Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Neutrality

The is a tag on this page about the lack of neutrality of this page, and it says that the tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. Personally, I think the article is neutral as about half is about international sanctions and UN resolutions. Would you agree to remove the tag? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For starters, the very title of the article is POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And what do you propose? "Annexation"? The only possible neutral title is "Incorporation..." Anything else seems to be considered either Russian (entry of independent state) or Ukrainian/Western (annexation of Ukrainian territory, "bloody Russian occupiers", "Putin is Hitler", etc.) POV. I really can't see why many people here reject obviously neutral title. Seryo93 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Because it's not neutral. In terms of international law, "annexation" is more neutral. Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Annexation is more neutral than incorporation? Seryo93 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
And about int'l law: please notice that there is a right to Self-determination and Kosovo independence precedent. Seryo93 (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC). Modified on 14:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
As we've been through before, wikipedia policies on pages like the annexation of Bosnia and the annexation of Texas reveal that the word is standard and neutral for the context (not even German wikipedia, which also calls Bosnia annexation, has a POV debate about it!). Originally I thought it wasn't neutral but after seeing how it is used I came to realize it was. Accession, it definitely isn't, as the Russian Federation is a single state, not an organization of states. "Incorporation" would work for me too though, I could do that. --Yalens (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't try to trick us. As we've discussed before, it's not neutral for the context. And it's not standard, see
  1. Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China
  2. Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China
--Moscow Connection (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Addition: There's also Indian integration of Junagadh. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, federations are, by definition, a states made up of states (sorry for tautology). And at least republics are officially called "Республики (государства)", per art.5 of the Constitution. But I'm support "Incorporation..." over both of other variants (acc. and annex.), because it seems to be neutral and stay in middle between two seemingly opposite variants ("Accession..." is disputed by those, who don't recognise 2014 referendum and subsequent declaration of independence, while "Annexation..." is disputed by their opponents due to right to self-determination and bilateral nature of action (it was made via treaty betw. RF and RoC(country). "Incorporation" encompasses both annexation and accession, without preferring either of these points. This is why I insist on it. Seryo93 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Lol @ "Trying to trick us". Try not to have a battlefield mentality. As for "autonomous republics", we all know that no matter how "autonomous" they may claim to be, the central government officially appoints their executive chiefs, so they cannot be called real states. As I said before I would support changing it to "incorporation". Why don't we just go ahead and change it to that, as we all seem to agree? --Yalens (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: appointment of governors is no longer mandatory: current legislation offers Russian regions choice between direct election of governors and their appointment via 2004-2012 scheme. Seryo93 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If there will be no further opposition to "Incorporation..." then I will move page to that title. Seryo93 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral about this. I don't really like the word "incorporation", but I want to end all wars over the title. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Incorporation" implies something that has been completed and has legal standing. That too is very POV. "Annexation" is the most accurate and neutral term available.

How about we go through (reliable!) sources again and see how they describe it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Annexation implies unilateral action (which is not so true, see above), and has non-neutral (in this case negative, intermingling with "Russian invaders" and similar POVs) connotations (and I've pointed to that several times, but it looks like some seem to ignore that). "Incorporation" doesn't necessary imply legal standing (but this event has sort of, at least in Russian law, see conflict of laws and territorial dispute). It's mean joining, assimilating something into entity, in this case into another sovereign state. And btw, just like [some] Russian sources have a sort of systemic pro-Russian bias, [some] Western sources have a sort of systemic bias against Russia (a dark legacy of the Cold War), so we cannot "blindly accept" annexation, nor accession, because neutrality is one of our five pillars. Again, incorporation (or joining, or assimilating) encompasses both annexation and accession points, without preferring either. IDK why we must stick to (obviously) negatievly connoted "annexation" viewpoint while we can take neutral titling of page and then reflect both viewpoints in lead in a such way: "Incorporation of... to..., also known as annexation of... by...[references] or accession of... to...[refs] or reunification of... with...[refs], is a disputed..."). Seryo93 (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC) . Modified 05:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: "That too is very POV. "Annexation" is the most accurate and neutral term available." well, if it's that's true, then "bloody Russian occupiers", "expansionist ambitions of Putin's Russia", etc. are most neutral definitions, backed by most trustworthy™, reliable™ and neutral™ sources in the world*sarcasm*. Really, why won't rename German reunification into annexation too? "Reunification" is a patriotic (and anti-communist, btw.) POV, while "annexation" is neutral term of international law. Same applies to other "reunifications". And after all, why "American Revolution" (anti-British POV!), let's rename that into something like "Seccession of the United States from the British Empire" or "American separatism in British Empire"*sarcasm too*. BTW: I'm not doubting your (and everyone else) good intent (at least now), but let's reach a consensus. If there is so much opposition to "annexation", then maybe there are reasons for that. Seryo93 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
And another, perhaps radical, proposal from me: if there is no consensus, then maybe just delete this page and leave redirect to (or section in) 2014 Crimean Crisis? Because if all proposals are rejected, then there is unnamed page, which technically impossible. BTW: treat this as a sarcasm too. Seryo93 (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW. Because there's unlikely to reach consensus, I'm requesting for comment. Seryo93 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The annexation is not view by "several world leaders as illegal". It is viewed by the UN and almost the entire world as illegal.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
UN is not limited to UNGA (we also have UNSC there, but it is gridlocked, because Russian resolutions are likely to be vetoed by the US/UK/FR and US resolutions are likely to be vetoed by Russia (as happened on 15 March)). And about "almost entire world"... 93 UNMS (of 193) either abstained (58), absent (24) or voted against (11) UNGA resolution on territorial integrity of Ukraine. It's fair to say "majority (or plurality) of countries", but "almost entire world" is not so correct. Seryo93 (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Anschluss

Isn't Accession of Austria to the German Reich 1938 link (note how it's titled!) a POV-pushing? German reunification is (technically) anschluss too (DDR was absorbed into BRD) - and this controversial POV was noted in RS newspapers too (see here) - but we don't post it into reunification article. 92.100.195.45 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the situation is really similar. Though my personal opinion on the matter might be influenced by my dislike of the Russian state. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not only POV, this is pure vandalism. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"Anschluss" used in this context is a particularly poisonous term, very unlike Hitler's coup d' etat over Austria that prevented a referendum that would have gone against Der Fuherer. I hope this article survives that sort of partisanship. Activist (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to be fair, from that particular point of view there is a strong parallel with the Crimea in 2014 because once the Wehrmacht had entered Austria, they had a referendum where people were asked after the event if they approved of the new situation - and claimed a very high proportion of people voted yes. But you are right that it's a term to be avoided. 195.171.114.69 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This parallel alreadly present in Commentary section, with proper attribution. And yes, this parallel is pretty notable. Seryo93 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
"Note how it's titled"? It is titled Anschluss! not "Accession of Austria to the German Reich 1938" and the article straight away refers to it as annexation. The Der Speigel article on reunification also describes Anschluss as annexation. The term accession is never used. Of course the comparison of the Russian annexation of Crimea to the Anschluss is limited because Austria, unlike Crimea was a nation state. Without comparing modern Russia to Nazi Germany, there is arguably a better comparison with the annexation of the Sudetenland.PussBroad (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I meant visible link title (not hover-title/target-page title). Either way, problem was solved a LONG ago. Seryo93 (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding a note about term "annexation" usage.

I would like to propose to add a note, that word "annexation" is used mostly by western media and western leaders, and also, that it's being refuted. I've added it myself in the past, but I've received following arguments against my edit (and my responses to it):

  • This term is recognized by countries who signed Resolution 68/262 of the UN and not only USA & Europe (my response: there is no word 'annexation' in this resolution, countries who signed this document never signed under this *concrete* definition (and I insist - under this *concrete* term - annexation))
  • My revert with argument above was reverted again with argument: There are still no proofs that only USA & Europe use this term (my response: I've never implied or used word 'only', but if you have example of the mass media outside the western block (that is - USA/Europe and countries who follow them and don't play independent role) - please give real and respectable sources, China (one of the major players) for example, never used this word)
  • After this my note was reverted with argument "Better sources needed" (my response: I've provided two very respectable sources for my claim that term 'annexation' is being refuted, they're RT and ITAR-TASS: http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/724737 http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-crimea-slander-annexation-289
  • Finally I've received revert of my edit with absolutely insane comment (quote): There is no dispute. "Annexation" merely means the incorporation of territory into another country. This is what happened, and no one questions that.

There IS a dispute, and you may see this even on this page above. Not only in mass media and speeches of authorities. Term 'annexation' is a *legal* term, and no one has provided any legal judgement to use this term in its ABSOLUTE meaning (consider word "murder" and "justifiable homicide" - result is the same, but from legal point of view they're two different situations). Wikipedia administrators and editors are not judges and wikipedia itself is not a court to use such dangerous terms as they want. We're here to provide facts, and a *reader* is the only one who may decide how to judge a fact. And fact is: it's called annexation by western and european mass media (+leaders) and it's being refuted - I believe it should be noted right at the start, to give reader full picture and let HIM to decide.

The reasons why this legal term may be discussed even more, I would like to describe further in the article, referencing Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances, but if administrators don't want NPOV in the article and want only text, which reflects their opinion then it's better not to spend our time at all.

At the end: I appeal to NPOV and understanding that word 'annexation' is a legal term which cannot be used freely as you want, because annexation is begin explicitly forbidden by the UN and using this term without ANY notice means taking position of one side and actually accusing another one with a crime.

Therefor I request to get back this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=607942504&oldid=607814223

NB: I've nothing against article title, it's really common name for the incident, and for google search 'crimea annexation' wikipedia should be on 1st place, but this name was created by mass media and not by any international court. If this wiki is only for USA/European point of view and facts from other side of the conflict are being ignored or by any means tried to be silenced - please state it somewhere and we'll not lose our time in choosing for careful wording for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.18.167 (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, see the previous discussions in this talk page and you will find proofs about the "legality" of the term. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, either give a direct reference, either not start flame at all. Only discussion about legality ended with this (quote): "the "legality" of the subject matter is irrelevant". So there are no proofs at all. And what is being suggested - add a note about it, to let reader decide by HIMSELF about the subject. If you have no valuable arguments or propositions, please, don't come into discussion, otherwise you're just spending everyone's time and increase entropy of the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.18.167 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd urge you to decrease the aggression towards other users; please, read Wikipedia guidelines regarding it.
See this discussion and the comments there, where the quotes from different dictionaries were given.
if you have example of the mass media outside the western block [...] please give real and respectable sources - you're the user who added a vague claim, and you should be the side who provides reliable sources for it. Who checked African, Middle Eastern, East, South & South-East Asian mass media to give such claims? And Chinese media has never been a measurement criteria for the usage of any term.
RT and ITAR-TASS are not considered as neutral sources in this case and they can be used only to reflect the Russian official POV. Good luck, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
And I'd argue you to clearly state your arguments, before reverting other's people work. It may be small contribution, but time was spent to work on it. And formulating clear and neutral sentences is not an easy task. And when your work is being reverted even w/o reading link titles or with arguments which are clearly wrong - it make people protect their opinion in rather aggressive manner.
I've read this discussion already, and you could get this by me, pointing out that I'm not against the title. Have you read yourself summary of this discussion why title says 'annexation'? It's because of common name for this incident. And I completely agree with this. It's common name. It was agreed upon, and readers should have knowledge about where the title is coming from (I hope you won't suggest them to look inside Talk page?), otherwise this article is clearly "reflects Western official POV". And I see no arguments with which you can refute it.
Next, about the sources. As I stated already, I've tried to use neutral wording as much as possible, and in this conflict situation, we have clearly two conflicting powers - USA/Europe and Russia. Chinese are being another serious world player, and they have taken neutral side and you can see it from UN voting. (I can continue to speculate that there are countries who were neutral/opposite (58/11) to Resolution 68/262, so they clearly DO NOT support word 'annexation', which even do not exist in this resolution, but I hope I don't need to do so). Therefor, it's the reason why I wrote that term 'annexation' is "widely used" in western mass media. It's clear fact AND based on this fact naming for article has been chosen (not because of African press, so please, read the summary of the discussion you pointed).
Next, about RT/ITAR-TASS, please at least read the titles of the links I posted. RT/ITAR-TASS do not do any 'analysis', they simply quote authorities. I see no reasons why "better" sources should be given. I have no influence over western press to make them write what they clearly don't want.
You personally may view that as annexation, but let the reader decide for himself. Otherwise, please, state that you don't care about NPOV and delete arguments which you don't want to see in wikipedia.
Again, I propose to add the sentence that term annexation is mainly used in western mass media (again, see the discussion for article title naming), and it's being refuted (then links to the arguments of the refute). Let the reader decide what is it - stupid excuse, or real arguments. Can you state by points - why this sentence is wrong, why it should not be included, or why it violates NPOV? Then we probably may start constructive dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.18.167 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is some kind of linguistic ignorance going on. People seem to be unable to realise that "annexation" and "аннексия" are "false friends", they mean totally different things. Russians and Westerners just think in different categories, so Russians in many cases simply could not borrow a word in the same meaning that the Westerners put in it. The word "annexation" is best translated "присоединение"; if we translated this originally Latin word morpheme by morpheme, we would get "прикрепление". Nothing non-neutral about that. If many Westerners get negative associations about this term in this case, that's a totally different part of the matter. And yes, there goes a surprise: when trying to put a thought to usage of words, one realises that meanings of words can be explained via meanings of other words, so there is more than one way to name a thing, and some ways are better than others... Those who don't try to give a thought complain that "writers of literature (mathematical, artistic, etc) write all in weird ways", and so on, and so on. - 89.110.11.115 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I speak both languages fluently. There is no difference between the definition of the legal terms annexation and аннексия, as you can read in the respective articles. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, legal language is its own kingdom, but there were examples delivered on this page where the word "annexation" did not have a negative connotation, right? In Russian, that would be impossible; the use of the word "аннексия" would mean that the people who live on the territory in question protested and were very resentful. I mean the daily language rather than the specialist language; about the specialist language, I know nothing, and it is irrelevant. Of course, the question is what is forcible; as we know, the annexation or whatever it is called of Crimea was not forcible meaning the citizens were not forced. So, the best Russian word is absolutely not аннексия, but присоединение: the latter is neutral, as it lacks any emotional part of the message and mentions only the factual part, but the former does have the emotional part, and it is more specific. - 89.110.15.101 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
As to irrelevance of the specialist language: indeed, the relevant language for a title is the daily language, not the legal language. The question is whether the daily language borrows meanings from the legal language or it does not. What is the case with English, I don't know, but in Russian it does not and is not supposed to; the reason for keeping the same word to mean any two different things is often the same emotion caused, as is the case now — what this reason cannot be is being defined the same in some lawbooks or something of this kind. - 89.110.15.101 (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So, to summarise: in daily Russian, аннексия is an event that proceeds in opposition to the will of the people who live on the аннексированной territory. If the people first seceded from the country they lived in and then asked (willingly) to be incorporated into another country, the question whether this may be qualified as legal аннексия is a matter for dispute, but аннексия would be a possible legal qualification rather than a proper name. Whether this is the case with English, I don't know, if it is not, then the words are false friends. - 89.110.15.101 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for GOOD ARTICLE

I believe that this article is well-written and well detailed. I wish to nominate it for a good article. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a very bad article. For a start there are a huge number of minor grammatical errors, particularly omission of the definite article, because so much of it is written by Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PussBroad (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is something that I must work on. Thanks for your notice :) Seryo93 (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the criteria for GA status. There are questions of NPOV dating back to March that don't seem answered. The cleanup tags do seem valid. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Annexation instead of accession

Should not the title of the page be "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"? By the definition in Wikipedia, "annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the permanent acquisition and incorporation of some territorial entity into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.31.83 (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Annexation is a unilateral act.".
(Someone may try to rename the article to make it look like Crimea was occupied cause annexation implies occupation. :)) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not a question if Wikipedia is reliable source, but IP's remark of wikipedia's own standards. More than that it is recognized as an annexation internationally.
This article should be renamed. Of the sources used in this article it is called annexation today in The Guardian, Fox News etc.
Fox news cites Joe Biden calling it annexation: Meeting with anxious European leaders in neighboring Poland, Biden said the world sees through Russia's actions. He said virtually the entire world rejects the referendum in Crimea that cleared the way for Russia to annex the peninsula in Ukraine.
And David Cameron in The Telegraph The steps taken by President Putin today to attempt to annex Crimea to Russia are in flagrant breach of international law and send a chilling message across the continent of Europe," Cameron said in a statement.
Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk in The Telegraph:"Russia's annexation of Crimea can't be accepted by the international community including Poland. In one moment this changes the country's (Ukraine) borders and the geopolitical situation in this region of the world," Tusk said at a joint news conference with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
And in The Telegraph:The European Union "will not recognise the annexation" of Crimea by Russia, the EU's top officials, Herman Van Rompuy and Jose Manuel Barroso, said in a joint statement. Klõps (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, "accession" sounds neutral, "annexion" doesn't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Politically charged news articles quoting political figures who are opposed to Russia are not a good source to define a word. Accession is the correct term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.88.4 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen sources like RT that instead talk of reunification and pull out other world leaders who aren't singing from the same hymn sheet, as well as attacking "western media" for not covering aspects of the story that show support. Now RT may be biased but so are other agencies. his could be an NPOV nightmare, especially if there's a language bias in the sources. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It is a unilateral act, annexation is the appropriate word. A fictious cover of (illegal) legality does not make it legal, Japan's annexation of Korea was not made voluntary by the document enabling it. Ottawakismet (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Not a unilateral act since there's more than one actor in play - Russia and Republic of Crimea in mutual agreement. The people of Crimea voted for it and the current government of Crimea agreed to it. Whether I agree that this was legal does not mean I agree with proposed title change. Abstractematics (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Technically it was the secession of Crimea that was illegal according to Ukrainian law. The accession to Russia was legal, as long as you assume that Crimea had the right to determine that. It did have that right as an independent state, but of course if it wasn't allowed to secede, then all else that follows is illegal too. It's kind of a long "chain" but only the first part of that chain was illegal; all following steps were legal on the condition that it was legal to reach that point. CodeCat (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In politics, there are always multiple sides, each "in the right" from their own point of view. Kosovo, Israel, and Tibet are examples of population seccession that is recognized by one party, and not recognized by the next. Usually the one's saying its illegal is the one that loses the territory. In these situations, I default to the populations opinion rather than the benefitting or losing parties. Until otherwise proven unfair, the popular vote to join the Russian Federation makes accession the proper word. 168.251.2.44 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)COG
  • It is deifntely 'accession and not annexation. Crimea conducted a referendum and after that all steps of Russia were formally legal. Russia recognized Crimea as a country so Crimea became a partially recognized country and when a bilateral agreement was signed. Should be renamed. Debi07 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure it is not "accession". For "accession" you need an independent country. But Crimeans never wanted "independence". In the (disputed) referendum, they have voted for "reunification" with Russia. Not "independence". Russia did formally recognize Crimean independence on 17 March, thus violating a range of bilateral agreements with Ukraine and the Budapest memorandum from 1994. No other country in the world recognized Crimean independence and of course Ukraine did not recognize Crimean independence. By recognizing Crimean independence, Russia unilaterally violated treaties with Ukraine. Moreover, Russian troops occupied Crimea well before the referendum and the Crimean "independence". All this leads me to the conclusion that it was an annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.254.58 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that English does not have a name for the event itself, it has only names for various legal qualifications of it. Very much unlike in Russian, by the way. Imagine for instance that an extraterrestrial wants to write a Wikipedia article about this event, and he has no legal concept of state on his planet and in his language; yet, he describes the same event that all other language sections do and names the event per what it is called in his language. - 89.110.20.173 (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

stop the US propaganda

South america is amazed how you guys use a world wide enciclopedia to do propaganda, and on the bad, war likers side, im sorry for you guys. a Neutral and realist competitor will appear soon, rectifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.221.49 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Move to more neutral title

Not a constructive proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 23 July 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 should be moved to a more neutral title like Occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation per Israeli-occupied territories and all the propaganda in Wikipedia calling Israel's lands "occupation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F241:7A00:D4FA:7B16:D650:EB82 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Annexation is fact (territory was joined by Russia, regardless of how you view this), occupation is POV. See Military occupation and annexation for details. How about calling Taiwan "Kuomintang-occupied territories of PRC" then? Seryo93 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Annexation with the full compliance of the local people is not occupation. This is a muddling of legal terminology, and these words do have meaning. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This whole topic is trolling... --Yalens (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Annexation" and "occupation" are not mutually exclusive (see Nazi takeover of Czechoslovakia). However, as wrong-headed as the oppose votes are above, I believe this was already discussed extensively.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
"Nazi takeover" contained one annexation (Sudetenland), but generally (i.e. for most of Czechoslovakia) resulted in protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Latter is military occupation, because protectorate "retains formal sovereignty, and remains a state under international law". "Russian Crimea" doesn't retain its breakaway-state status, but became directly absorbed into Russia (as two new federal subjects). Hence, the difference between occupation and annexation remains (abeit occupation may precede annexation, via "actual control->formal control" scheme). Same applies to Reichskommissariats: they were "officially located outside of the German Reich in a legal sense", so they were occupations (not annexations). Seryo93 (talk)
So what you are saying then is that Hitler gave a greater degree of freedom to the Sudetenland than Putin gave to Crimea because Russia evidently considers that a "federal subject" means something more totally controlled by Putin than the Sudetenland was by Hitler. Incidentally the article Axis powers mentions annexation 39 times including about Austria (as in the article Anschluss) and several times about the Danzig. Of course "anschluss" or joining is a nice euphemism just like accession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PussBroad (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
@PussBroad: It's not about "degrees of freedom", it's about legal status of territory (and not of a person). Annexed territory becomes part of a country (Crimea, Texas, Hawaii, etc.) in a legal sense, occupied one remains outside occupying country in a legal sense. Degrees of freedom won't matter: if dictatorship annex. your country (Anschluss, Sudetenland), you still became less free, but it still will be annexation. And I never meant that fringe "gave more freedom" point! Federal subject is, in fact, more free subdivision than Nazi ones (first because Russia isn't a totalitarian state now, second because RF is a federation, whilst Reich was unitary state). Seryo93 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 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.

Rename back to "Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation"

Evidently no consensus for this change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 23 July 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.

The article should be renamed back to its original title. The consensus regarding changing Accession into Annexation was not approved or passed so it shouldn't have been moved in the first place. Accession also takes a more neutral view unlike Annexation which takes a more anti-Russian point of view. If anyone would once again want to request to move the article from Accession to Annexation then they are free to do that, but the article should definitely be moved back first as it was not fairly renamed. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

'Accession' has a meaning of legitimacy, and there is no agreement as to the 100% legitimacy of the event. Therefore it cannot be more neutral. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL, no. For the reasons spelled out in the last series of movereqs and more. This event was a textbook example of annexation. If calling it what it is is "anti-Russian", then so be it -- but the intent is not prejudice against any one country, people, or faction, but simply the most accurate and common description of the event. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Kudzu1. Annexation implies an act by the Russian Federation while the neutral story is that the Republic of Crimea decided to access the Russian Federation. Therefore the original title is better. --Wester (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
re:first sentence: ROTFL. re:neutral story. Yes, it looks neutral, if you ignore what had happened before it "decided to access". Reminds me "free execution of people's will" of the Baltic States to join the Soviet Union. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is classic annexation. They occupied the area with troops and took it against the countries wishes. Thats annexation, regardless of the views of that particular area on the matter. So I oppose this change. --Youngdrake (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not classic annexation. Not on paper. --Wester (talk) 13:52, 14 July 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.

"Annexation" is Western propaganda. Choose "Incorporation" instead.

Evidently no consensus for this change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 23 July 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.

Western propaganda primarily uses the term "annexation," because of how much they still consider the de facto Russian federal subjects of Crimea and Sevastopol to be semi-autonomous republics of Ukraine, not Russian federal subjects. Just rename this article. Wikipedia's a neutral encyclopedia, NOT a fucking retarded bullshit Western propaganda machine. Zakawer (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually to be neutral both positions should be covered. My Western propoganda machine and your eastern propoganda machine.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This instance is pretty much a textbook example of annexation. The only "propaganda" would be pretending, for whatever political reasons, to the contrary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if consider accession as limited to non-state unions (such as accessions to EU), then this event would be an annexation. But what about Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China? Isn't this an annexation of independent Tibet (1912–51)? Looks like double-standard approach. Seryo93 (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand that: When the people are getting asked if they want to join Russia it should be an annexation? As far as I learned it in German school it is called an accession when the people are going to Russia by choice. 87.78.72.131 (talk) 02:07, 16 June 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.

Changes to lede

Stating that "after a referendum in which 87% of the population voted, with 96.77% of voters ofAutonomous Republic of Crimea and 95.6% of the city of Sevastopol voting to join Russia" [1] using a source with this reputation and not mentioning veracity of the results were strongly challenged is non-neutral. --NeilN talk to me 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the referendum didn't spontaneously occur. It was triggered after Russian military intervention, as the current lede suggests. A preface sentence about the revolution against Yanukovich could be added. --NeilN talk to me 01:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This can all be mentioned. But the official Russian claim should also be mentioned. Otherwise this article is just a pro-Ukrainian version of the facts.
Terms like 'annexation', 'occupation' are simply not neutral.--Wester (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Name change: "Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation"

"Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation" is the only neutral title this article can have. Annexation is POV, so is 'Accession'. "Incorporation" is a neutral term because it simply describes what happened.--Wester (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Russia annexed Crimea, by the dictionary definition of the word, and that's what reliable sources call what happened. If Putin doesn't like it, that's just too darn bad. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion. That's not a neutral title. Incorporation is the only title this article should have. It's a shame that it's reversed again and even blocked. I placed this comment a few weeks ago and no reaction which implied there was no opposition. I'm a bit angry that it's blocked and that people are not willing to discuss. The current title is a shame for Wikipedia.--Wester (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As the admin stated, the move was opposed so a formal requested move discussion needs to be held. --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea (country)

There still needs to be a separate article for this. The appearance of the infobox here is awkward and out of place. It really shows the need for the article to exist. --Stan2525 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Need to add Sevastopol as a participant

Aleksei Chaly was the mayor of Sevastopol when he signed the accession treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

a process of accession... removal from power of the democratically elected government of Ukraine

Spiritofstgeorge keeps adding the sentence below:[2][3]

and claims it was a process of accession that was the culmination of a sequence events that began with the removal from power of the democratically elected government of Ukraine.[1][2]
  1. ^ Putin’s Man in Crimea Is Ukraine’s Worst Nightmare Time, 10 March 2014
  2. ^ Crimea Votes to Join Russia, Accelerating Ukraine Crisis Newsweek, 6 March 2014

He/she added two references[4][5] - but I cannot see how the references justify the statement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Both articles illustrate the direct linkage between the revolution in Ukraine in 2014 and the response in Crimea of firstly preparing forces to counter the perceived threat, and then to hold the vote on rejoining Russia. The quote in the second article explains that the vote in Crimea may not have happened had it not been for 'threats from the current illegal Ukrainian government'. Do these articles not illustrate that the revolution in 2014 and the events in Crimea that followed are directly linked?
The first article states "In late January, as the protesters in Kiev began seizing government buildings, Aksyonov started to form an army on the Crimean peninsula" and that "From the beginning, the stated aim of his paramilitary force was to defend against the revolutionary wave that was sweeping across Ukraine and, ultimately, to break away from the country entirely." It clear states "What urged him to start gathering an army in January was the threat he sees from the revolution."
In the second article, Sergei Tsekov states "If there weren't constant threats from the current illegal Ukrainian authorities, maybe we would have taken a different path,"
Hope that helps Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you are reading these English-language articles through a translation program? If you are, it explains a lot.
The sentence you added to reads:
Russia opposes the "annexation" label[8] and claims it was a process of accession that was the culmination of a sequence events that began with the removal from power of the democratically elected government of Ukraine.[9][10]
You need to provide sources that explicitly state (1) that the Russian government makes this claim, (2) have a statement by the Russian government about it being important to the Russian government that the Yanukovych-government was democratically elected.
Aksyonov and Tsekov do not count as spokesmen for the Russian government because the articles you are citing do not treat them as spokesmen for the Russian government. It is like you are trying to counting newspaper interview with Cllr David Parker (leader of the Scottish Borders Council) as a statement by the British Government.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the POV WP:SYNTH, Toddy1. Having read these 'references' with great care (even though I've read them in the past, and more than once, I thought they might have miraculously changed into the misrepresentation promoted by Spiritofstgeorge), the only reference that isn't pure synth would have to be attributed WP:INLINE to Aksyonov and Tsekov as the article is a representation of their opinions. As you say, however, they are not even official RF representatives, therefore such inclusions are WP:UNDUE and purpose-built WP:GEVAL on behalf of the above-mentioned editor.
Spiritofstgeorge, I suggest that you drop the stick. You've been told, in no uncertain terms, by a number of editors that we are not prepared to engage in games of semantics initiated by you. To continue your WP:POINTy behaviour can only be construed as WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_3&oldid=696765158"