Talk:Political status of Crimea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit request

Redirect to Crimean Peninsula or to 2014 Crimean crisis. The current redirection is a huge violation of WP:NPOV, because it essentially says "Current political status of Crimea? It's Russia now.", while it's quite obviously in dispute internationally. CodeCat (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Seems like something that should be discussed before being changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV this should be changed. That policy has consensus, and ignoring it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Local consensus is always overridden by global consensus. CodeCat (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I don't see any POV here, as it is just a redirect, it is impossible for it to have a POV. I suggest establishing a consensus for changing this redirect at WP:RfD. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is POV because it directs "political status of Crimea" to the claimed Russian entity, rather than to a neutral article like Crimea or 2014 Crimean crisis. This is favouring the Russian POV, and should be changed at once. Please redirect this page to 2014 Crimean crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. As Technical 13 said this would be best placed at WP:RFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

    This isn’t a legitimate redirect. This is an article, overwritten by Dpmuk (talk · contribs) in an unprovoked edit war against me, and then protected. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

    • • I protected that redirect without any real though where it redirected per WP:WRONGVERSION. Although it could be argued that I should have left at the article version I thought that this would be overly disruptive, given the discussion closed by Dennis Brown and the subsquent edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

        Note: Putting aside the question of legitimacy of the closure, relevant statements of Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), neither original nor amended, do not contain a single statement about the [possible,ongoing,recent] “Political status …” article. No edit war ever existed here before Dpmuk. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

      • Oh and for any reviewing admins my actions seem to have been broadly endorsed at WP:ANI#Protection review - Political status of Crimea - although I am of course in no way neutral to be making that determination but it seems reasonable to give the other view. Dpmuk (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile

I am glad to inform all editors about an ongoing discussion at talk:2014 Crimean crisis #What to do after normalization?. Also, I think that the best way of implementation will be pressing to consider the ignominious “closure” statement null and void officially. This is the root problem, that caused dispersion of the “Republic of Crimea (country)” discussion to several pages, prompted incompetent intervention to this article, caused creation of bizarre sandboxes in the user space or, saying in general, disrupted Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible replacement

There has been a suggestion at WP:ANI by User:Ahnoneemoos that this page be replaced by User:Ahnoneemoos/sandbox. I'm broadly happy with this but don't want to start another edit war so if anyone disagrees please say. I'll be travelling for the next few days and will try to look in but if there are no objections I will have no problems with another admin implementing. Dpmuk (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That sandbox page looks very good to me and would be a useful article to have on Wikipedia, as Crimea is not meant to provide a detailed summary of the political status of the region and the pages for the Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea are intended to present the Russian and Ukrainian governments' respective views of how Crimea is organized. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with such an article, but I recommend that this redirect be deleted before it is implemented. The article itself will be subject to consensus, so it might face deletion/merging discussions. However, as it stands, I'd support the implementation as a compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. It seems Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol was created. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The question of edit histories

This is largely a continuation of this thread placed here to avoid cluttering the talk page of the older article. So, how we have a main-space article on our topic, although under another title and made of another article. I’m not an expert on degrees of consensus, but the article was contributed by me (Incnis Mrsi), Ahnoneemoos, Huaiwei, Tlhslobus, Martin Berka, with minor edits of other users, also it wasn’t moved back in 46 hours. Hence, an acceptance of its right to dwell in the main space now by a large part of editors (on this topic) is evident.

To avoid further accusations of “unilaterality” I propose to form, in advance, some consensus about edit histories. You know that there are two separate main-space pages (Ahnoneemoos’s sandbox not counted). One (Political status of Crimea) is newer but, with its page_id, initially created as an article about political status. Another, Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), is older but was initially an article about diplomatic recognition. Obviously, only one article will remain. We may:

1. Convert what is now “Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol” (formerly “International recognition of the Republic of Crimea”) to the redirect here, moving the current version here providing all attribution.
2. Move what originally was “International recognition of the Republic of Crimea” elsewhere with its page_id and history, then the same as in the point 1 (including the redirect).
3. Redirect “Political status of Crimea” to “Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol” and postpone the title question.
4. Merge edit histories (this implies that the community accepted the conversion of International recognition…” to our article).

Obviously, I dismiss a suggestion of one user to delete my article if only because it would break attribution of a content that already exists in the main space.

Opinions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'd start with option two, since some people seem to question the repurposing of the international recognition article. RGloucester — ☎ 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Can you please stop creating so many discussions about the same subject in so many different places. Every time you start a new discussion somewhere else it makes matters more confusing. There is a discussion right now at Talk:Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. Let that discussion take its course over there and once it's finished we can discuss all these other matters. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2014

This page should redirect to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol instead of Republic of Crimea. [Soffredo] 20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

[Soffredo]  20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)