The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This is an archive of past discussions about Republic of Crimea (Russia). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
(non-admin closure) No need for this. Just a vandal that nominated this for speedy deletion but it was reverted immediately by admins. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page should not be speedily deleted because the Republic of Crimea is recognized by the Russian Federation, a major member of the United Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.110.57 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be deleted, no. But it is still only a Partially Recognized nation as Russia is the only country to recognize it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Name
Isn't it officially the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol? That is how V.V.Putin referred to it in his speech on 2014-3-18 to the Russian State Duma after signing the treaty with them. 71.3.96.176 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)HenryHall
The Republic of Crimea and The federal city Sevastopol will be two separate Russian federal subjects. So Crimea was only united briefly during the 1 day is was independent.--Wester (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimea is still independent
Crimea is not yet a federal subject of russia, the treaty acceding it to russia has not yet been ratified. This page should not even exist yet.208.67.210.19 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Forking
Material from the Crimea article about geography and history should not be moved here until it is determined what we are doing with that article, which is a discussion you will see on the talk page there. Please don't fork information. RGloucester — ☎01:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
International Recognition
Why is there a need for the international recognition section in the article about a part of a country? It is perhaps necessary in the Republic of Crimea (country), but not here. Do countries even recognise each other part by part? --Truther2012 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. I just nuked the whole section. Yes, nations can also not recognize "parts of a country". In this case, Ukraine does not recognize that Crimea and Sevastopol are "federal subjects of Russia". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
According to various reports these small, but geographically strategic villages located in Kherson Oblast have been occupied by Russian/Crimean forces since last week. Does anyone know if the new Republic of Crimea claims these lands as part of their territory? Especially Strilkove is important I think, because it has a big gas pumping facility there [1] and the new authorities have already promised Gazprom access to its natural gas fields.[2] --Tocino09:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe there was a confusion yesterday about what Kazakhstan's statement meant, which is when "a few" was added. I've updated the sentence. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2014; 13:11 (UTC)
The federal subject is virtually the same as the former Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Is most of the information here technically unsourced?
This may seem like nitpicking, but I wonder... A lot of the information here was copied over from the Crimea article, sources included. But as far as the general information about Crimea goes, like economy, tourism, etc., those sources really are about the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, not about the new Republic of Crimea. The current Republic doesn't really have any "history" yet as a distinct entity, as it has only existed for a few days and presumably nobody has had the time to write anything about these things. So does that mean that most of the information here is really unsourced, and should it be removed? CodeCat (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I stopped more copying of content. This article isn't about the history of Crimea as a whole, or about the Autonomous Republic. RGloucester — ☎02:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
We already have a general Crimea article, though: Crimean peninsula. And I don't think there's a "dispute" as such; there's a move proposal, which currently has majority support. CodeCat (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with the Autonomous Republic article, until the move request is finished. I do know, however, that information should not be copied here from the Crimea article. RGloucester — ☎22:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
as I said in the talk page on sevastopol, the only way to solve these NPOV disputes is to spell out that internationally, the de jure status, and, locally the de facto status, are not one in the same. Trying to argue about who's de jure is more de jure than the other de jure won't get us anywhere. Nickjbor (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Village pump discussion on neutrality in Crimea-related articles
It will vanish into a tiny blip, the map of Russia is centered over Siberia. Now, if there was a map of just the European section of Russia that would be okay with me. Abductive (reasoning)00:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
allegedly?
The lede says that a "Russian military intervention in Ukraine ...allegedly occurred." Did Putin's lawyer write this? I say cut the weasel words: It was an invasion. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We can reflect the Russian perspective without allowing blatantly false claims from the Russian government to undermine demonstrable facts. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and fact-based; where the pursuit of political correctness interferes with those principles, objectivity and fact must win out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Russia
Is it already a Russian federal subject as the article implies? I thought it would be officially part of Russia during next week?--Wester (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything to that effect. The treaty is quite clear that it will be applied from the time of signature, and it was signed today. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It is "considered" illegal by most states who have commented on it, including the UN, however, it has been partially recognized by Russia. For a similar article, see South Ossetia. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to call it part of the Russian Federation just yet, as Russia is the only state to recognise it and, having taken the Crimean Peninsula by armed force, practically making it occupied territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.130.1 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the Sofia News Agency article Crimea Officially Annexed to Russia says: "The document, which was published on the Kremlin's website, means that the peninsula has officially become part of the Russian Federation as of March 18, 2014." It seems Putin worked really fast on this. As for those who say it's illegal, I'd like to point out that the protesters, the provisional government in Kiev and the Government of Crimea have broken the law so many times recently that it no longer really matters. It simply becomes a matter of who is in charge de facto. -- Kndimov (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to keep in mind that the new government was chosen by the democratically elected parliament, and that the referendum is unreliable because Ukranians and Tatars on Crimea boycotted it. This move by Putin is so controversial because it reminds us how Nazi Germany used their "protect German minorities abroad" argument to trigger a world war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.130.1 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Whether the Ukranians and Tatars boycotted it or not doesn't affect its legality. While it does seem to be illegal, the current government in Kiev is also illegal because Yanukovich wasn't properly impeached (at the time) and members of his party fled. This all goes to say, I'm not picking sides here, but the only thing that matters right now is who's orders are obeyed in Crimea: The Ukrainian President's or the Russian President's? The answer is the latter. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to call it part of the Russian Federation just yet, as Russia is the only state to recognise it and, having taken the Crimean Penninsula by armed force, practically making it occupied territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.130.1 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia a propaganda instrument of Putin? Crimea should be marked as part of Ukraine since this is the standpoint of most countries. Nulli (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
from which pov is this a new entity, and from which just a continuation of the 1991 one?
I am a bit confused at this point, it seems that Republic of Crimea was the declaration of 11 March that
the Autonomous Republic of Crimea *ARC) would be united with Sevastopol as a new and sovereign republic.
Apparently, Russia refused this and told them they were welcome to accede, they just had to do so separately.
So in effect the "Republic of Crimea" is just the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" (same parliament, same flag, same administration, etc. etc.), it simply opted to attach itself to the RF.
If the "ARC" was "autonomous" to begin with, this would just seem to be an exercise of that "autonomy".
So the question for our purposes is, does this really constitute a new entity, worth a separate page, or is it just part of the ongoing history of the republic created in 1991? I ask in all seriousness because I don't know.
Also, do we have some unambiguous reference on the official name? Has somewhere a point been made about striking the "autonomous" from the Republic's name? Since the unification with Sevastopol seems to have been dead on arrival, it would seem that the declaration of independece is now moot, and the pre-existing republic simply acceded to Russa "as-is"? --dab(𒁳)12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem is mainly that Ukraine never legally abandoned Crimea. Ukraine's current laws and political stucture still have a "reserve spot" for Crimea, and the Russian takeover hasn't really affected that. So it can't be said that the Republic of Crimea is a "successor" to the Ukrainian AR. Instead, from the point of view of Ukraine, Crimea is under foreign occupation and its government is in exile, so to say, much as many governments went into exile after German invasion in WW2. So the Ukrainian AR still exists as a political entity but without any territory under its jurisdiction, much as Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, and like the Polish government-in-exile (claiming that the General Government was a continuation of the previous Polish government would be crazy, of course). CodeCat (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Since 95% of countries and UNO dont recognize the Crimea as part of Russia, the first sentence of the article is wrongful. Taking into considiration the fact, that Putin signed appropriate Act few days ago, the article must begin in the following way : According to the Russian legislation , is a federal subject of Russian Federation.....
WHAT?? Article about 'Russian point of view'?? What does it mean?? All artiles in Wiki must be with accordance to the Wiki Rules. This is something new, Russian poin of view. I am just confused. 46.70.91.49 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that the second sentence of the article states that Russia's claim is "considered illegitimate by the government of Ukraine and much of the international community" I don't see what's wrong with the intro. The Russian and international position are both reflected. Are you saying that the Russian position is given WP:UNDUE weight here, or are you saying that the International position is under-represented? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is just extremist irredentist propaganda advocating an extreme position that is not recognised by anyone, and the article should be redirected to the legally and internationally recognised Ukrainian province. There is no such thing as a Russian "federal subject" within Ukrainian territory. Erik Monsen (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Erik Monsen: We have three separate articles for each thing. This article is about the short lived republic that declared independence before being annexed by Russia, as well as the federal subject. The Urkanian province article is here: Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Since this is a very controversial topic, please be careful with the edits you make, and seek consensus on the talk page first. → Call meHahc2115:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimea is a province of Ukraine and this article is a pure POV fork advocating an extreme position. There is no recognised Russian province within what is internationally recognised as Ukrainian territory, so this title should be redirected to the recognised name of the area/entity, which is Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It is not a controversial question in the sense that there is one mainstream position accepted by the entire world, and one fringe, extremist position advocated by just one authoritarian regime, unrecognized by international law and the entire world community, as well as by the government of Ukraine and hence the legitimate government of Crimea. Erik Monsen (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, recognised by who, and why is Wikipedia to recognise their recognition as the only possible "truth"? Wikipedia can't take sides, it has to be neutral and cover all points of view, not just that of the international majority. We'd be biased if we did that. CodeCat (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is the mainstream view held by about the entire world as well as by international law. The other view is a fringe as well as politically extreme view and deserves little weight. Erik Monsen (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that should apply to politics. Political majorities aren't like scientific majorities, because they're not founded purely in reason, so the number of adherents does not necessarily correspond to the merit of the point of view. If we were to apply the same reasoning to other areas, then what if we did it with minority religions for example? "The mainstream holds that Christianity is true" therefore "we can ignore Islam/Judaism/Hinduism etc.". You see how that ends up? Fringe views have a very different relationship to NPOV in science than they have in religion or politics. CodeCat (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear RGloucester, if you dont ignore the defacto situation, then the very first sentence of the article must be as follows: According to the Russian laws is a federal subject..... So the first sentence is written in very wrongful maner. And here I offered more acceptable version. 46.70.91.49 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Abstractematics, don't be a hypocrite please. The first sentence of the article about Northern Cyprus is : is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. And in other articles mentioned by you intros always show that those Republics are self-declared. So why we don't do it in this article ?? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not the topic. See what this user did to Republic of Crimea. This user is advocating that we altogether scrap the article.
Proposal to merge article titled "Republic of Crimea (country)" into this article
Vote counting alone tells us nothing here, but the strengths of the arguments can. The arguements claiming that this is actually the same country with the same political system and leaders, but with a different name (a technicality towards unification with Russia) are stronger than those claiming it is an independent country. There is a lot of passion here, but passion can't establish consensus, only policy based reasoning. History isn't done writing this story, so things may yet change again but for now, I must conclude that there is a consensus to merge. As such, the material should be merged by the community and this title redirected to the main article elsewhere. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER18:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Republic of Crimea (country) is an article about the Republic of Crimea for one day after the referendum and prior to Russia accepting integration of Crimea. I believe that article is unnecessary, it merely represents the Republic of Crimea in its transitional period after the referendum, and as such I believe there are no grounds for a separate article to exist for the Republic as being a country for a one-day period.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Support - It's population is practically all Russian and, eventually, people will have to recognize it as part of Russia RobertMoukahm (talk) 13:55, 123 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - It WAS a country. No matter how brief of the time it was a country, it still mattered and they should be kept seperate MameTozhio (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"it still mattered" - I disagree with that, the territory was going to merge with Russia, regardless if it spent a day waiting for the official "Okay" from Moscow.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, "it was a country" – Yes, it was a country. However, it wasn't recognized as one by the majority of world nations. Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - There are many short-lived countries that have their own Wikipedia articles. This state is especially significant as it was recognized by 4 states in the one day it existed. [Soffredo]02:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Why does being recognized by four states mean that it is "especially significant"? What are the sources that show such states recognizing it as an independent state and not merely seceded from Ukraine? This is an entity that declared well in advance its intention to seek unification with Russia. It waited a day before Moscow approved, that is not a good reason to create an article.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Support I support the move because Republic of Crimea (country) is essentially the same as this Republic of Crimea, so the two should be merged into one big article, instead of two small articles.
Oppose There should be different articles for the short-lived independent republic and the Russian federal subject. There are many articles on Wikipedia for short-lived independent republics, whether unrecognized, partially recognized or generally recognized. Take for example, the California Republic, the Republic of Texas, the Vermont Republic, and the Republic of Hawaii, none of these articles have been merged into their respective U.S state articles. --Stan2525 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Did any of those countries involve the entity that became them, publicly declaring its intention to join another country and waiting a single day until that other country agreed? I doubt it, and thus the examples you listed are not comparable. The Republic of Crimea declared, in advance, that it was seeking to join Russia.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The Republic of Hawaii existed for about 4 years, and was initially seen asillegitimate by the U.S. government. Only the California Republic is a similar situation, but even there a clear change occurred later, and it did exist for 2 months, with the outcome of the whole situation complex. Actually, in that case it was initially proclaimed and abandoned significantly before its eventual formation. The California Republic lasted over a month, and was created by people who had no clue how long it might last. It's borders also did not coincide with any later political entity. In reality it was much smaller than modern California, and in claims it was larger than modern California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There should be distinction between Crimea the Ukrainian district, Crimea the one-day country and Crimea the Russian district. One-day countries, not something you see everyday 130.126.56.185 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There should be different articles for the Ukrainian Autonoumous Republic of Crimea, for the independent Republic of Crimea and for the Russian Republic of Crimea. Aotearoa (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Support merge. It's a common Wikipedian error to treat such questions as matters of ontology rather than as matters of reader-friendliness. The question is not whether the one-day existence of this entity made it into something that is notionally a separate topic. The question is whether we have anything to say about it that we aren't also saying elsewhere. As it is, the "country" article is and will always be 100% redundant to the republic article. We are not doing any of our readers a favour by presenting them this additional wall of text if they won't find any extra information there that they haven't already found elsewhere. Fut.Perf.☼10:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
They are not "claiming to be different things". Maybe you misunderstood the proposal? This is not about merging the Russian-recognized "republic" with the Ukrainian-recognized "autonomous republic". It's about merging the self-declared fully independent country (existing for one day between its secession from Ukraine to its accession to Russia) with the Russian republic it became the next day. Fut.Perf.☼10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@Fut.Perf. I didn't misunderstand anything. You have misunderstood my comment, I never mentioned the de jure Ukrainian Autonomous Republic. Let me make this clear for you; the Proclaimed Independent Sovereign State and the de facto Autonomous Russian Republic are two different entities which have existed at two different points in history, hence why there should be two different articles for two different entities which have existed at two different periods of time. IJA (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The independent country included both the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol as a single united nation. The federal subject does not include Sevastopol, only the Autonomous Republic. Therefore, the entities are fundamentally different. From The Washington Post: "The city of Sevastopol also entered the Russian Federation, as a separate entity—a status it traditionally enjoyed as an important military center." [4]—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that it legally included Sevastopol for one day anymore than evidence that it did not. What legal documents were arranged that officially formalized Sevastopol's incorporation into Crimea during that one day? - And by legal documents I don't mean the proposed declaration of independence, I mean documents showing legal arrangements for incorporation into Crimea. Bear in mind that this entire process is legally disputed by Ukraine and Western countries. But apparently in negotiations, it was decided for Sevastopol to join separately. Also the government of Crimea stated from the outset its intention to join Russia. A one-day waiting period for the official "okay" from Moscow is hardly grounds for a topic to base an article on.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons as stated above - this article is about Crimea Republic as part of Russia, the other article is about independent Crimea--Truther2012 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose It was an independent short lived country that consisted of both the old Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and Sevastopol. The new Republic of Crimea that is part of Russia does not include Sevastopol. Sevastopol is a federal city like St.Petersburg and Moscow. 72.79.135.33 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that it was "independent"? Second, what legal documents were arranged that officially formalized Sevastopol's incorporation into Crimea during that one day? - And by legal documents I don't mean the proposed declaration of independence, I mean documents showing legal arrangements for incorporation into Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Support - This is getting extremely confusing. We now have Crimea, Crimean peninsula, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea (country). We do not need the article on the very briefly independent "Republic of Crimea (country). It only existed for the purpose of becoming a federal subject of Russia, and is extremely confusing to the reader. Merely explain in the history section of this article that the Republic was briefly independent together with Sebastopol, but that they are now separate. RGloucester — ☎18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Support merging per Future Perfect and RGloucester. "The country was established for a little more than a day as a result of the 2014 Crimean referendum, before it was joined to Russia as one of its republics". Having two separate articles here is simply ridiculous. Merge and possibly rename. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No, according to vast majority of sources, it never was "own country", because referendum was illegal per majority of sources, and it never will be. It was a part of Ukraine, and it will be a part of Russian Federation. This is simply annexation of a territory by another sate per majority (of sources) view.My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't support your idea. I think the current Republic of Crimea will be lasted longer, so this article is needed regardless of this discussion. --Virtpedia (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason as we have articles about the various countries listed under the List of shortest-lived sovereign states. Many of these were just vehicles for annexations, or otherwise simply byproducts of political and legal technicalities, nonetheless, they have their own articles, and are seen as notable in themselves. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Support The nominal brief independence is a technical byproduct of the (disputed) process of leaving Ukraine and joining Russia, nothing more, nothing less. Such technicalities have happened throughout history without being notable in themseles; this is very different from brief rebellions that see short-lived republics created explicitly to go it alone. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support merging. I'm not sure it makes sense to treat the independent country and the later subject of Russia as distinct, because even though there is a formal political distinction, this isn't a distinction that the Russian or Crimean population was making at the time. Their aim was never to be an independent country, but to join Russia, so the independent country is merely a stage as part of that process, not a topic in its own right. CodeCat (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose as this will miss the fact that there where a de facto independent country of Crimea including Sevastopol. 3bdulelah (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Support We do not need separate articles for every minor change in the political status of a country. When a status existed for less than 2 days, it is not worth having separate article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Wikipedia has plenty of other articles on short-lived and pseudo-states, and Crimea should not be any different just because the controversy is fresh. That was my reasoning in splitting this off, anyway -- despite my personal views on this issue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Support - There have not been two countries named "Republic of Crimea". There has been only one country named "Republic of Crimea" which changed its status from an independent country into a federal subject of Russia (although the current events are not widely accepted). Additionally, the former status was very short and interim. I think the two articles should be merged. --Virtpedia (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Additional opinion (Plan B): I believe the name "Republic of Crimea (country)" isn't suitable. I think the current Republic of Crimea can be also considered as "country" although it's not independent. England (in the United Kingdom) and the Netherlands (in the larger Kingdom) are not independent but they are "countries". If the article is kept, the name should be changed into other such as "Republic of Crimea (self-proclaimed sovereign state)" or something like that and the "Republic of Crimea (country)" redirect the current "Republic of Crimea". —Virtpedia (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for all reasons stated above. Furthermore, to everyone saying this will confuse readers: how dumb do you think our readers are? Each article clearly explains what political entity (or, in the case of Crimean Peninsula, geographic region) it is or was, in the opening paragraph. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Support. This is not a majority vote, but based on the strength of the arguments. These articles are about the same entity which had the same government, parliment, and (most importantly) the same purpose; to join Crimea to Russia (for which there is also an article, Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation). At no time was the Republic of Crimea a functioning, independent nation. There is no legal requirement that Wikipedia have an article for every single legal "country" that has ever existed. Also, it really is confusing to the reader--I know this because it confused me. Abductive (reasoning)00:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose as they are/were two different proclaimed things, such as the Republic of Georgia and Georgia in the Confederacy as mentioned above. Old Al (Talk) 02:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Support on grounds of duplication; there is no meaningful distinction between the two and the two pretty much say the same thing. The history section, along with whatever annexation article there is, is more than sufficient; there's no reason to have the country article be a separate article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
And it's not nonsense to have an article that is never going to consist of more than one paragraph, because the topic it covers didn't exist long enough to have anything happen to it? CodeCat (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Such, for example, as this article Alabama Republic, or this article Republic of Georgia (1861), or this article State of Somaliland. As far as I can see, it is consensus policy to include articles about all sovereign states, even ones that have existed for only a few days, as long as these states are often referred to as such by reliable sources (i.e. they are not micronations). This makes sense, IMO, since the appearance of a sovereign state, even briefly, is a notable event, even if the sole purpose for the state's existence is to be annexed into something else (for example, the sole purpose of the Alabama Republic was to eventually join the confederacy, the sole purpose of the State of Somaliland was to join Somalia, and the sole purpose of this state was to legitimate Russia's takeover). --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Support (and I changed all the '''Against'''s to '''Oppose'''s for clarity, because I'm assuming these editors are all opposing this merge) because of the duplication between the two articles; they basically describe the same event. Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Your are unable to parse the word "country". A country is not an event. Go, go, back to English class. And it's not history neither, it's classification. The article is not history, although it can be about a historical entity. Tibet2014 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
COMMENT - the merge is complete nonsense as the two entities cover different territory. Please all that have no clue delete their votes or stay away from voting. There is enough nonsense in Wikipedia geography articles already. Tibet2014 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Although the independent republic was a stepping stone to integration into Russia, it was still an independent sovereign state at one stage. The Republic of Crimea within the Russian Federation is 26,100 square kilometres. The Republic of Crimea that was independent for one day was 27,000 km square kilometres. I could draw a Euler diagram or something to perhaps explain this better, but the two concepts have slight differences. That said, it's probably too early to make any decision on these two pages right now. I'd say wait 2 or 3 months before starting another merge discussion. There's no rush for anything right now. --benlisquareT•C•E11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
WARNING TO Incnis Mrsi - To call it puppet is violating NPOV. Will you propose to move any other short lived state XYZ to Political status of XYZ? Tibet2014 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: I have implemented Dennis' closure by simply redirecting Republic of Crimea (country) to Republic of Crimea. My impression is that there is nothing substantial to merge at this point, because the content of the two articles was near-identical anyway. My apologies if I should have overlooked anything important. No objections as far as I am concerned if people should eventually prefer to change the redirect to one of the other possible targets that were suggested in the discussion. Fut.Perf.☼19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Premature close. Dennis forced nonsense. If arguments prevail, then everybody knows that the two are different and not with the same leaders blabla. He writes "The arguements claiming that this is actually the same country with the same political system and leaders, but with a different name (a technicality towards unification with Russia) are stronger than those claiming it is an independent country." - No, are they not. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The numbers of votes is meaningless. It isn't a vote, we aren't a democracy. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. The purpose of the closer is not to count votes (a bot could do that), it is to weigh arguments against policy. Familiarize yourself with policy on this, and if you like, you can still ask for review. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
A bot result would be more understandable then your nonsense result. IF YOU WOULD PROPERLY READ THE ARGUMENTS AND WOULD BE ABLE TO PARSE THEIR MEANING THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. BUT YOU MADE A TOTAL MESS. THE TWO ENTITIES COVER DIFFERENT TERRITORY. G O . A N D . R E V E R T. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Please remain WP:CIVIL. Dennis Brown already indicated that you can ask for review on one of the appropriate channels if you want to dispute the result. Whether you take those steps or not is your choice, but that still leaves you with only two options. Shouting abuse on the talk page is not an option and will only get you blocked. CodeCat (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
At first this vandal-like admin should be blocked. It is outrageous. Even after maps have been shown to him he sits and ignore the facts and the voices of others. You have proven you are part of the mob of the clueless. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
This closure seems premature to me, given that there was no clear consensus. I would at least like to know why the pro-merger argument was seen as more convincing, in reference to past cases, or to Wikipedia policy. As far as I understand, pro-merger has neither of those. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I find the subjective rationale provided by Dennis Brown to be wholly unsatisfying, and I think he needs a stronger argument than that to override a clear majority in favor of keeping the article on the short-lived country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been following this closely, and I have to say that I am very shocked by this decision. I would have written my opposition to a merge, but I usually like to keep a fairly conservative approach to Wikipedia, and not to get too involved. I figured that I was taking my place as part of the 'silent majority' because it seemed clear to me that the merge would either be opposed, or, at the very least, it would be deemed that there was no consensus. I guess that the lesson is to never second guess Wikipedia, but I also feel that the whole system has been a let down. RedvBlue09:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Quite a stupid move to merge the page 'Republic of Crimea (country)' and 'Republic of Crimea' since they do not cover the same area. Also: an independent country deserves it's own page. We have hundreds of such pages. So what's the problem? --Wester (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A small factual correction: it's not true that Crimea was independent for one day. They declared their independence on 17 March, and the accesstion treaty they signed with Russia teh next day only entered into force on Friday 21 March, once it was ratified by both houses of the Russian legislature!! ZBukov (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor, User:Igorpetrovich96, took it upon himself to (entirely improperly) copy-and-paste the contents of Crimea over the top of this article. Whether it was an accident or an act of vandalism, it's been fixed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
UN vote
User:John wilson swe seems to think it is very important for this page to include a lengthy list of the 50-something countries that abstained on the UN resolution regarding the legitimacy of the Crimea vote. I believe his edits are WP:UNDUE and present information in a WP:POV way, along with an element of WP:SYN in highlighting the BRICS countries particularly. I have invited John wilson swe to explain his rationale as to why this information should be included in full on this page, and would like to solicit opinions from other editors as well. Should this page present an exhaustive list of countries that abstained on the resolution and attempt to offer an interpretation of what that means? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. The page should be semi-protected so that only established editors can change it. That should solve our problem with drive-by vandalism and unconstructive edits from IP and newly registered editors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think this page should be completely protected for at least 30 days. There is a big issue of recentism on this page and things are changing very fastly. I think we should let things settling down before modifying again this article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been a lot of nominations for the various Crimea articles that we have, and I've noticed a problem with one of the recent moves. Another Wikipedian illustrated the legal situation of Crimea with the following diagram:
Political transitions of the Crimea peninsula
However, Republic of Crimea (country) has been turned into a redirect page, despite our general tendency to note short-lived states such as Carpatho-Ukraine, Republic of Galicia, etc. Right now, we lack a page for the political entity in the middle of the diagram.
Just so you know, the previous discussion was an WP:RFC, you can't overturn an RFC with a talk page discussion. You should probably follow that wikilink and read up on them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Your declaration of consensus as the administrator that closed the discussion is being challenged and contended by several experienced editors. I suggest you refrain from participating in these discussions further as it will add more grievance than resolution. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Dennis is right. This is not the right way to go about this. The correct way to do so is to request a review, not to reopen the discussion. RGloucester — ☎23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard. Create a new section by clicking on the "new section" tab. Include a link to the closed discussion, a link to the discussion with the closing editor, links to any previous discussions pertinent to the discussion, and a neutral explanation of the rationale for review of the closure. For example, open a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard (AN) that begins with "This is a request to review the close at (name and link to close) to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here." followed by a concrete description of how you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion. You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument". (See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS) For example, continue your AN request opening with something like, "The issue the closer was to decide was (describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X not ever intended to apply to issues such as this."
There already is a discussion on this on the noticeboard. I suppose that one should be continued instead of starting a new one? CodeCat (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You've interpreted policy differently than he has. That's all. It seems that you are making this more of a fiasco than it actually is. There is no reason we cannot wait for a third party administrator to come in and review the closure. It will do no harm, and it will do much good. Neither of us are suitable to determine whether Dennis's determination was correct, as we were involved parties. Let's wait. RGloucester — ☎01:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the admin's ruling here and think Wikipedia standards are being inconsistently applied in this situation -- but there is a process to follow, and it's pointless to try to get around it on this Talk page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Pages like Republic of Galicia are cruft and should be merged into an article that actually gives a discussion of the involved historical processes in context. Keeping the "Republic of Crimea (country)" just because bad decisions have been made elsewhere would be a clear example of WP:OTHERCRAP. --dab(𒁳)09:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
All of those existed for more than a day or so, and did not continue to exist with their administrative structures mostly intact after joining a federation. I'd also like to remind you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely a useful argument. RGloucester — ☎15:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. I just nuked the whole section. Yes, nations can also not recognize "parts of a country". In this case, Ukraine does not recognize that Crimea and Sevastopol are "federal subjects of Russia". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at
02:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion: why don't we just merge this article into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation? Sounds like a much better idea since this "country" only lasted a day and it was done for the sole purpose of acceding into Russia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
.svg)
