Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Dbachmann and Future Perfect at Sunrise, respectively. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

– With the recent political instability in the Crimea, there are now multiple political units which take the name 'Crimea'. It is likely that its sovereignty will remain disputed over the immediate future. I suggest that the best move under such circumstances is to keep the name 'Crimea' for the geographical region, moving the current 'Crimea' article to a new home under its formal name. It should be pointed out that this would mirror the Russian/Independent state of 'Republic of Crimea'. This would mirror how we deal with Kosovo and Palestine. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I requested the same thing at the same time. ;) —Wester (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, great minds and all. There's a lot of people being coming here expecting an article on one topic and finding it on another I think! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - There are now two separate state entities that claim the title "Crimea". Each deserves its own article, and neither has a more legitimate claim to the title "Crimea". The article describing the peninsula should deal with the history of the place, whereas these two articles (Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea) should deal with the states themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Plus, it doesn't cover the same area as Sevastopol is part of the Republic of Crimea but not of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.--Wester (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"This article is about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" is wrong, concerning the long history in this article. --House1630 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That should be merged with 'Crimean peninsula'—Wester (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The overall history should be moved to the Crimean peninsula article. This article should detail the former state. The present state will be detailed in Republic of Crimea. This is standard practice, and mimics Ireland, Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I am very much in favour of this or simply go to a disambiguation page for the time being 77.97.151.145 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its far too soon to come to a conclusion on naming rights to a region or national government. I suggset waiting it out until the dust settles before making title changes to articles based on incomplete and recent developments. If after a while the picture becomes clearer, then it would be easier to decide which is the most common name for each. Until then, lets all relax and see what happens.--JOJ Hutton 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Or move history to 'Crimean peninsula' - see the short text there. --House1630 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we can justify this article remaining at the title "Crimea", when functionally, the state it describes has ceased to exist. RGloucester — ☎ 21:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
exactly --House1630 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, in principle, but its far too soon to decide what the common name is for these articles. Too much is happening far too quickly and I think that we should wait until the dust settles until finalizing these article titles. Its simply putting the cart before the horse.--JOJ Hutton 21:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not a question of common name. It's a question of neutral name. If you name the 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' only Crimea it's as you recognise it to be the sole legitimate Crimean government.--Wester (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines say "Most Common Name". Now if there is a need for disambiguation because the same name is used for multiple hinges, like Football, but right now we just don't know. JOJ Hutton 21:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving Crimea to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Oppose moving Crimean peninsula to "Crimea". Suggest moving Crimea (disambiguation) to "Crimea". This is what recent polls showed, and it makes all the sense in the long run.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2014; 21:18 (UTC)
  • Support changing the title of this article to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". I'm not sure about moving "Crimean peninsula" to "Crimea", because the word "Crimea" is often used to refer to the peninsula or a geopolitical entity. Ezhiki's suggestion is worth considering.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Right now there are three articles that seem to address the peninsula, the republic and the autonomous republic. The word Crimea could mean all three, hence disambiguation. --Truther2012 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Changed to Support - Had to follow the logic again... Crimea (peninsula), Republic of Crimea and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (part of Ukraine). Peninsula is by far the most commonly used. --Truther2012 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
you want to merge all together ? --House1630 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
No. I was just highlighting the fact that there are three different articles out there.--Truther2012 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Strong support - The only consensus as to what "Crimea" refers to now is the geographic area. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - As per what I said earlier in this discussion. This was long overdue.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - per comment by Kudzul, plus NPOV needs to be upheld now that the territory is now disputed. The Kosovo article deals with the region while not making claims to what entity legally holds it.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given that the territory is in dispute this seems like the logical route to go.LM2000 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support to make it consistent with the current presentation of Ireland and Kosovo. - Anonimski (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (strongly). Crimea means either "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" or "Republic of Crimea" for English readers. Crimean peninsula is unambiguous and is about the landscape. Like I mentioned in another move request, in English media you always specify the word "peninsula" when referring to the peninsula.
Examples where the republic is called simply as "Crimea" by English media:
  1. CNN: [1]
In this ref it is not clear if they mean Republic or territory of peninsula.
  1. Reuters: [2]
In this reference they mean the region which consists of the Republic and Sevastopol which is a separate city.
  1. The Wall Street Journal: [3]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [4]
  2. Fox News: [5]
  3. The Huffington Post: [6]
I don't oppose renaming this article to Autonomous Republic but I do oppose "Crimea" being about the peninsula. If anything, the page "Crimea" should be a disambiguation page with links pointing to the Autonomous Republic, the Republic, and the peninsula.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose redirecting "Crimean Peninsula". This should refer to the geographic feature.
Support redirecting "Crimea" to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" (the internationally accepted entity). The self-proclaimed (and only Russian-recognized) entity should have its own article.
Also, someone needs to clarify this request. If "Crimean Peninsula" redirects to "Crimea", and "Crimea" redirects to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", then "Crimean Peninsula" would go to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea." --Nomadic Whitt (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Crimea should be moved to Crimea (disambiguation), because really there are three different topics that one could be looking for when one simply types "Crimea", which would be Republic of Crimea, Autonomous Republic of Crimea, or Crimean peninsula. Crimea is a very complicated issue at the moment, so its most fitting to link it to a disambiguation page for now, however I suspect as time goes the importance of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea article will fade, and we can RM the Republic of Crimea article to Crimea at a later date. —Tocino 02:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The history of the peninsula, as in the history of Crimea as a whole should be at the "Crimea" article, the current Crimean peninsula article. The articles dealing with states should merely deal with the history of the states themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 02:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • no Disagree. The history of the region should be at Crimean peninsula and remain there. "Crimea" refers either to the Autonomous Republic or the Republic in English-speaking media. The peninsula is always referred to as "Crimean peninsula". This is the English Wikipedia. We go by what English speakers refer to, not to what locals refers to. Right now what is best is to move Crimea (disambiguation) → Crimea. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The "history of the region" presently isn't at Crimean peninsula. It is at this article, which is the problem. I wouldn't be so sure that "the peninsula" is always referred to as such. One could say "Crimea", and include Sebastopol, despite the fact that Sebastopol is not included in the "Autonomous Republic". This has been a common move by the media. That's because Sebastopol is in Crimea, it merely isn't in Autonomous Republic. Of course, now it is in the "Republic", so that is sorted in one respect. 138.16.97.166 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose there is simply no reason to hastily make these proposed moves, which might be mistaken as serving more of a propaganda purpose than any legitimate Wikipedia concern. Since Wikipedia does not need to be edited as if it was a news service, editors should proceed deliberately and dispassionately, without haste, and only after establishing clear consensus. It's clear that now is not the time to make such radical changes. JDanek007Talk 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You've not provided any arguments against the move. It will be moved without haste within a standard voting period.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving Crimea to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Oppose moving Crimean peninsula to "Crimea". Suggest moving Crimea (disambiguation) to "Crimea". Reasoning: The name simply is ambiguous and there is no primary topic (most of the political entities existed for only few years), and the normal way in Wikipedia is to have a disambiguation page in such a case. KarimAntonov (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't true. The normal way, in this situation, on Wikipedia, is to have an article for the geographical entity, and separate ones for the states. Hence, Ireland, which deals with the island, and Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, which deal with the states. Hence, Kosovo, which deals with the geographic region, and Republic of Kosovo, which deals with the state. 138.16.97.166 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that in English-speaking media "Ireland" is always used to refer to the island and "Kosovo" is used to refer to the region. This is not the case for "Crimea". In English-speaking media they always refer to the peninsula as "the Crimean peninsula" not as Crimea. Crimea is always used to refer to the republic. We have already provided sources in this discussion that confirm this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't true. The island of Ireland is referred to as "the island of Ireland". Kosovo usually means the proclaimed state, and not the region.Link RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment For those opposing the proposed changes to have this article focus on the Crimean peninsula, what is your evidence that English speakers are exclusively referring to the political entities of Crimea (i.e. Republic of Crimea, Autonomous Republic of Crimea)?--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The ones I already provided above in this very same discussion.
Examples where the republic is called simply as "Crimea" by English media:
  1. CNN: [7]
  2. Reuters: [8]
  3. The Wall Street Journal: [9]
Examples where the English media refers to the peninsula as the "Crimean peninsula":
  1. ABC News: [10]
  2. Fox News: [11]
  3. The Huffington Post: [12]
HTH,
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ahnoneemoos: In each of the articles you listed as "solely the Autonomous Republic", they also refer to Sebastopol, which was not part of the Republic. Particularly, in the Reuters article, it says "The vice premier of Crimea, home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, said a referendum on the status would take place on March 16. All state property would be "nationalized", the Russian ruble adopted and Ukrainian troops treated as occupiers and forced to surrender or leave, he said". That is, it says that "Crimea is home to the Black Sea Fleet". In that case, it is clearly referring to the geographical Crimea, and not the Autonomous Republic. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yet, the WSJ does not [13]: "The pro-Russian regional Parliament in Crimea […]" which refers to the Autonomous Republic, hence why we should exercise care to distinct "Crimea" from the "Crimean peninsula" and the Autonomous Republic. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I cannot access the WSJ, so I do not know about that. The quote you mentioned says "parliament in Crimea". It does not say parliament "OF Crimea". Clearly it is once again referencing the geographical definition. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the use of "in" does not imply that it refers to the region as the region as a whole doesn't have a parliament. Only the Autonomous Republic does. "in" in that case refers to "the parliament in [the Autonomous Republic of] Crimea". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree. I can't access WSJ, but in the other two articles as well as in many other by Crimea media mostly mean the Crimean region which includes the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol (which is a separate city). For example, in [14] [15] [16] (Crimean region) [17] they refer to both states as Crimea. Debi07 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
If "Crimea" always referred to the "Autonomous Republic", then "of" would've been the correct word to use. "In" specifies geography. "Of" specifies possession by a state of an institution. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: The search for "Crimea" should have always redirected to the article about the region. The term "Crimean Peninsula" is awkward for the title. To redirect "Crimea" to any of the present governments, given the dispute, is also very POVish. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - reasonable solution as political dispute will probably continue for years.--Staberinde (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Partially support – Support moving Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Neutral on whether to move Crimean Peninsula to Crimea, or to move Crimea to Crimea (disambiguation), as others have suggested. I'm not informed enough to make a call on the second part of the proposal. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Partially support Make Autonomous Republic of Crimea an entry under Crimea as it is/was part of Crimea (the general term for the area). Not counting the History and Geography under the Crimean Peninsula page. There are 2 separate entries for the History and Geography of Crimea (they speak of the Peninsula in both entries)...it's quite confusing. I SUPPORT re-directing Peninsula to CrimeaJimmydreads (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I have also readded the former country infobox as Crimea is now annexed to Russia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Crimea has long referred to the peninsula before the (former) Autonomous Republic was created and will continue to have this meaning no matter what the political future will bring. Information that is (relatively) independent from the current/changing political status of the region, i.e. geography, history, demographics, economy, should be in the peninsula article rather than in either of the two articles about the political entities that claim to represent it. The peninsula is the primary topic with respect to its long-term significance vis-à-vis the Ukrainian Autonomous Region that has factually disintegrated, and the (Russian) Republic that has just been established and whose status is still unclear/unstable. --RJFF (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Just as a note for comparison, Spanish Wikipedia's article on Crimea is about the Crimean peninsula.—74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the same with the Ukrainian and Russia Wikipedias, I believe. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
But not with Aragonés (an:Peninsula de Crimea) and Estonian (et:Krimmi poolsaar). The Wikipedia community as a whole is divided even though a majority of articles about "Crimea" in different languages link to the peninsula. I'd guess that each language goes with whatever its speakers refer it to. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The Crimean peninsula article is presently a summary page, which is why it is suggested that it be retitled "Crimea". RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is English Wikipedia, yes? And English-speaking media best, common practice is to refer to the peninsula as "the Crimean peninsula" not as Crimea, which refers to the republic (as another editor supported above with reliably-sourced citations). The status quo is sufficient at present, and as another editor said, "it's simply putting the cart before the horse" to make radical changes to article titles in response to fast-moving, highly-controversial, disputed political and military events. These efforts to rename articles may also be introducing instability into the Wikipedia seemingly for no justifiable reason. Perhaps there will eventually be a community-supported and endorsed need for disambiguation because (to quote editor above) "the same name is used for multiple hinges, like Football, but right now we just don't know". Azx2 23:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think people searching for "Crimea" should be sent to an article on a state unit, the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", that functionally no longer exists? RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, I debunked those citations, as they included Sebastopol in "Crimea", which could've only referred to the geographic area, as the Autonomous Republic did not include it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - that region was officially called the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", not "Crimea". 'Crimea', by all means, should refer to the current geopolitical state. However, it is best to just refer it to the peninsula itself. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - There are two entities claiming Crimea. To make the Crimea page about either one is to support one side as legitimate. Also Crimea includes Sevastopol unlike both entities. 98.232.221.163 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is the usual solution in these cases. Acer (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the first move, oppose the second; Crimea should be a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Partial Support The article at "Crimea" should be about Crimea in general, not about ether the Russian or Ukrainian governments/political units specifically. As for whether this should be accomplished be the proposed move or some other method, I have no opinion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As for the Sevastopol thing, we can simply note the slightly different definitions of Crimea in the article, possibly the lead. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion might be clarified by considering whether the Isthmus of Perekop will be covered by one or more of the articles in question, and if so which one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both moves, of the political entity articles to fully specified titles, and of the geography article to plain Crimea as being the primary topic. That ought to have been done long ago, even before there were two competing entities, because the geography always was primary. Some people have claimed above that the peninsula is not normally called plain "Crimea" in English usage but preferably "Crimean peninsula". I believe this is wrong. There may be a tendency for this in some current sources, when journalists want to explicitly disambiguate the geographical unit from the political ones, but if you look into other attestations from unrelated contexts, e.g. searching for phrases like "on the Crimea" on Googlebooks, you will find that they are extremely numerous and usually refer to the peninsula in situations that are completely unrelated to any of the modern political units (e.g. historical contexts). +Fut.Perf. ☼
I don't think that the words "Crimean Peninsula" include the Isthmus of Perekop. However, the unadorned geographic entity "Crimea" may well include that isthmus. This is something that needs to be clarified before I support or oppose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally, that strikes me as an exceedingly nitpicky point to make, and one that is unlikely to have any serious consequences for the way we divide up our article coverage. Natural features such as peninsulas will always have boundaries that are somewhat less precisely defined than those of political entities, and whether you consider a certain few square miles of borderline land part of a larger geographical unit or not is so much a matter of arbitrary definitions that I seriously doubt you will find any clearly definable, consistent usage pattern either way in common speech – certainly not one in which "X'ian peninsula" would be systematically and reliably understood to be different from "X" alone. And even if there were such a clear division, nothing stops us from adapting the coverage in our geography article accordingly once we have decided on the title, changing the wording of the few sentences that refer to the isthmus in that article in accordance with whether we want to treat it as part of it or not. So what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
As indicated below, I now oppose for reasons unrelated to the isthmus, but I don't agree it's nitpicky to wonder which term is geographically broader (Crimea versus Crimean Peninsula).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are two suggested moves here, and I oppose both for separate reasons. Regarding Crimea → Autonomous Republic of Crimea, it seems to me that we already have an article titled Republic of Crimea, so we don't need another one titled Autonomous Republic of Crimea, but I would support a merge of Crimea into Republic of Crimea. As for Crimean peninsula → Crimea, keeping it the way it is gives a better sense of geography. I have no opninion yet about whether Crimea should be a redirect or a disambiguation page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The Autonomous Republic (part of Ukraine) and Republic (part of Russia) are entirely separate entities as part of a territorial dispute. They cannot be merged, as this would favour a POV. This is standard practice. See Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and Republic of Kosovo. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the Kosovo articles are devoid of crap. For example, a hatnote says, "This article is about the autonomous province of Serbia on the territory of Kosovo." That is extremely confusing. AFAIK, a province of one country cannot simultaneously be on the territory of another.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes it can. That's the nature of a disputed territory. The Autonomous Republic exists in Ukrainian law, and will continue exist until it is abolished by Ukraine, just as the Autonomous Province does in Serbian law. Neither de facto exist anymore, but they still exist de jure. Hence, they have separate articles. It is very possible for two entities to claim a territory, and keep up the governmental structure for them in law to legitimise the claim. In Russian law, the new Republic is what it is. In Ukrainian law, only the Autonomous Republic exists. We cannot favour one or the other. RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
An autonomous republic is a kind of republic, so I am not convinced that calling it a republic implies any rejection of Ukraine's claim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. A new Republic of Crimea has been proclaimed by the authorities in Crimea. This state is not recognised by Ukraine. It has now joined Russia as a federal subject. It is NOT related to the constitutionally defined Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which is a non-sovereign regional unit of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not regard the Wikipedia article title "Republic of Crimea" as necessarily being a name of any entity, and the "R" in Republic can be capitalized not because it is the first letter of a name, but rather because it is the first letter of an article title. My preference is to consolidate the dispute in one article about a political and governmental entity, instead of two of them. The dispute can be (and is) covered by lots of other Wikipedia articles too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"Republic of Crimea" is a proper noun, officially declared by the authorities in Crimea during their Declaration of Independence. It is not a "lowercase republic". There are two separate political and governmental entities, not one. I do not understand why this is hard to comprehend. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess maybe I'm just stupid for thinking believe that "republic of Crimea" is not a proper noun, and for thinking that its first letter can sometimes be capitalized (e.g. if it's at the start of a sentence). Anyway, if people would like to rename "Republic of Crimea" as something like "Crimea (political unit)", then it's okay with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There are TWO SEPARATE political units, so one can't be called "Crimea" solely without disambiguation, as that would violate NPOV. The Republic of Crimea is one unit. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is another unit. They are not the same. One is in Russia (Republic), and one is in Ukraine (Autonomous Republic). They are both proper nouns, official names in their respective laws. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The competing claims can be covered within a single Wikipedia article. Similar to how we handle the Falklands. Do we need separate articles for the respective proper political names given to those islands?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you have both made your points adequately. I'd recommend you shouldn't continue to exchange repetitive arguments here, as it will inflate the whole process. This is the kind of situation where we can't really expect that everybody will convince everybody else with their arguments, so just agree to disagree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands comparison doesn't apply here because we don't have a name for the geographical area that the "Autonomous Republic" and the "Republic" cover (which is the same in both cases). The whole region where the republics are located is called "Crimean Peninsula" but the peninsula also includes Sevastopol which is an entity completely separate from both the "Autonomous Republic" and the "Republic". Do you now understand why we must be careful when using "Crimea" as an article title? Per WP:NPOV we cannot say, "Crimea is the Autonomous Republic" nor "Crimea is the Republic". Your proposed solution to merge would need to be hosted at Crimea (disputed territory) so that the article's title remains impartial and neutral. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimea (disputed territory) would be fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The Republic of Crimea does include Sebastopol. It is the Autonomous Republic which does not. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The Republic of Crimea (the federal subject) does not include Sevastopol. Source: 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." —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that, you are right. It seems the proclaimed Republic no longer includes Sebastopol, but used to do before it was properly annexed to Russia. Apparently, Sebastopol is now a federal city of Russia. Regardless, another example is Taiwan Province, PRC and Taiwan Province, ROC. We always have separate articles for separate governmental structures, even if one of the governments doesn't control the territory. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Their are two articles: the Republic of Crimea (country) (the country that existed one day and included Sevastopol) and the Russian federal subject Republic of Crimea (which does not include Sevastopol).--Wester (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"Republic" does not mean "independent state". I do not know where you get that conception. There are many federal subjects of Russia, and many of them are "republics". Republic of Crimea is no different. The "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" was the official name of the state entity as part of Ukraine, and remains so in the Constitution of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We could not care less about Ukrainian and Russian constitutions. What we care about are WP:RS and WP:COMMON NAME. Here is the problem. Article Crimea describes Crimea as a political/territorial entity starting from antiquity. That's why modern day Ukrainian constitution is irrelevant. Should we have a separate page about this entity included in Russia? No, I think we do not (merge them), although we may have a separate page about territorial dispute.My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
We care about WP:RS, and we also care about WP:NPOV. The present Crimea article does not do what you say it does. That would be Crimean peninsula. The present Crimea article is only about the Autonomous Republic, which was commonly referred to as "Crimea" prior to the 2014 Crimean crisis. If we were do what you said, we would be ignoring the state institutions of both the Autonomous Republic and the Republic, which would violate NPOV. Which state entity would the "Crimea" article describe? Would it describe the Russian federal subject, or the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic? It cannot feasibly describe both in the same article. It is no different then having separate articles for Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Irish Republic, Irish Free State, and finally, the Republic of Ireland. Each new state entity gets its own article, and yet, Ireland remains to describe the unambiguous geographical entity. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we need two pages: one about Crimean Peninsula as geographic object, and another about Crimea as a historical, ethnographic and political entity during centuries - this page. Do we need several additional sub-articles, such as "Crimea in Imperial Russia", "Crimea in the Soviet Union", "Crimea in Ukraine", and "Crimea in Russian Federation"? I am not sure, but this might be something reasonable if improves readability. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
We have Crimean Khanate, for the pre-Empire period. We have Taurida Governorate, discussing the means by which Crimea was governed during the Empire. We have Crimean Socialist Soviet Republic and Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic for the two different state entities that existing on Crimea during the Soviet Union period. There is no reason we should not continue this, as it is standard with all Wikipedia articles. State entities get their own articles. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This means we still need one general article Crimea, which describes whole history of Crimea, and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine) and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Russia) as subarticles. This is not renaming, but splitting the content. This can be easily done I think. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no "Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Russia)". The federal subject of Russia is called "Republic of Crimea". Regardless, that's exactly what these move requests are trying to do. They will move this article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as that is the state it presently describes. They will then move Crimean peninsula to Crimea, which can be expanded as a "whole history of Crimea" article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is too late for that, considering the present move proposal. You can try and be WP:BOLD, perhaps. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's too late, the move is just one possible means trouwered making the article at "Crimea" should be about Crimea in general, as explained in my 03:08, 19 March 2014 vote. I think My very best wishes's idea is better, this article is, with the partial excretion of the infobox and "Government and politics" section, already about the Crimea in general and not the Ukrainian government/political units specifically. Better to just to rework the infobox and Government section then to try to turn this article into something it isn't. As MVBW said, we can split off an Autonomous Republic of Crimea article from this one, if we even want "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and "Republic of Crimea" articles.
Frankly, tough this isn't essential to my proposal, I think we should just merge Republic of Crimea and Crimean peninsula into this article instead of spiting off a new "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
We cannot merge them. This is against the usual Wikipedia conventions, first of all, and second of all, it would be impossible to explain the separate governmental structures of each state entity in one article without making it unreadable or violating NPOV. Furthermore, we cannot merge them because they have separate geographical definitions. Both "Crimea" states do not include the Sebastopol region, which is part of the geographical Crimea. This article has always been about the Autonomous Republic. As early as 2004, it claimed to describe the place as such. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both proposal. We have Ireland for the geographic feature, and Republic of Ireland for the state. Furthermore, considering that the two polities claiming the region overlap, I think it is best to keep all geographical, historical, economical and demographic data here, with Republic of Crimea (including info for the short period of independece) and Autonomous Republic of Crimea only covering the political aspects.Anonimu (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving Crimea to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Crimea may refer to several different things: geographic region, Crimean Khanate, part of Russian Empire, Crimean Socialist Soviet Republic, Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, republic in Ukraine, newly established partly recognized state Republic of Crimea. As Autonomous Republic of Crimea it exists for a very short period of its istory. Agree that we need one general article Crimea, which describes whole history of Crimea, and all other articles as subarticles. Debi07 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Calling this "Crimea" without qualification is no longer a neutral point of view, as there are now two Crimeas (the Ukrainian and the Russian POV). Compare also Ireland and Republic of Ireland. CodeCat (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. That's the whole point of moving this article. We will move it to free up the "Crimea" name for a generic Crimea article. This present article is about the Autonomous Republic. Read it. That's what it is about. By moving it, we can then make a nice general article. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my response 03:06, 20 March 2014 to My very best wishes, I support his counter-proposal to simply split off an "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article from this one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Splitting off isn't the appropriate way to do it. This article is presently about the Autonomous Republic, and was before this crisis. The best way to deal with the situation is to move this article, and its edit history, which belong to the Autonomous Republic, to that new title, so that we can free up the name "Crimea" and then create a general article. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Except that this article is already a general Crimea article, with the partial excretion of the infobox, lead, and "Government and politics" section. This article was about Crimea in general before the crisis, it just so happens that before the crisis Crimea was indisputably an Autonomous Republic of Ukraine. Assuming we should have a specialized article, it's be easier to turn this back into a general article and make a new specialized article for the Autonomous Republic; then to turn this into a specialized article. Look at the section titles: the Etymology, History (before 2014), Geography, Economy, Demographics, and Culture of the Republic and the Autonomous Republic are the same. Both the are Republic and the Autonomous Republic are Crimea, the only difference between the two is government. A specialized article would be mostly limited to government, not culture and geography, this is not that specialized article.
As for the two merges, that's not an essential part of my proposal, so I don't want to get hung up on that, but if you want precedent see Abkhazia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It was not about Crimea in general, as Crimea "in general", the "geographic Crimea", includes Sebastopol. This article never included Sebastopol, because it was about the Autonomous Republic, which does not include Sebastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 13:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A.R.O. Crimea and R.O. Crimea are the exact same peace of territory right (the peninsula minus Sebastopol)? That territory is the scope of this article, Sebastopol is irrelevant to my point (aside from the merge with Crimea peninsula, which is not an essential part of my proposal). I meant Crimea in general as opposed to A.R.O. Crimea and R.O. Crimea specifically, not Crimea including Sebastopol as opposed to Crimea excluding Sebastopol. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the two state entities are the same piece of territory. However, they do not cover the whole of Crimea. If this was a "general Crimea article", it would include Sebastopol, unlike an article on one of the states. RGloucester — ☎ 14:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I meant by "general Crimea article". By "general Crimea" I didn't mean "Crimea including Sebastopol". Sebastopol is irrelevant to my point. This article, before the Crimea crisis, covered Crimea (excluding Sebastopol) in general, and I think it should continue to do so. A.R.O. Crimea and R.O. Crimea specifically can be covered in their own specialized articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This is wrong. The article previously covered the Autonomous Republic, because the common name for said state prior to the crisis was "Crimea". However, by nature, a general "Crimea" article cannot exclude Sebastopol. Now that common name considerations have been wiped aside, as neither state is more commonly "Crimea" at the moment, then we must revert to the geographical definition and include Sebastopol. That means that this article, as it stands, should be preserved as the Autonomous Republic article (with its edit history, which has always referred to the autonomous republic, as shown above with the link to the 2004 version), with general information being split off to a new Crimea article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Those "states" you're talking about are just two competing governments of the exact same peace of land. Unless one of the parties wants to redraw Crimea's (political) border, the border remains the same as it was before the crisis. Why must we must revert to the geographical definition and include Sebastopol: the (political) boundaries of Crimea are clear, even if the question of what Crimea's legitimate government is isn't so clear. If America got into a civil war, would we be required to revert to the geographical definition of "America" and include the Americas? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly the point, though. As there are two competing governments, each which claims the same land, neither has a proper claim to the title "Crimea". We cannot refer to either of them as Crimea, as that would be giving undue legitimacy to one viewpoint, violating NPOV. That is to say, the only neutral definition of Crimea is the geographic one, which has nothing to do with politics at all. The only reason this article was titled "Crimea" was because "Crimea" commonly referred to the "Autonomous Republic". As this is no longer the case, we must revert to a neutral definition of the word Crimea. There is only one neutral definition, and that is geographic. This definition is being used even more frequently now, if one reads the news media, where one will see that Sebastopol is now commonly included in "Crimea", even more so then before. To create a "Crimea" article that referenced the boundaries of states, rather than that of geography, this would most likely violate both the common name and NPOV policies. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The Crimea has a long history, and is suitable both in recognition and in reason at that name - these states have been and look to continue being transitory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think this will ensure neutrality although I hasten to add that given the reality on the ground, and for anyone who has been reading about this, in the years ahead their will be a vote here to delete 'Republic of Crimea' and merge it with this.Olorin010 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternate proposal We should move this page to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. However we should move Crimea to being a disambiguation page to cover many possible articles including Crimean Khanate. Crimea has been a city, peninsula, independent Turkic nation that ruled far beyond the Peninsula, and the name of various entities covering part or all of the peninsula. At present there is no clear argument that any meaning is the primary one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. However, isn't that the purpose of moving Crimean peninsula to Crimea? So that a general article can be created? RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment For much of history Crimea has refered to areas far beyond he peninsula itself. For the entire 19th century, and actually over 120 years, Russia had an entity, the Taurida Governorate that made the social and political reality that the boundaries of modern Crimea did not have political consequences. Before that the Crimean Khanate also went far beyond the Peninsula itself. It is only starting in 1919 that the current situation really begans. There is no reason to ignore the broader meaning of the term, or to act like an article on just the Peninsula can adequately cover the full range of its meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Since almost all of our articles on places in Isthmus of Perekop say they are in Crimea, but the Isthmus is clearly not part of the geographical entity called Crimean Peninsula, it should be obvious to anyone who has looked closely at this issue that we can not make the Peninsula the primary article and keep to the way the term is used even at present. The Peninsula is less than all of Crimea by most uses of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:SNOW could be applied to the matter of creating an article on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea - there is overwhelming support here for creating that article. The real issue of division is what this article should be - an article about the Crimean peninsula, a disambiguation page, etc. In the meantime discussion could then be focused on addressing the issues raised here on what to do with this article, this article should adhere to NPOV remove the infobox and the topic in the intro saying that this is about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea alone and acknowledge that there are two entities claiming the same territory.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I am saying apply WP:SNOW to creating an article titled Autonomous Republic of Crimea. I did not say that WP:SNOW needed to be applied to having this article be about the Crimean peninsula. There is division on what this article should be now, there are those who think it should be about the Crimean peninsula while others think it should be a disambiguation page. However support for the creation of an article titled "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", appears to be widespread.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clear from a review of Google Books result for Crimea that the term is almost always synonymous with the peninsula. Other uses are qualified eg with Republic, Khanate etc. When they are not, it's usually because the qualification has already appeared in the text and it would be repetitive to repeat the qualification. Straightforward case of WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This has nothing to with the current situation, the article titles have always been incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)\
  • Oppose for procedural reasons. The edit history should remain with "Crimea" since this has been the sole Crimea article for 9/10 of Wikipedia's existence. Support a new Autonomous Republic of Crimea article as proposed below. Evidently some parties couldn't wait for this discussion to end because much of the article's content has already been cut-and-paste moved to other articles. —  AjaxSmack  02:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is functionally over, and an administrator moved the articles, as one can see below. For some reason which I cannot understand, despite asking, he has not properly closed the discussion here. RGloucester — ☎ 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Split counter-proposal

I propose we leave the article at this title, covering Crimea neutrality, and simply split off an "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article, like our Republic of Crimea article.

If we were to move this article and finish making it's scope the Autonomous Republic specifically, we would need move the majority of the content out of the article and into a general Crimea article anyway sense most of the content is about Crimea in general rather then the Republic or Autonomous Republic specifically. Look at the section titles: the Etymology, History (before 2014), Geography, Economy, Demographics, and Culture of the Republic and the Autonomous Republic are the same; both the are Republic and the Autonomous Republic are Crimea, the only difference between the two is government. Covering all that non-government stuff like Culture in both the the Republic and the Autonomous Republic articles would be massively redundant, it belongs on a general Crimea article, and aside form the parts of this article that deal with government like the "Government and politics" section, this article is already that general Crimea article.

It'd be easier to turn this back into a general Crimea article (as it was before the Crimea crisis) and make a new specialized article for the Autonomous Republic; then to turn this into a specialized article. A specialized "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" article would be mostly limited to government and the like, not culture and geography, this is not that specialized article.

I made a rough draft of an Autonomous Republic article, tough it certainly has some rough edges to smooth out. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for yet another article about Crimea. We already have four. What we need is to get the ones we have into the right places, not create even more confusion. CodeCat (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This was never a "general Crimea article", as I already explained. The edit history of this article must be attached to history of the Autonomous Republic, because, as I showed in old versions of the page, this article has always been about the Autonomous Republic, and has never included Sebastopol, which is also in "Crimea", but not the "Autonomous Republic". RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
My proposal is not to expand the scope of this page to include Sebastopol, this page would (presumably) continue to cover the territory is allays has, the Crimea crisis has not effected the political bounties of Crimea, which continue to exclude Sebastopol (the political boundaries of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the "Republic of Crimea" are identical). I know we've had this discussion already, and I don't expect you to agree with me (and that's OK), I'm just saying this for the record so my proposal isn't misunderstood. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
My proposal does not prejudge against merging Crimean peninsula into this article, if that's what you're talking about CodeCat. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
But it still complicates things by adding even more articles to the mix, even more discussions, mergers and so on. Can we focus on one thing at a time, instead of trying to solve the same problem in lots of different and incompatible ways? CodeCat (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is the "one thing at the time" (moving the article) would IMO do more harm then good, so I've made a counter-proposal that addresses the issues raised in the RM. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It creates more problems then it solves. RGloucester — ☎ 13:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This counter-proposal is counter-productive.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment There is no boundary Crimea has "always" had. It has had many different boundaries through history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note: Since, despite repeated requests over several days, no uninvolved administrator could be bothered to formally conclude this discussion, and one part of it has been implemented as consensual in the meantime, I am going to go ahead and implement the second half too, i.e. the move of the geographical Crimean peninsula article to the Crimea title. I count 25 editors in the above discussion who supported this as well as the other part of the proposal, versus 8 editors who supported only the first part but opposed this, plus 4 who opposed both, plus 7 whose opinions were undecided or neutral or who were making entirely different proposals. I believe it's safe enough to assume this is editorial consensus. I'll go ahead implementing this in a few hours unless I hear some strong procedural objections in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to have it on record that I would prefer another admin to close this thread, even though I don't necessarily disagree with Fut. Perf.'s assessment of the outcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2014; 13:27 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea/Archive_6&oldid=1088568089"