long ceased to exist. Your argument does not make any sense.
I agree that the formal proclamation is less relevant than the broader process of annexation, which how the article is written. Indeed, that is how the major sources that document this event describe the situation. However, Wikipedia should not create original historiographies of events, nor original titling. You have still failed to address the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources use the term 'Crimea' to address these events. We should follow reliable sources, per the basic policy of WP:V, the article titles' policy of WP:AT, and WP:NCWWW. You are concerned with whether the proposed title, or even the present title, is wrong or right; what I was trying to explain to you is that it doesn't matter, because Wikipedia relies on WP:RS to make such determinations. If RS do not hesitate to use what may be a less precise title, Wikipedia need not hesitate either. This applies for both the 2014 annexation, as I wrote above, and the 1783 annexation.
If events like the annexation of Kuban are independently notable, as per Wikipedia's policy, there is nothing wrong with creating new articles about them, regardless of the present title of this article. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Yedisan and Budzhak were the territories ruled together by Ottoman Sultanes and Crimean Khans. It's right that the history of core Crimean Khanate with its capital in Crimea finished in 1783 with Ekaterina's manifesto, still Crimean Khans kept ruling Budzhak and Yedisan (claiming power over the entire Crimean Khanate) until Yedisan was annexed by Russia too (see Şahbaz Geray (1787-1789), Baht Geray (1789-1792)), and the Ottoman Empire under the 1791 treaty was made to accept the annexation of the Crimean Khanate, so formally the process of annexing Crimean Khanate finished only then. The signing of the Treaty of Jassy can be considered the end of the history of the Crimean Khanate.
You also haven't answered how your appeal to accuracy correlates with the fact that the Crimean city of Kerch (directly in Crimea) and the Crimean fortress of Yenikale (directly in Crimea) were annexed in 1774, and not in 1783.
Also, it is you, who are making a new claim, have the burden of proof that authoritative sources prefer this title (especially when using the most current works, not those from 40 years ago, when the most important annexation of Crimea actually only happened once, and there could be no double understanding).
As for the most recent papers, for instance:
Celik, Nihat, The Ottomans and International Law: The Russian Annexation of the Crimean Khanate in 1783 in the Light of the Documents from the Ottoman Archives (May 31, 2024). Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5031757
Deynikov R. T. Osnovnye etapy i hronologicheskie ramki istorii prisoedineniya Krymskogo hanstva k Rossii [The main stages and chronological scope of history of the annexation of the Crimean Khanate to Russia]. Put’ na pol’zu: K 225-letiyu puteshestviya Ekateriny Velikoj v Novorossiyu i Krym [A Way to Benefi t: To the 225th anniversary of the journey of Catherine the Great to Novorossia and the Crimea]. Moskov, 2012, pp. 8–54.
Vinogradov B.V., Priymak Yu.V. (2016). Jenopoliticheskaja situacija na Severnom Kavkaze v kontekste prisoedinenija k Rossii Krymskogo hanstva (1772–1829 gg.). [The ethnopolitical situation in the North Caucasus in the context of the annexation of the Crimean Khanate to Russia (1772-1829)]. Armavir, 2016. 186 p. [in Russian].
J. Otto Pohl also uses annexation of the Crimean Khanate: process that started under Tsarist rule following the annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire in 1783. - International Crimes and History, 2015, Issue: 16
etc. A brief review of the literature shows that there is no clear preference in favor of the more dubois name.
I would also remind you that the name Russian annexation of Crimea is simply grammatically incorrect. For the reason that in relation to the Crimea it is necessary to use the definite article. Devlet Geray (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
No definite article is required. The definite article before 'Crimea' has not been standard in English for decades.
Again, I have made no appeal to 'accuracy', I have made an appeal to our article title criteria at WP:AT. My point was that your pursuit of accuracy is not accurate at all, and misguided, because use in reliable sources determines how accurate any given title should be.
We already know that 'annexation of the Crimean Khanate' is used occasionally, per the Ngram. We also know that the name 'annexation of Crimea' is many times more common for this event, per Google Scholar, which returns 406 hits for 'annexation of Crimea' (prior to 2014, and none of these refer to anything other than the Russian annexation), versus a mere 44 for 'annexation of the Crimean Khanate'. The basic principle of WP:COMMONAME applies, but there is also the point about being WP:CONSISTENT with Russian annexation of Crimea, and WP:CONCISE, which says that article titles should be no more precise than needed to identify the subject. If your argument were actually based on the WP:AT, then maybe we'd actually get somewhere. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
ok. Per WP:CRITERIA:
Recognizability
Annexation of the Crimean Khanate: title is recognizable to anyone, the Crimean Khanate is a well-defined historical entity (one of the most important states in Eastern Europe), and its annexation is a significant event, this phrase is used in academic papers and historical literature
1783 Russian annexation of Crimea: is unrecognizable (what event are we talking about annexing of Crimea as part of Crimean Khanate, separating this event from the annexation of Kuban, Taman, Dzhamboiluk, Yedisan, Yedichkul and Budzhak; annexation of Crimea by soviets in 1920 (Siege of Perekop (1920)) or some other event?), this name is more generic and primarily brings to mind the geographic act of seizing the peninsula, not the political act of dismantling a state. Yes, in 16, 17, 18th century more often than not Crimea = Crimean Khanate, but now in 2025 when people say Crimea out of context they absolutely do not mean Crimean Khanate
Naturalness
1783 Russian annexation of Crimea is less natural because the whole process being described, which includes treaties in 1774 and 1791, and 1783 manifesto, it feels less natural and more artificially constrained to a single year and location
The current name doesn't have this issue, as it describes the fate of a specific political body not limited to just one year or even day.
Precision
Annexation of the Crimean Khanate: this title is highly precise, as it unambiguously refers to the specific historical process (c. 1768-1791) by which the Russian Empire annexed the territories of the Crimean Khanate. It correctly identifies the subject as a state, not just a piece of land
the proposed title is instead higly impresise due to following facts: 1) it ignores the earlier annexations of Kerch and Enikale (1774) and the later annexation of Yedisan (1791) etc, which were all part of the same geopolitical process of dismantling the Khanate. 2) It is geographically imprecise because it excludes the Kuban, Taman, and other territories of the Khanate that were annexed but are not on the Crimean Peninsula. 3) it is politically imprecise because it reduces the conquest of a sovereign Khanate to the seizure of its most famous territory (it is also connected with the violation of the peace treaty of 1774, by which Russia guaranteed the independence of the Crimean Khanate).
Concision
Annexation of the Crimean Khanate is concise enough to achieve precision, conciseness is secondary to recognizability and precision. And a proposed by me name Annexation of the Crimean Khanate is even more concise than the "1783 Russian annexation of Crimea" which is not only misleading but also too long and unnatural (starting with numbers)
conciseness of the alternative title is achieved by omitting critical information, making the title less precise
Consistency
Violating the long-term consensus (decade-old) in a parallel article about the 2014 event does not change anything in the matter of consistency
Devlet Geray (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
alternative the article title is Russian annexation of Crimea, not 'Russian annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol doesn't work here because annexation of Crimea is what happened in 2014. Geographical Crimea included then two political entities: Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. In 18th century the situation was completely different, and not only geographical Crimea was annexed but vast territories outside of it too Devlet Geray (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose.  The article is about the Crimean Khanate, not the peninsula of Crimea.  Walrasiad (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I wrote the article. When I wrote it, I can tell you that I wrote about 'Crimea', as defined in the sources I used, such as Fisher and Jekutsch.  Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you.  But Wikipedia readers have to to be able to distinguish the state from the peninsula by the title alone. I don't think "1783" alone is sufficient to indicate it refers to the Khanate and not the peninsula. If anything, the peninsula will be their first thought.  Or are you also proposing to re-direct "Crimea" to Crimean Khanate? Walrasiad (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
It does refer to the peninsula. What makes you think it doesn't? It is possible for words to have multiple meanings at the same time. Wikipedia readers have no need to distinguish the state from peninsula, any more than they need to distinguish the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (which is not coterminous with the peninsula) from the peninsula, vis-à-vis the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. For many years on Wikipedia, Crimea redirected to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, see some ancient history. What readers need is a recognisable title, i.e. the one used in reliable sources.Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 08:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
This article is about the annexation of the khanate, not the peninsula. Current title is more correctly informative of its content.  The Crimean khanate existed for many centuries and has its own history and significance. It is not merely a geographical footnote about Russian borders.  "Crimean khanate" in the title informs is it about the state. "Crimea" makes it seem this is merely about Russian geography.   Walrasiad (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
So, you do not agree that the khanate was and is called Crimea? Or that its native name is Crimea? Another source cited in the article, Anderson: In 1774...Russia and the Ottoman empire had agreed to recognise Crimea as an independent state. Why can't we follow reliable sources? Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Again, are you also proposing to re-direct "Crimea" to Crimean Khanate?  Because that's not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Crimea". Walrasiad (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
But we can say that Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 without redirecting Crimea to Republic of Crimea or Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
yeah, that's because Sevastopol as a different political entity but a part of geographical Crimea was also annexed in 2014 Devlet Geray (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
But in 2014 Russia didn't completely annex geographic Crimea, Arabat Spit remained under Ukraine. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
no it didn't, the biggest part of it was annexed. A small northern part of the Arabat spit was part of Kherson oblast that's why it wasn't annexed. And this argument related to a different article still does not justify making the title of this article less precise and specific. Devlet Geray (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The point is that, strictly speaking, it is incorrect to say that Russia annexed Crimea; or that Russia annexed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea; or that the Russian Empire annexed Crimea; or that the Russian Empire annexed the Crimean Khanate. To resolve this, we should follow the sources, like it is already done in the article on the 2014 annexation. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 is absolutely correct as well as saying that the Russian Empire annexed the Crimean Khanate is also abolutley correct. Where did you find that it's incorrect? Devlet Geray (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose  Although not supported by maps, it appears that what was annexed was more than the Crimerean Penninsula. IMHO that makes the current title not just more technically correct, but more accurate.  The need to add the year to the suggested title ilustrates the complexity of distiguishing the various times the Crimerean Peninsula has changed hands. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The question is not, 'what was annexed?', but 'what do reliable sources call this event?' Wikipedia names articles based on WP:COMMONNAME. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Ottoman Empire, WikiProject Ukraine, and WikiProject Russia have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
How about 1783 Russian annexation of the Crimean Khanate? A little slimmer. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
I oppose this, again, as being out of line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT, unless we are going to change Russian annexation of Crimea to Russian annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. The goal is not to 'slim' the title, but to render it in line with reliable sources per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Support / Comment: Overprecise and uncommon name. Given some comments above, I would also support Russian annexation of the Crimean Khanate as an alternative, though I still prefer the 1783 one (current proposal) if given a choice. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Devlet Geray: Why are you disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT? The lead section should not contain original information, per WP:LEAD, nor should it contain citations per WP:LEADCITE. If you are going to include a citation, it must have a page number. The lead should not have a one-sentence paragraph, either. The language needs to be neutral per WP:NPOV. Now, we have a lead tagged with a warning template because, why?
I have gone through the whole Vardys source. It does not even mention the time period discussed in this article, and is focused primarily on the Soviet deportation. Clearly, this does not support the text that you say it does. Please provide a direct quotation.
I have also gone through Potichnyj. This source does not mention anything about 'Slavs'. A broader variety of citizens of the Russian Empire, including non-Slavs such as Estonians, Germans, and Jews are mentioned, see page 303. It also says that 'colonisation did not have a serious impact until the end of the nineteenth century' (p. 303). The more important point, mentioned in this source, and relevant to this article, are the waves of emigration by Tatars following the annexation. That Russians (in the broad sense of term, i.e. Russian citizens or rossiyane) gradually displaced the Tatars through de-Tatarisation is uncontested, but the wording you have introduced is not supported by sources, and is not encyclopaedic. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The relevant editor has been topic banned. I have taken the liberty of removing the unsourced content and rewriting the lead once more in line with WP:LEAD. Yours, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)