This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

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 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)

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)

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)

For those that are interested, I've nominated the International recognition of the Republic of Crimea article for deletion. Take a look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International recognition of the Republic of Crimea --Tocino 06:51, 20 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] --Tocino 09:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

only a few nations recognized the independence - the linked article lists only Russia.Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 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)

There were two entities - ARC and Sevastopol, now is one. The quoted phrase is obviously false.Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol is now a federal city of Russia. It is not part of the Republic.RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

I have removed the irrelevant copied content. RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, general information about Crimea belongs on a general Crimea article. This article is specifiably about the Russian government/political devision of Crimea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we be removing similar information from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea article too? CodeCat (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a redirect to Crimea, and there's currently a dispute at to weather Crimea is a general Crimea article, or weather it's about the A.R.O. Crimea specifiably. See talk:Crimea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 17:53, 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)

The map incorrectly shows Sevastopol as part of the Republic of Crimea. This is incorrect. They were admitted into the Russian Federation as two separate entities. Please fix the map. [Soffredo] 23:05, 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)

Relevant discussion at

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

CodeCat (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

now archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_13#WP:NPOV_and_WP:UNDUE_in_Crimea-related_articles NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A map should be provided with respect to Russia. WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

The Duma and Federal Council have to agree yet. --Wester (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That will be a formality. The treaty is provisionally in effect until ratification. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia violates international law to annex Ukraine's Crimea by aggressive military forces. It's illegal. Superman218 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Which laws has it violated and when? Jimmydreads (talk) 19:36, 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)

Can you tell source where UN said that? mrl586 (talk) 17:39, 20 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)

Too much soap here. SaintAviator talk 09:01, 19 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)

• NATO/EU/Australia/NZ propaganda? Tibet2014 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

A note on "autonomous", it was dropped from the official name on 26 February 1992 by the local government [3]. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 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)

Just letting everyone know where it is: Wikipedia:AN#Reverting_merge_about_the_short-lived_independence_of_Crimea_as_a_country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 24 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.....

Otherwise it would be disrespect to International law, to the opinion of 95% of countries and UNO. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)217.76.1.22 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is the 'Russian point of view', the proclaimed Russian federal subject. For the Ukrainian point of view you have to look 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. --Wester (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

That said, I would support adding "according to Russian law" to the beginning, as it would clarify the first sentence. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:32, 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 me Hahc21 15:51, 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)

We don't ignore the de facto situation on-the-ground. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 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)

@Erik Monsen, neutrality is to list the Russian/Crimean point of view along with Ukrainian/US/EU point of view and explain each as appropriate. We have separate articles on Israel & Palestine, Serbia & Kosovo, Taiwan & Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, and Cyprus & Northern Cyprus. For you to blank the entire Republic of Crimea page on your personal stance is not acceptable. Abstractematics (talk) 02:29, 25 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.

Wikipedia's job is to describe each side, with reliable sources, not pass judgement on which side is right. Abstractematics (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

THERE IS 15 SUPPORT, 21 OPPOSE. AND User:Dennis Brown THINKS HE CAN JUST IGNORE THIS??? Tibet2014 (talk) 20:05, 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¢ | WER 20:12, 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)

Again, please remain WP:CIVIL, assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks. You may be blocked otherwise. CodeCat (talk) 21:00, 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. RedvBlue 09:37, 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)

• Note that I made one minor correction to the close, striking the old portion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about the Republic of Crimea as part of Russia, not the geographic Crimea. Bolegash (talk) 18:42, 29 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)

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)

No. It should not contain an exhaustive list of countries that abstained on the resolution, because this is not List of countries that abstained in the United Nations resolution on Crimea. I also think that the list of countries that voted against should be replaced by a number. → Call me Hahc21 21:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely the page should not list the countries but just the number. And even this I am not sure. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor made the whole article reflect as if the Republic of Crimea was a federal subject of Ukraine. [Soffredo] 16:59, 30 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:

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.

Therefore, I suggest that we should restore the Republic of Crimea (country) article for consistency (but keep it as a short article, and let the bulk of the information be in Republic of Crimea along with Sevastopol)

Support (as nominator). - Anonimski (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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¢ | WER 23:01, 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)

• Per WP:CLOSURE:

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."

Please follow this process, rather than circumventing it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
• WP:CLOSURE is an information page, not a policy. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, a policy, the action must be reverted as the action performed by the administrator is being contested. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Anarchy isn't an option. You can join the discussion at WP:AN now, but you can't just make up rules as you go. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:IAR is one of our WP:FIVEPILLARS. I didn't "make up" WP:NOCONSENSUS, it existed before this fiasco. Be careful with your wording. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:30, 24 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)

There are tons or articles on historic administrative structures. For Crimea alone: Crimean oblast, Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimean Regional Government, Taurida Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimean People's Republic, Taurida Governorate, … --Wester (talk) 15:13, 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)

The unusual way in which Crimea was joined to Russia is a notable subject, and the short-lived Crimean sovereign entity is a central part of describing that process. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a tool for WP:WIKILAWYERING. - Anonimski (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)