Misplaced Pages

Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:57, 23 April 2014 editDailycare (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,429 edits →Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - a western theory← Previous edit Revision as of 22:11, 24 April 2014 edit undoArmijaDonetsk (talk | contribs)184 edits →Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - a western theory: Misplaced Pages is a joke.Next edit →
Line 650: Line 650:
::I would refer to ], which states that "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. ''These are often invented specifically for articles'', and ''should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions''". "Incorporation..." doesn't even need to be invented, it's in RS (abeit less used than "Annexation" - but that might be a ] of *former* opponents of Russia in the ]). So I proposed this solution (a time ago). ] (]) 07:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC) ::I would refer to ], which states that "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. ''These are often invented specifically for articles'', and ''should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions''". "Incorporation..." doesn't even need to be invented, it's in RS (abeit less used than "Annexation" - but that might be a ] of *former* opponents of Russia in the ]). So I proposed this solution (a time ago). ] (]) 07:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
::: The lead of the policy article to which you refer says concisely that "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." I don't see any reason to deviate from this basic rule. ] provides specifically that we should "Avoid (...) non-neutral words", and "incorporation", being different from what sources predominantly use, is by definition non-neutral and thus not a feasible option also for that reason. Systemic bias in sources (not commenting here whether there would be some in this case) isn't something that we could correct as editors as far as I can see. Cheers, --] (]) 18:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC) ::: The lead of the policy article to which you refer says concisely that "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." I don't see any reason to deviate from this basic rule. ] provides specifically that we should "Avoid (...) non-neutral words", and "incorporation", being different from what sources predominantly use, is by definition non-neutral and thus not a feasible option also for that reason. Systemic bias in sources (not commenting here whether there would be some in this case) isn't something that we could correct as editors as far as I can see. Cheers, --] (]) 18:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: Haha. Two views. One view has more websites and then this is regarded to be neutral. LOL. Misplaced Pages is a joke. ] (]) 22:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:11, 24 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUkraine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRussia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2014 Crimean crisis was copied or moved into Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation with this edit on 23 March 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Treaty on the Adoption of the Republic of Crimea to Russia was copied or moved into Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation with this edit on 9 April 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Annexation instead of accession

Should not the title of the page be "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"? By the definition in Misplaced Pages, "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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Accession Process

This secon could be relavent but the scope of this article seems to be getting blured, the goal seems to be chaning. Maybe it would be best to branch out the timeline and have a process and impact section?Hardkhora (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible benefits and consequences are irrelevant

Section "Possible benefits and consequences" should be removed as having no direct relevance to the event as the article seems to describe the (technical) steps of the event.

Additionally, currently only the consequences related to Russia are pointed out, but not the consequences to Ukraine (e.g. probably more difficult to access to the resorts by Ukrainan citizens). 193.40.31.83 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe only technical steps. I'm not sure what the article's scope is, but considering the importance of the event, I think it should be wide. You can expand the article with consequences related to Ukraine. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added it as a section. At the moment, it is too soon to know what the consequences are, but it is distinct from the expectations - which is also an important part of the article. Years down the road, the consequences will be clear, but only now is it easy to write about what is being said about expectations at the time. Ottawakismet (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (March 2014)

This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Accession of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation → Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation – This article should be renamed as the title accession is improper and represents only Russian point of view.

Accession, the act of joining a treaty by a party that did not take part in its negotiations, as defined by article 15 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

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) 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. "Accession" sounds neutral, "annexion" doesn't and is incorrect, cause according to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Annexation is a unilateral act.". Misplaced Pages should not be used to attack Russia cause the word "annexion" implies occupation and has a negative connotation.
    Examples of major news providers calling it "accession":
  1. "Putin speaks on Crimean accession into Russia" (NBC News, Reuters)
  2. "Russia to pass laws on Crimea’s accession as quickly as possible" (Euronews)
  3. "Putin Orders Approval of Accord on Crimea Accession" (Bloomberg)
  4. "Vladimir Putin: Crimea has always been part of Russia" ("Crimea’s accession request") (Fox 13 News)
  5. "Russia's parliament to pass laws needed for Crimea's accession quickly" (The Jerusalem Post, Israel)
  6. "Putin backs agreement on Crimea's accession into Russia" (Xinhua News Agency, China)
  7. "Putin backs agreement on Crimea's accession into Russia" (CCTV, China)
  8. "CNN: Putin notifies Russian parliament of Crimea's accession request" (Kyiv Post, Ukraine)
  9. "Putin orders Crimea accession approval" (Independent Online, South Africa)
  10. "Russia to pass laws on Crimea's accession as quickly as possible" (Reuters)
  11. "Putin to address to Federal Assembly over Crimea’s accession to Russia" (Armenpress, Armenia)
  12. "Ruble Drops With Bonds as Putin Backs Crimea Accession Bid (San Francisco Chronicle)
  13. "Treaty about Accession of Crimea and Sevastopol signed in Moscow to Standing Ovations as Putin Drew Red Line for NATO" (NSNBC International)
--Moscow Connection (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Its not the question of sound, but meaning of words! Neither of those words is neutral btw. Sources that Moscow Connection has noted cite Putin's words and as such do not reflect the international view of the situation nor the view of the sources. Klõps (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I have listed major news agencies that call it "accession". Their headlines say "accession", the headlines don't cite Putin's words. There's no such thing as an "international view". The sources I listed are also "international". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This goes to gibberish You're too much into arguing not proving Your point. As international view -> positions of political leaders and experts. You listed random articles that use the here incorrect word describing the situation. The word usage in Your sources has no credibility as word usage in a news article isn't as calculated as it is in a statement. Klõps (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I have proved my point that it is called "accession" by many different news agencies from all over the world. (I haven't listed a single Russian one.) It is you who are arguing and calling what I say "gibberish". --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It is still You arguing with a long misleading list of articles. I provided a list of statements. I am really sorry if I hurt You somehow. As I said the word usage in news article and in a statement aren't comparable. Klõps (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
There are more ways to say it without accusing anyone in the article title:
"Ukraine says will never recognise Crimea integration into Russia" (Strait Times) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Klõps is a troll, please stop arguing with him. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a troll. Please watch your behavior!!!!!! This article was biased before. It is much better now. Mostly thanks to hard work of Ahnoneemoos It used to describe how people cried of joy and kissed their ballots. It now is neutral. In context of the neutrality of the article accession doesn't look so bad, but I'd stay with annexation. I have been editing Misplaced Pages for two years. I have mostly removed vandalism and created football articles. I don't like to be called troll :( I see that You have joined only two weeks ago, read some stuff there -> WP:CIVIL Klõps (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The treaty is notable enough to have an article. We should keep it, expand with a translation, and add info about public commentary and criticism, in the usual manner. - Anonimski (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This request is for move, not for deletion. Klõps (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. As for the move, I oppose it, since the document itself is about Crimea's request for accession. - Anonimski (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
And it's also POV of EU, US, UK, Poland etc. Only six countries so far have recognized this referendum: Russia itself, North-Korea, Mongolia, Syria, Venezuela and Kazakhstan. Why should the article represent this minority's POV? Klõps (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Article shouldn't represent anyone's pov. it should be neutral. Wtf1ee74959 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
W U tell it to me??? Did I say it was Ukrainian POV? I made this remark because there is no Ukrainian POV. Read the article its ridiculous in the moment Klõps (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We can't name this article properly unless we first agree what it is supposed to be about. Is it about the steps Russia is taking to incorporate Crimea into the Russian Federation, viewed from the Russian perspective? If so, the current title is just fine. Or is it about a larger picture, about Crimea changing hands within the international framework? If so, then neither "accession" nor "annexation" are neutral terms and something like "Crimea status dispute" would be a much more neutral alternative (and I'm not married to this variant, btw; just using it to give an idea of what a truly neutral title should be). Of course, then we run a risk of this article degenerating into a fork of the 2014 Crimean crisis article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014; 19:22 (UTC)
  • Oppose (now switched to Support, see below)- Regardless of what we as editors think is going on, "annexation" is a POV word. Whether it reflects the truth or not, we should therefore avoid it. That being said, this article has a huge POV problem in the opposite direction; in the main section, the first thing we read is quotation by the Chicago Tribune of some Russian parliamentarian telling us stories about how "simple people... simple Crimeans" were "kissing their ballots" in joy. Then there's the question of whether this page should even exist in the first place. I think if it should, it should be about Crimea's incorporation into the Russian Federation; we have enough pages as it is about the conflict. --Yalens (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree, that the article is biased and unnecessary. All that it is saying has already covered in other articles.
Disagree with the fact that "annexation" is a POV word here as accession under the military presence of the interested party is annexation and there are more than enough sources supporting the annexation. Using accession here is on support of the side trying to wash the situation and therefore also POV. So this article needs some third title and extensive rewriting. Klõps (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm switching my position to Support because as was persuasively elaborated below, "accessions" is even more POV. --Yalens (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. "Annexation" is not POV word, but a generic term. "Accession", by contrast, is POV, as it clearly presupposes the entity has an independent legal existence. As Misplaced Pages should not make a decision on that, it should fall back to annexation by default. Walrasiad (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, Accession is not a POV word, but a generic term. "Annexation" by contrast is POV as it clearly presupposes the entity is under unlawful military occupation, and that the vote was illegitimate. As Misplaced Pages should not make a decision on that, it should fall back to Accession by default.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't. "Annexation" refers to an act of merging legal jurisdictions. The term is used to refer to when, e.g. a city "annexes" a neighboring suburb or town into the city's boundaries, e.g. Santa Clarita website refers to annexations repeatedly. There is no implication of military action and no implication of illegitimacy. Not sure where you got that idea from. The term is neutral and used correctly. Walrasiad (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the annexation word implies "a certain measure of coercion" and "differs from cession and amalgamation, because (...) annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized". see definition: Annexation. Thus Annexation is a synonym of Military Occupation and this POV should be avoided. 206.162.160.197 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Not at all. I don't know where you get the idea that it implies coercion. It is the term used all the time to refer to changes in civic borders (as the example above shows). Not sure if English is your first language, but if that is your impression, I'd advise you to check a dictionary. e.g. American Heritage Dictionary defines "annexation" as:
** 1. To append or attach, especially to a larger or more significant thing.
** 2. To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.
** 3. To add or attach, as an attribute, condition, or consequence.
Apologies ahead of time if I sound patronizing, but it is useful to be clear on definitions and usage of terms before commenting on them. This RM isn't helped if people start inventing their own definitions of terms. Walrasiad (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To me a definition might be helpful:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annexation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accession?show=0&t=1395334561
Looking at these Annexation makes more sense "to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annexation Hardkhora (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica says that "Annexation is a unilateral act.", "Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory." So the common reader would automatically assume Crimea was occupied by Russia (or al least that the Crimean people weren't asked if they wanted to be "annexed".) I don't think it would be a neutral title. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding and misusing the term. Crimean people weren't "asked" to be annexed, Crimean people asked to be annexed. Russia didn't do any "asking" of Crimeans, Russia was "asked" by Crimeans to annex. Does that make sense? The verb "to annex", goes unidirectionally from the larger to the smaller. "Annexation" is the act of the larger entity; "petitioning to be annexed" is the act of the smaller entity.. Walrasiad (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Er...yes? I don't see the grounds for your opposition. An act of "annexation" is one jurisdiction incorporating another. They don't "annex each other". The smaller district may petition for annexation, but the act of "annexation" itself is a legislative act, such as an act of parliament, of the legislature of the larger district alone, extending the boundaries of its jurisdiction. The smaller district can't vote itself into the jurisdiction of the larger one, it can only petition for the legislature of the larger one to pass an act of annexation. Walrasiad (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Look at Anschluss. This German word literally means annexation, even though the annexation of Austria by the Nazi Germany was almost overwhelmingly supported and welcomed by the Austrian people. I may be imprecise about the interpretation of the German word Anschluss, as pointed out in the next comment. However, both the English and German[REDACTED] call it an annexation in their (introductory) text. (German wiki calls it a de facto annexation.) I do find a lot of similarities between the two incidents. That's why I view the Crimea incident as de facto annexation. On the other hand, as to how we should call it in wikipedia, I think either one is OK, so I put comment in front instead of support or oppose.128.189.191.222 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Accession" is more neutral when compared to "annexation". In English, "annexation" or "to annex" definitely carries a coercive aspect, it is strange to see many above trying to deny this when there are sourced statements in the first paragraph of the Misplaced Pages article on Annexation mentioning the implied coercive aspect. I see that many above have quoted Merriam-Webster saying otherwise, but I can also quote many dictionaries that do indeed mention coercion, for example: Dictionary.com World English Dictionary. Not to mention, better, paper dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary. As for the German Anschluß, note that it is a German noun which means more than simply annexation (Annexion), furthermore Misplaced Pages uses the untranslated German loan word as the article title following conventional use, rather than renaming the article "Accession of Austria to the German Reich 1938" as some have mentioned below, and so this is a straw man argument. I oppose the renaming of this article as I think the current title is more neutral than the proposed, but by all means, in the article itself, using the many reliable sources available, do make a point of this act being considered as an act of illegal annexation by many countries around the world. --108.51.133.164 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked up annexation on dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/annexation?s=t It doesn't seem to mention coercive aspects. I don't have a paper dictionary on hand to look up in. I also don't think the root of the word is relavent as we're talking about modern understanding or presecption of it, but if you do want to talk about the root the Latin root is something along the lines of: Us joined to.Hardkhora (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Well the entry for "annexation" gives three definitions which all have the verb "to annex" linked/underlined. Otherwise we have a definition: "2. the fact of being annexed." Which does not help us with anything as annex is undefined in the entry on "annexation". The definition of the root verb "to annex" is obviously very relevant here, both being English, very different from looking for the Latin etymology of the word. Let's not get carried away there. Not to mention all this petty dictionary definition bickering is quite pointless, when it is obvious that the word carries connotations of "coercion", "by force", or "without permission". Allow me to provide the link to the Misplaced Pages article on Annexation again. --108.51.133.164 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Except, apparently, to some of our commentators here. The term has a purely legal meaning, defining a type of legislative act, and is frequently used in international law, juridical rulings and in many non-international contexts, e.g. boundaries of electoral jurisdictions, rearrangements of bureaucratic jurisdiction, county and municipal affairs, cities annexing suburbs, towns annexing hamlets, etc. It is as neutral as neutral gets. It is shows up routinely enough in local newspapers and municipal guides and websites, so I'm rather surprised to find people here seem so confused about it. But maybe I'm overestimating familiarity with English language and usage here. Walrasiad (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Walrasiad I think you're on to something. We should go with the legal term.Hardkhora (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Your statement is unsourced. The same term can mean different things in international and municipal law. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Vocabulary.com says, "If you're a big powerful country and you want to take over a smaller country, or a piece of it, you can simply occupy it with your army, a process known as annexation.". This seems to be the most common understanding of the term. And anyways, the same word used in different situations means different things. You can't compare its usage in international affairs and in municipal affairs. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no difference. It is the same legal act - expansion of legal jurisdiction - whether internationally or intra-nationally. There is a distinct difference between three different events. To whit:
* 1. Invasion - a military act, when you send your troops over the border into the territory of another country, against the will of that country's government (if you're invited, then it's not an "invasion")
* 2. Occupation - an administrative act, when your officials and troops take over the administrative organs (including law & order), in whole or in part, of a piece of territory outside your legal jurisdiction (occupation may be coerced, or consented, e.g. as part of an armistice)
* 3. Annexation - a legal act, when you legislature passes a law expanding the jurisdiction of your state over a territory not previously part of it.
The definition of "annexation" is the same at the local, municipal, provincial, state and international level. It refers to the legislative act that expands the boundaries of a entity's jurisdiction. Whether it is Los Angeles annexing Hollywood, or Russia annexing Crimea, it is the same act. Just because 1 and 2 often precede 3 in some instances (certainly the more memorable, spectacular ones), that does not mean that they are part of the definition of 3. Annexation is defined as an act by itself. Annexation does not require nor imply invasion nor occupation. Annexation can be the result of a petition, or a treaty, both of which are completely consensual, with no coercion implied.
Now international law does say that a particular annexation can be unlawful, e.g. if the annexation follows from an invasion and/or occupation, or if the petition is dubious, or if the treaty was signed under duress. Notice the qualification. If the term "annexation" implies coercion, as you suggest, then all annexations are unlawful by legal definition. There would be no need to put the qualifying term "unlawful annexation", it is superfluous. But that isn't superfluous. Because there are things called "lawful annexations". And to be lawful it cannot involve coercion. Coerced acts have no legal validity. So the term "annexation", by itself, with no qualifiers, says nothing about involving coercion or lack of coercion. If it is coerced, then the annexation act is unlawful, it is not coerced, then the annexation act is lawful. But the term "annexation" by itself is thoroughly neutral on the coercion question. It is just an act. Walrasiad (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced. Above you said, "But maybe I'm overestimating familiarity with English language and usage here. ", but now you are trying to make it sound like you are a legal expert. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* I am not sure if you didn't understand what I wrote, or you simply didn't read it. Walrasiad (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - annexation is definitely POV. It doesn't account for Crimea's declaration of independence and request to join the Russian Federation. More to the point, we would need multiple, reliable, independent sources calling it an annexation, we we don't have as yet. Of course, all this doesn't justify "accession" - there may be a more neutral term. Entry of Crimea to the Russian Federation? StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"Entry of Crimea" may be a good choice as well, although I suspect many would consider it to be even more pro-Russian POV. I believe the current mentality of those opposing "accession" is that it somehow whitewashes or legalizes the 16 March Referendum and/or 18 March Treaty. In that, there was a politically legal accession process by Crimea to join the Russian Federation, which many naturally have considered to be illegal, coercive, or done under threat of force. Some even brought up the example of the Anschluss or the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910, which I think is very much hyperbole. The current Russian article uses Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (the Joining of Crimea) and not Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) while the Ukrainian uses Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (the Russian Annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol) and not Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), personally, I consider the Russian title to be somewhat POV, and the Ukrainian title to be very POV, due to the use of "AR Crimea". Whereas "accession" into a political/economic/military entity is the end result of a political process, i.e., the Referendum and Treaty, which like it or not, did take place. --108.51.133.164 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • VERY Strongly Support Based on all information I have seen, I too can agree that "annexation" should be used...or at least in the title both terms could be listed and we simply put a re-direct from one page to another (so if we call it "annexation" officially then make a redirect page to here from someone using the term "accession"). I must say however that I have never heard the term "accession" used to describe one country's joining with another. I believe that "accession" could be used properly if all self-identity of Crimea would be nullified--see the Ukraine does not accept the idea that Crimea can sign their own treaty to leave (this was a similar problem to the dispute that occurred over secession shortly before the Civil War. Based on the tertiary definition of "accession", according to Merriam-Webster's official dictionary, it is "the formal acceptance of a treaty or agreement." Russia is attempting to use a treaty to acquire Crimea, so this could be applied; however, due to the highly illegal nature of the treaty, its legitimacy could be questioned. Also based on the dictionary's definition (1b), "annexing" is to "add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation." Right there, we can see that what Russia has done fits perfectly to this situation. Let's not get into our feelings here people..."annexation" and "accession" are both technical terms and are being denotatively used here! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 09:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    So you basically want to state in the article title that Russia appropriated the territory and that it was illegal. I goes against the NPOV principle of Misplaced Pages. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    Editors, please note the following: Here at Misplaced Pages, we aim to please the majority--not every person. This is what keeping the NPOV principle means here! As far as this transition, we are not attempting to attack Russia verbally; however, due to the overall consensus of the GLOBAL COMMUNITY, the proper term here should be "annexation". We at Misplaced Pages are not accusing anyone of breaking any law due to the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a court room! This being said, the majority of the international community, and the United States, has CONDEMNED the actions of Russia as illegal. As it stands right now, Crimea was/is considered a part of the Ukraine and not a city-state of its own accord; therefore it does not have proper status in the governmental hierarchy to make this decision! Were this problem to be happening in the United States, the "supremacy clause" would be referred to. Consider the following example: if the state of Massachusetts were to get angry at the decisions of the federal government regarding the economy, it could not voluntarily, in-and-of-itself contact (example) France to be annexed to/acceded to it! Why? Because they are under the rule of the United States! If France were to acquire Massachusetts in this way, it would be considered an ANNEXATION; however, should the United States decide that it is a legitimate reason to leave and sign away Massachusetts to France via treaty, it could be safely coined as "accession"! As it is right now, this extreme—and in my opinion irrational—opposition to the name-change could be considered violation of NPOV, not the other way around! Remember the saying: "the hurt dog hollers the loudest;" as it is right now, people are assuming that Russia is being verbally attacked. As we previously stated, we are relaying information at Misplaced Pages...not making our own. There are a plethora of reliable sources that state the term "annexation" and based upon the denotative definition of the word, it is the most appropriate word to use in this circumstance until and unless the Ukraine voluntarily signs away Crimea to Russia. Is this clear, or is more explaining in order?
    In response to Moscow Connection: Please ask yourself the following question: "Did the Ukraine give Russia permission to acquire Crimea, by any means whatsoever?" If the answer is, "No, it did not," then it can be factually stated that Russia did, in fact, "annex" Crimea. Moreover, in nearly all recent news articles that I have seen, the situation is being referred to as "annexation". I will break down the definitions very quickly for you and others, as well as list reliable sources for said definitions:
    1. Annexation: "to add (an area or region) to a country, state, etc. : to take control of (a territory or place)"; "to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state"
    2. Appropriate: "to take exclusive possession of : annex"; "to take or make use of without authority or right"
მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimean Parliament declared independence and as an independent country Crimea told Russia they wanted to join the country. This is called "accession". This is what the article is about. This is not an American Misplaced Pages and the USA's opinion is just one of opinions out there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
What is disputed—by the International community and Russia—is that Crimea had no legal right to declare their independence from the Ukraine. This is just a proven fact. No one has to like, or dislike, this fact—but this does not change circumstance! I must re-stress that it is considered annexation due to Crimea not possessing significant, internationally recognized, power as a city-state. It was considered a part of another country and does not have the right to leave whenever it so felt like it! Please read the text in red if you would like a very good example! Thank you. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 23:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Probably you are right. One would have to rename "2014 Crimean crisis" to "Annexation", however getting a consensus for such POVish title would be difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose different title: Adoption of Crimea to the Russian Federation. Adoption is the word used by the treaty and I find it quite neutral. I already opposed annexation above. — Petr Matas 07:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is NATO/US POV pushing. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not exactly NATO/US PoV pushing...in the international legal system, Russia committed a crime by taking Crimea from the Ukraine without the Ukraine's explicit permission (again I refer back to my earlier post in red for an analogous example)! I hate to say it so bluntly, but if we are talking about a serial killer, we will use the term "murderer" and say that "he killed people" as opposed to saying that he "erased them" or that "he sent them to eternal slumber"! We call a thief exactly that and say that "he stole things", not that "he had light fingers". Due to the sanctions of the EU and US against Russia because of their actions, it can be considered a legitimate international CRIME that was committed. As a further note...I do not have anything personally against Russia and my response would be the same if it were a different country, including mine own! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • For Kosovo this so called "international law" came to other results. So what do you want with your "international law"? The bombing of Serbia by NATO was an attack war, prohibited by "international law", yet where are the sanctions? So, sanctions are random. Can random sanctions be used to define what is a crime? I make a sanction against you, and that means you committed a crime? Tibet2014 (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you asked, Tibet, this is a valid question! Allow me to explain. A "sanction" is, by definition, "an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country, etc." Just because "sanctions" were not imposed against NATO for the problems in Syria, this does not mean that they could not have been imposed. Hopefully this clarifies things for you. :) მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. To me, both titles mean the same thing. Crimea acceded to Russia, Russia annexed Crimea. It's the same process, just using different things as the "actor". A bit like the difference between "You enter my home" and "I admit you to my home". CodeCat (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Accession is the correct term of art, and that's the term being used by more neutral WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to point out that the Main Page's "In the News" section currently has this topic displayed as "Russia formally annexes Crimea while the European Union and Ukraine sign an association agreement." Gmanfive (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • COMMENT to those that claim annexation is a neutral term - Why was there no article Annexation of Bulgaria by the European Union but there was Accession of Bulgaria to the European Union - until vandals destroyed it? Look, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Accession+of+european+union&fulltext=Search ... so if the European Union grows, it is accession, if Russia, it is annexation. Tibet2014 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Because the EU isn't a single state, it's an organization. Things aren't annexed, they become members. Russia, however, is a single state. As seen in other[REDACTED] articles, the United States and the Austro-Hungarian Empire are more than capable of annexing things. Russia's actions are more akin to what happened in Texas and Bosnia. --Yalens (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Either way, I suggest using "Russia" in the title rather than "Russian Federation," to match the parent article Russia. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Response to Moscow and general public: On a further note, M.C., "annexation" is not always a bad term...let us look into an example of a beautiful ANNEXATION (not "accession") that occurred between two different countries: whenever the Republic of Texas was annexed to the United States! This was wanted by both countries...and here, in this example, the "legality" of the subject matter is irrelevant! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To red-fonted orator: the same "international community" recognised ILLEGAL (against Serbian law, which prohibits such things) secession of Kosovo. This is what hypocrisy is. 92.100.43.70 (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but are we talking about Kosovo? I'm really confused as to why you brought that up...secession and accession/annexation are two different things (technically three different things). Please clarify? Thanks! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

Can i propose neutral title Incorporation of Crimea into Russia? Seryo93 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning more toward "annexation" due to the recent knowledge that Russia seized Ukraine naval bases at Crimea...thats military aggression, any way you look at it; if it was truly "accession" then Russian would not have "seized" anything—Ukraine would have voluntarily moved out. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
Sorry, but since you are the "red-font person" :), I think you are not only leaning toward, but "very strongly supporting" the move. I think it's not fair to try and trick people into believing you ever opposed the rename. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha, dearest Moscow, allow me to clarify; I said "leaning toward" because I actually could agree with "Incorporation" as it seems quite neutral to me; however, in my honest opinion, the title should be "Annexation". No tricks intended! :) მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
The point is that accession is factually incorrect. That's when one state joins a group of other states. That's not what has happened here, as Russia is just a single state, not a collection. What do you call it when one small state is added to another, much larger state and becomes a region within that second state? That's called annexation, and the term is widely used as such on wikipedia, in Austria's annexation of Bosnia and the US annexation of Texas, as well as of Hawaii. There aren't POV disputes over the term on any those articles, despite the fact that this is English[REDACTED] which, if anything, would be expected to have a more pro-US bent than anything (meanwhile, German[REDACTED] has a page on the "Bosnische Annexionskrise"). This all suggests to me that annexation is a more neutral term, while accession is, in addition to being incorrect, actually a specifically pro-Russia POV because it conjures up reference to the generally positively viewed (although not by some Eurosceptics in Northwest Europe) accession of Central European states to the EU.--Yalens (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If we were talking about Crimea joining the CIS or the CSTO then that would be accession, but this, by definition, isn't.--Yalens (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not factually incorrect. And by the way, Russia is a federation. Crimea joined the federation as a separate federal subject. So even your interpretation doesn't contradict the article's title. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, this is correct—"accession" is factually incorrect. No, Russia is not considered a "Federation" on Misplaced Pages due to the fact that our page on Russia is exactly that and not on the "Russian Federation". If you want to dispute that then do so on the Russian Talk page. You also need to learn that whenever countries join the European Union, or other similar alliances they do not forfeit their governmental powers—id est the Prime Minister retains their authority—however whenever these countries join the "Russian Federation", they are essentially just becoming states under the control of Russia. It's the difference between an alliance and an empire. Now please stop with the Russian-POV pushing. By the way, Seryo93, Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy does IN NO WAY mean that the articles will represent every side of an issue, it means that what will be represented is the opinion of the MAJORITY; currently, Russia and it's allies make up a very small portion of the international thoughts regarding the annexation. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It looks like someone didn't even read the first sentence. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you are making your arguments up. :) Russia is a federation. It is not only "considered a federation", it is actually a federative state. The article is at Russia because it is at the most commonly WP:RECOGNIZABLE name. Like China instead of The People's Republic of China. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
My mistake; however, the point is that Crimea will lose its global individuality and just become part of "Russia" (though it will probably be noted as one of the Russian "states"). A federation is by definition "a group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs." Based upon this definition, it is impossible for anyone to "accede" to join a federation; members of federations are annexed. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
I really think you are making your arguments up. (By the way, someone above proposed to rename the article into "Adoption of Crimea ..." You should think about that option. I've thought, but I haven't found many news articles that would call it "adoption". "Accession" is used very, very often, though.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Keeping in mind that the actual annexation is in dispute, we must strive to use neutral terms. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary of English, annexation is neutral and does not imply the countries joining with or without consent, while accession is not a neutral term. Therefore, I support the use of the term annexation. The Haz talk 23:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    Please provide sources for you statement about which terms are neutral and which are not.
    Encyclopedia Britannica: "Annexation is a unilateral act.", "Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory." --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    But there are also cases of articles with "annexation" in the name, where the process was voluntary by both sides. Some of them have been mentioned in this discussion. So if we've used "annexation" to describe those processes in the past, then surely using it here is not any less neutral than it is in any of those other articles? Of course if you think we should rename those other articles too, then that's ok (I'm not trying to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). But I think we should be consistent in our use of words across Misplaced Pages. CodeCat (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    What "any of those other articles"? Like these?
    Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China
    Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China
    And for some reason I tend to believe that the vast majority of people who support the rename do it for some other reasons, not because they want the article to look neutral... --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    "Any of those other articles" like these: Annexation of Texas, Annexation of Bosnia, Annexation of Santo Domingo, and Annexation of Hawaii. Moscow, my personal reason for wanting the article to say "annexation" as opposed to "accession" is—and has been since my very first comment on the subject—based on my dictionary findings of what the words mean. Just because annexation can mean that a country took over another by force, it does not guarantee that this is the meaning. An analogy to this would be me saying that since guns are used by murderers, they are all evil, and must be destroyed; to us this sounds quite silly, but practically speaking, in this case, I would be arguing that the entire category of one object was "evil". From all that I have observed, the Republic of Crimea's actions with Russia were no different, after they forged their "independence", than the actions of Texas whenever it was annexed by the United States. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
    @Moscow Connection: I quite clearly posted the sources. I cannot copy definitions as that would be plagiarism. Also, you should keep in mind that an encyclopedia is not a valid source for a definition of a word; a dictionary is. I strove to remain neutral by using the most credible sources on American and British English. I have no need to explain why we should use a neutral term so please do not attempt to twist the meaning of my post. The Haz talk 22:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..

Sources of Different Languages

What are the rules of posting from a source of a different language than the lanague you're posting? ie user:Superzohar posted recently from a srouce (guessing) Russian on the English page. I couldn't find the rules but I can't confirm or deny what the source is saying with what is posted.Hardkhora (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's okay to use non-English sources. (WP:NOENG) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. Hardkhora (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
To make it more clear, in the {{cite}} template you can define |language=. As an example: |language=ru The Haz talk 22:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of the gallery

What is the relevance of the picture gallery in this article? I think it should be removed. 193.40.31.83 (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As it is, it just seems like glory shots of Putin. I wouldn't mind it if it was more relevant.Hardkhora (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, another thought is that it is only showing Russia's support and not any of the controversy, it seems biased.Hardkhora (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, it would be better to replace some pictures instead of removing the gallery altogether. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Any one able to help with adding photos? https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Guideline_examples

I went through the guidelines and it mentions not using news photos, or did I not understand that correctly? I'm trying to figureout where I can add from to Wikipeida. I originally wanted to add photos from these:

Hardkhora (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Partial answer to my own question, found: http://search.creativecommons.org/ but I can't find anything that is related. Evertying is either old or unrelated.Hardkhora (talk) 18:27, 21 March 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)

Direction

There is a need to talk about what the direction of this article is, or at least its organization, for example, I've seen several categories and most recently we have Particularities & Expectations. To me Particularities can go into Expectations. I don't have a solution but does anyone else have a solution for categorizing the information better?Hardkhora (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

As a matter on fact, in disputed cases like this, I think it is necessary to supply with documentary evidence each assertion. Particularly, the one which says "recognition: condemned by the majority of the international community", maybe it is not accurate after all. First of all, I am not doubting that the majority of the countries or states within UN do not sanction such event, but to condemn is a different word and, also, we can find any quote or link proving this. Second, it is clear that in geopolitics numbers is a thing and blocks another one, the rare would be that EU for instance holds differents points of view (which in fact happens from time to time), but as a whole, it makes no matter of number of countries the position of EU against China, for instance, or India. So, "majority of international communitiy" also would clarify if it is in qualitative or quantitative terms. I am reading these days that many countries are backing the Russian annexation, so "majority of international community" means what? I am asking, not doing irony.91.117.8.171 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to explain better, if I can: China has 1,4 billion people. It is supposed that the official statements of Chinese government mean the official position of the country which "weighs" 1,4 billion people. In a democratic context, it is an important part of "international community", in despite of the vote of China in UN "weighs" the same that Liechtenstein, to say anything. You can do analogous reasonings approaching economy, etc. So, seems that "majority of international community" means "majority of states" (if such a thing), which I think it is not the same assert at all.91.117.8.171 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Liechtenstein has had a vote on the Security Council for 43 years? I must have missed that. Activist (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
When people say this, I believe they usually mean "majority of states". --Yalens (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard it mean anything else. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
When talking about the world as a whole, unless you say people you are refering to countries, and states, and all the like.Hardkhora (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Galleries

I removed the galleries, but my edit was reverted. These galleries are discouraged, and in this case, the images are way too large. I would ask that the galleries be removed and images be incorporated into the prose like usual, but I leave that to others since my attempt to improve the article was removed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the 2nd Paragraph (not heading)

The article has the section reference-improve template because, though it has been in the news very recently and many people are "in-the-know" about this topic, we should still cite at least one source for the 2nd paragraph of the article. As it is right now, there is no documentation of this being reliably supported. Please note that I am not saying that I disagree with any of the content's reason for being there...just that we need documentation! Thanks! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 10:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I must also requests that future editors take the time to reply here as opposed to just removed the ref-imp template. If 15 or more editors say that the information in the 2nd paragraph does not need to be cited and can be considered common knowledge, I will removed the tag; as it is right now, I cannot simply allow "information" to sit there with no legitimate sourcing. Let's stick to the guidelines guys! :) Thanks! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 23:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)

Sorry for removing the refimprove tag on the second paragraph. I only did so because it was in the introduction of the article and I assumed the information was cited further down in the article. -- Kndimov (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries, it was an honest oversight. :) ^_^ მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 08:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)

Timeline

I would like to remove the 

{{prose|section|date=March 2014}}

Since I think a time line should not be prose and like the current layout. RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

accession of Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that the proposed title would present multiple potential inaccuracies which the current title avoids. Xoloz (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation → accession of Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation – This is not about the accession of the peninsula nor is it only about the Autonomous Republic. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose. That would completely contradict Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which states that this is a political entity. The ARoC never seceded, and remains part of Ukraine in name, although it administers no territory and its legislative body was dissolved. This move would therefore give the impression that the secession was done administratively by the government of the ARoC, which is definitely not what the sources say. What seceded was the Republic of Crimea, which was declared within the territory administered by the ARoC. CodeCat (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Per CodeCat. More grist, though, for my belief Crimean Peninsula should be moved to Crimea (which currently redirects to the former page). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose - Sebastopol is in Crimea. It may not be in either the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, nor in the Russian federal subject, but it is in Crimea itself. Furthermore, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea did not accede, and remains part of Ukrainian law. It was the Republic which acceded. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Republic of Crimea (country) was merged into 'Republic of Crimea' (federal subject)

There's an ongoing discussion at:

regarding the recent merge of Republic of Crimea (country) into Republic of Crimea (the federal subject).

Please join us at the discussion and express your opinion on the matter, whatever it might be.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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,[REDACTED] 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 Russian sources have a sort of systemic pro-Russian bias, 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... or accession of... to... or reunification of... with..., 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)

Request for comment: How to name this article

How to properly name this article? "Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation", "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" or "Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation"? Seryo93 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note: To avoid duplication, please direct further comments to the ongoing move request discussion below, at #Requested move (April 2014). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Moscow Connection has Removed my comment from this page in which I tried to create a survey like format with dictionary explanation for each word. Here it is again just as comment.

Accession – The action or process of formally joining or being accepted by an institution or group:

the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EU

The working party on China's accession will formally approve the package on Monday at WTO headquarters in Geneva, clearing the way for entry by the end of this year.

This week, Bulgaria's intellectual potential will be called upon to aid the country in the process of its accession into the European Union.

Thirdly, this process of accession has established very close links between the civil society here and the civil societies of the member states.

Accession – a : the act of becoming joined; b : the act by which one nation becomes party to an agreement already in force between other powers

Annex – Add (territory) to one’s own territory by appropriation:

the left bank of the Rhine was annexed by France in 1797

King Moshoeshoe I was left with a mountainous, infertile kingdom when most of his arable land was annexed to the Orange Free State in the 1860s.

The lands were annexed to the City of London on January 1st 1993.

This procedure was deemed to have been an ‘Act of Free Choice’ in accordance with the United Nations requirements and Indonesia formally annexed the territory in August.

Annex – to add (an area or region) to a country, state, etc. : to take control of (a territory or place)

Incorporate – Take in or contain (something) as part of a whole; include:

he has incorporated in his proposals a number of measures some schemes incorporated all these variations

It was incorporated into the factory's main wastewater treatment scheme.

When completed, the balls are incorporated into other objects before they are sold, including trophies and lamp stands.

Nine previously unreported markers were incorporated into the integrated map.

Incorporate – to unite or work into something already existent so as to form an indistinguishable whole

--Klõps (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment It should be kept simple. Adding different ridiculous options is just pointless. It just turns it into total chaos like all the discussion earlier on this page. Let's try not to play scrabble here. --Klõps (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just a comment by a user. Your comments look much more out of place cause they are very lengthy. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It looked so for You and You took Yourself the right to change everything by Your own POV --Klõps (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Not even gonna comment on "reunification", but "adoption" really isn't semantically workable... Countries do not "adopt" regions or territories. That's just sounds really weird, it's bad English. --Yalens (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Search the page. It was proposed by an editor for similarity with "Treaty on the Adoption of the Republic of Crimea to Russia". I'm not sure "to" is the right preposition to use, but I listed it. "Reunification" was also mentioned in the move discussion. I just wanted to list all options that exist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Is "adoption" the only possible translation (I'm assuming that the original act is written in Russian). Is Crimea a child now, or a currency? It sounds weird in English. And, in principle, I don't think one should use any government's official terminology, because it tends to be POV. For example, most countries call their military establishments "defense" departments, when obviously much of what they do could hardly be called "defense" in any sane observation. --Yalens (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The Russian title says "принятие". The word is a very common Russian word which is used in a wide variety of meanings, including when someone is admitted into a university, granted membership in an organization, honored with membership in an academic society, etc. I have no idea who and why translated it as "adoption" on Misplaced Pages. "Adoption" is certainly not a Russian political term, not some official term used by the Russian government. I think the closest translations would be something like:
"Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Admission into the Russian Federation of the Republic of Crimea and the Formation of New Subjects Within the Russian Federation." (The original word order is kept in this version.)
or
"Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Acceptance of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Members Within the Russian Federation." --Moscow Connection (talk)
Official translation:

The Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea in the Russian Federation and on Forming New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation Official website of President of Russia

This is a full ceremonial title as these kind of documents have. They couldn't have called it differently.
Accession goes for institution, organizations etc, but not for one country joining another. Moreover institution, organizations or groups should have a clear mechanism for withdrawal. By the definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that member states can step out of a confederation, but they can not leave a federation. In this article we can read how calls for secession will be criminal offence in Russia. I can't find a definition that becoming part of inseparable whole could be called accession. --Klõps (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: Jumping in from the RFC list, this is an easy question. The title should follow the term predominantly used by sources, and that term seems to be "annexation". As editors, we needn't, and shouldn't, try to figure out which term would in our view be most appropriate. Here are five sources that employ annexation terminology: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Fully agree with Dailycare. Besides, "Annexation" is also perfect according to the definitions in Legal Dictionaries as I already mentioned in my another comment in this Talk page. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DO NOT MOVE THIS PAGE

The title of this page, in its current form shows true neutrality and a so-called "consensus" is not needed to display information such as this. Users attempting to change this title will be expected to respond here and state the reason why. The two foremost proponents of the two different titles have both agreed that a term such as "Incorporation" would be acceptable and truly neutral. In the title we have both points-of-view listed as well. These meet Misplaced Pages's standard and this also ends a dispute. Consider this a warning notice, as editors undoing this move will be spoken to on their talk page, and then reported to administration for vandalism, should no proper reasoning be given. This has gotten out of hand and truly ridiculous—this puts an end to it and needs to stay this way.

Of course consensus is needed. It's BRD not BDmaybeR. Keep in mind that this is not "your" page nor is it your personal responsibility to "fix" it, per WP:OWN. Calling reverts vandalism is against WP:AGF too, and I suspect your actions will be scrutinised as well in any report. CodeCat (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but when someone deletes 9 reliable sources, that's vandalism, any way you slice it. As for good faith, it's also not good faith to randomly undo the edits of other users. As for the "consensus", the topic was closed, but there were quite literally no objections to renaming the page to something completely neutral. Please scroll up and see for yourself; it should be quite apparent that every time a completely neutral title was suggested (ex.: Incorporation, Adoption), NO ONE objected to it—that can be considered consensus. If you want to state the no consensus argument, then we might as well not name this page at all—how does that sound? It can be blank until a "consensus" is reached. Please, DO note the sarcasm. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
I see no consensus anywhere for moving this article to "Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation". You should not have moved this page, which you very well knew was a contentious issue. CodeCat (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The contention, as you say, came from an argument between the terms ACCESSION and ANNEXATION. In the article's current state, it is now quite EQUAL—this is what we WANT here at Misplaced Pages. NEUTRALITY. EQUALITY. As for not seeing anything, please re-read! "Propose different title: Adoption of Crimea to the Russian Federation. Adoption is the word used by the treaty and I find it quite neutral. I already opposed annexation above. — Petr Matas 07:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)" "Can i propose neutral title Incorporation of Crimea into Russia? Seryo93 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)" —Code, please note that Seryo is most likely Russian and he also went strongly against the term "annexation". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but when someone deletes 9 reliable sources, that's vandalism, any way you slice it.
Are you under the impression that reliable sources automatically belong in an article? In this instance, they verify information not in dispute, serving purely to justify a contested, non-requested move.
As for good faith, it's also not good faith to randomly undo the edits of other users.
On what do you base the assertion that the reversions were "random"? Do you honestly believe that they were performed with no reasons in mind?
As for the "consensus", the topic was closed, but there were quite literally no objections to renaming the page to something completely neutral. Please scroll up and see for yourself; it should be quite apparent that every time a completely neutral title was suggested (ex.: Incorporation, Adoption), NO ONE objected to it—that can be considered consensus.
Huh? Both Volunteer Marek and Moscow Connection objected to the "Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation" title (with the question of its neutrality raised), and no proper move request has been made.
I might even support the "incorporation" wording, but not when it's being forced through without consensus. —David Levy 19:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to "Incorporation". I think it sounds a bit unusual, but I don't object to it. (I have never raised the question of its neutrality. In the section called "Neutrality" I said I was "neutral about this", i.e. about renaming the article to "Incorporation ...") If it stops all wars over the article's title, I may even be in favor of it. (But it does sound a bit strange to me.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read your messages. You expressed neutrality regarding the move itself, but you noted that you "don't really like the word 'incorporation'". —David Levy 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am under the impression that reliable sources placed into a location to show that a particular point-of-view is accurate and well-rounded should not be deleted. If you will notice, I also linked sources to the terminology that I actually oppose but am willing to accept when displayed like this. Removal of these needed sources could be considered vandalism. They are placed there for a very important reason, not just to make the article look shiny!
  • The "randomness" is because it seems really without reason to delete a neutral title.
  • Hmm...from what I could see, Moscow Connection actually supported the terms "incorporation", "adoption", and "reunification". I have notified Moscow here of my change to the title and when he gets on he will see this and can affirm or deny my current assumptions regarding his thoughts. I would request that you not move the page yet, at least until he has seen it and given us his information. Though no one "owns" these pages, certain editors are more strongly biased one way or another. At the present, he and I seem to be on the opposite side of the coin. As for Marek, where do you see his objection to "incorporation"; he simply stated that, "In terms of international law, "annexation" is more neutral"?? I believe that we can all see that it is pretty obvious that "annexation" is not being received as neutral, meaning that he was slightly mistaken—remember, I'm the "red-fonted orator" that so valiantly fought for the term "annexation", and even I have no problem with "incorporation". Are you sure you looked at the right user? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
  • Finally, would it be too much to ask for editors to not revert this current change unless they actually oppose the term "incorporation," and that if you oppose this term, that you please state why? In the section immediately preceding this, you can see the terms graciously defined by Klõps. From all I can see we should really have no problem with this new term; if necessary though, we could use something else of course—however, it is 100% safe to say that making the article title "Accession" OR "Annexation" solely, is hugely biased and very heavily PoV-weighted. Thank you all! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I am under the impression that reliable sources placed into a location to show a that particular point-of-view is accurate and well-rounded should not be deleted.
As explained at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, "citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead."
The fact that varying terminology has been used to describe the process is not controversial. You inserted unnecessary sources purely to justify an out-of-process move.
If you will notice, I also linked sources to the terminology that I actually oppose but am willing to accept when displayed like this.
Yes, you inserted unnecessary sources for both terminologies.
The "randomness" is because it seems really without reason to delete a neutral title.
So you've deemed my edits "random" on the basis that no one could possibly disagree with the changes that they undid?
Hmm...from what I could see, Moscow Connection actually supported the terms "incorporation", "adoption", and "reunification".
Moscow Connection expressed neutrality regarding the move itself and noted that he/she " really like the word 'incorporation'".
Though no one "owns" these pages, certain editors are more strongly biased one way or another. At the present, he and I seem to be on the opposite side of the coin.
And I have no horse in the race. (Note that I didn't even participate in the discussion regarding the requested move to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.)
As for Marek, where do you see his objection to "incorporation"; he simply stated that, "In terms of international law, "annexation" is more neutral"??
How is that not an objection to the use of "incorporation"? Do you perceive this as a binary battle (in which anyone favoring "annexation" automatically prefers "incorporation" over "accession")?
remember, I'm the "red-fonted orator" that so valiantly fought for the term "annexation", and even I have no problem with "incorporation".
And you evidently regard your opinion as sacrosanct.
Finally, would it be too much to ask for editors to not revert this current change unless they actually oppose the term "incorporation," and that if you oppose this term, that you please state why?
The onus is on the user advocating a move to demonstrate support. This is done via a move request. Opposition should be explained, of course, and we've explained that the move lacks consensus. Your preferred title doesn't become the default simply because its validity seems obvious to you. —David Levy 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because you're convinced you're right doesn't mean you're right. Go through the proper channels and stop move-warring. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Changing a title to be non-PoV biased is perfectly acceptable. How about YOU go through the proper channels!? I need not explain this again, just read up. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I haven't done this in a while, but considering you've reverted several other users and refuse to even attempt to obtain consensus for a move that other editors clearly don't agree with, I've opened up a over your edit- and move-warring over this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Refuse to get a consensus? Excuse you? The term is neutral and is either supported directly, or not unsupported, by every single person on this page. Are you feeling well?!?! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
You haven't addressed the problem though. Why did you refuse to get a consensus for the move? CodeCat (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Repeating over and over that you're right and others are wrong doesn't make it so. —David Levy 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you believe that you're exempt from the move request process? Because you're obviously right? —David Levy 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Treaty on the Adoption of the Republic of Crimea to Russia

The contents of the Treaty on the Adoption of the Republic of Crimea to Russia page were merged into Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on 06 April 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Requested move (April 2014)

This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Closing admin's note: This move request came on the heels of a similar one, debated between 18 March and 31 March, whose purpose was a move from "Accession of..." to "Annexation of...". This was (properly) closed as "no consensus". The current move request, filed only a few days later, has nominally been made with the purpose of a move to "Incorporation of...", which was perceived by many of the participants as a kind of compromise between the two previous options. However, since much of the discussion has been a direct continuation of the prior debate, and the "annexation" wording kept being brought up again here, I believe it is proper to view both debates as a whole, and consider all three alternatives in the closure, taking into account the opinions of everybody who participated in either debate and/or in the related RfC section that was opened in between.
If we were to look only at the second discussion, we would see a numerical majority for the move to "Incorporation...". However, the number of people who supported this proposal is still smaller than the number of supporters of either of the alternatives debated in the previous discussion. Moreover, several of the supporters agreed with "incorporation" only as a second choice while upholding or adding new support to the "annexation" version.
Taken all of this together, and discounting a few !votes that were apparently motivated purely by political preferences and not considerations of Misplaced Pages policy, I count 3 editors who fully and exclusively supported "incorporation", 4 who named "incorporation" as their second and "annexation" as their first choice, 9 who supported only "annexation", and 8 who opposed both moves and supported only "accession". This latter option seemed to see a lot less support in the second than in the first round. The question is thus whether the predominance of support for "annexation" (13 as opposed to 8 for the nearest contender) is strong enough to call a consensus for it now, and/or whether the NPOV-related policy arguments on either side are strong enough to force the decision in another direction.
As for the first question, given the situation of a strongly polarized political dispute that has been quite divisive across our editorship, I believe it is unwise to expect much stronger numerical outcomes as a condition for consensus than what we have here. As for the second question, the main argument for "annexation" has been that it is both a factually correct descriptor used in accordance with its technical definition in law, and that it is used in this way in apparently the majority of reliable sources. the main argument for "incorporation" has been that it avoids both the perceived positive connotations of "accession" and the perceived negative connotations of "annexation" and may thus be seen as more neutral.
However, I do not see that the supporters of "incorporation" have made a compelling case that this perceived advantage of "incorporation" is strong enough to make its adoption imperative under a WP:NPOV perspective even against the numerical weight of opinion. The NPOV policy does not in fact demand that terms must be avoided at all costs just because they sound negative or carry potentially negative implications – this would lead to a fallacy of the middle ground. We don't need to avoid negative connotations merely because they sound bad for one side in a real-world dispute – what we do need to avoid is connotations that are the object of significant, notable disagreement in independent reliable sources. Indeed, contrary to what some of the supporters have said, it has been convincingly argued here that "annexation" does in fact have negative connotations, in that it implies unilateral and forcible action. But then again, it can be hardly in serious doubt that this very much matches the reality in this case: no independent real-world observer could deny that the action in question here was in fact unilateral, and that it did involve force. If the term "annexation" is factually accurate according to the hugely dominant view of the events as expressed in reliable sources, then the WP:NPOV policy cannot be held to prevent us from using it. We'd only be forced to avoid it in favour of a more neutral-sounding option if there was a real, significant disagreement among reliable independent observers (i.e. other than the opinions of the perpetrators themselves) as to whether or not the events here constitute an act of "annexation". I do not see anybody citing any reliable source arguing such a point. In the absence of such a real disagreement, I believe the predominant opinion here in favour of "annexation", as being the most factually appropriate technical descriptor and the preferred wording according to WP:COMMONNAME, must win the day. I am therefore closing this move request as consensus to move to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation → Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation – The recent unpleasantness that resulted from User:LiphradicusEpicus's repeated moves without consensus to this title aside, it's not an unreasonable suggestion for an article that has an arguably problematic name, and I figured I would create a forum here to discuss it using the proper channels. Please note that my listing of this proposal is not a "vote" in favor, as I'm undecided at present on the name. Kudzu1 (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Tentative support. I'm not certain that "accession" is an inappropriate description, but "incorporation" seems less subject to dispute. I'm concerned that the latter hasn't been used by nearly as many reliable sources, but it does appear in some news articles.
    I'm interested to read others' views on the matter. —David Levy 22:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    The proper term should be "annexation" (there are literally over 12,000,000 MORE searches for this term than for "accession"). We are tentatively using "incorporation" because people were letting their connotative perceptions and non-dictionary definitions of the word "annexation" interfere with better judgement and proper titling. In all honesty, as I explain later, "annexation" simply means independent political entity "A" decides to join (via submission) to independent political "B"; this means that it submits itself to a higher governing power. In "accessions", political entity "A" decides to enter into alliance with political entity "B" as one entity, but neither one losing or gaining any power. This is what happens whenever countries join the European Union—none of the countries in the Union posses more explicit "power" than any other member (id est Germany and Britain are both political equals in the E.U.). From what I can factually see regarding Crimea, that entity SUBMITTED itself to Russian rule; Crimea's leader does not posses the same political power that President Putin does. Does this make sense? Best. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 22:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Accession is, at least according to most usage, for a state joining an organization of states. The correct term here is probably annexation really (as for arguments that it implies "unilateral"- yes it does and this was indeed by most accounts a unilateral act), but I think incorporation is a workable compromise. --Yalens (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Prefer "annexation" to "incorporation". Prefer "incorporation" to "accession". NPOV and all that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment to VM: "Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the permanent acquisition and incorporation of some territorial entity into another geo-political entity<...>It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities"*comment ends here*. Incorporation is a broader term, encompassing both Annexation and Accession points, this is why it neutral and also reason why I prefer "Incorporation..." naming to both annex. and acc. variants. Seryo93 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Updated 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The following might be informative:
victor falk 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment GNews & Ghits:
Search string GNews Ghits
"annexation of crimea" 2014 -wikipedia 14,400 13,400,000
"incorporation of crimea" 2014 -wikipedia 7 169,000
"accession of crimea" 2014 -wikipedia 11 123,000
annexation crimea 2014 -wikipedia 33,900 79,600,000
incorporation crimea 2014 -wikipedia 58 401,000
accession crimea 2014 -wikipedia 69 1,250,000


victor falk 23:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not convinced trying to determine a WP:COMMON name is especially useful in this case, as the nature of the divide means non-English-language outlets are likelier than English-language outlets to consider this to be a lawful "accession" as opposed to a unilateral "annexation". That being said, clearly by the WP:COMMON standard, Annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation or Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation or simply Russian annexation of Crimea is the way to go -- and Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation clearly isn't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The name of the treaty was Accession not annexation or incorporation. And the article about that treaty was merged with this article, I think it would be better to be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmoibenlepro (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - it really should be "Annexation" per WP:COMMONNAME, but obviously "Incorporation" is still superior to "Accession" which is just pure silliness.--Staberinde (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    Comment. this is our case, but "Incorporation" variant may still fall under this case, so I don't think it it should be quickly rejected. And we have precedent when article Occupation of the Baltic states has the following quote (I'm omitting refs to avoid inserting non-needed "references" tag, but they still in the article):
"The occupation of the Baltic states refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union under the auspices of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 14 June 1940 followed by their incorporation into the USSR as constituent republics, unrecognised internationally by most countries.
Note word "incorporation" and it's link to annexation, which shows that incorporation term may be also used in context of joining states or their parts, not only in non-state inclusions. It proves, in my view, that this ("Incorporation..." word) may be a neutral descriptive word (opposed to commonly occuring but not so neutral words "Annexation of..." (Western sources) or "Accession of..." (*some* Ru. and pro-Ru. sources). Seryo93 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: But it's not neutral. And it was unilateral only from Western POV (see Declaration of Independence of Crimea and Sevastopol and Kosovo independence precedent). While we have non-neutral common names (such as Boston Massacre), we may consider using a descriptive name (see links above). What happened in Crimea? It was included (either by annexation or by it's own accession - depend on whether point you support) into Russia. That's the description of event. And incorporation means "include", so we may consider it. Seryo93 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: The only example submitted here about the use of incorporation was a pipelink to annexation. Annexation is an International law term which is defined in Misplaced Pages as the permanent acquisition and incorporation of some territorial entity into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous) and in Brittanica as "a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain". But "incorporation" is not a term by itself in International Law, but just a word explaining the process. Besides, incorporation by joining or uniting is also defined as annexation in the dictionaries. So it suits properly. P.S. Western POV could be "invasion". Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Western POV could be "invasion". - or "occupation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Please provide sources for it being an international law term. (I don't think it can be cleary defined in any laws and I think you say this only to add some substance to what is simply your own opinion and your own desire to rename the article in a certain way.)
Vocabulary.com is definitely not a reliable source. The sophomoric level of that definition they give should be a dead give away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
As to Britannica. Well, it was a unilateral act, since Ukraine didn't agree to it. And in the second part there is that word "frequently", which implies "not always". In fact, Britannica goes on to say "Military occupation does not constitute or necessarily lead to annexation.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms, A Dictionary of Law Enforcement, The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy, Encyclopaedic dictionary of political science, etc. No other definition is more suitable. Not depending on whether it was by invasion or conquest, it can be defined and is defined (at least, by 100 countries who voted in favor of UN Resolution 68/262) as an annexation. But seeing the claims (and numerous sources to prove that) about the nationality of the "self-defence" forces this issue also can be treated in different way. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The links clearly show the article can't be titled "Annexation" cause it isn't a neutral title.
  • A Dictionary of Law Inforcement: "annexation (in *international law) The acquisition of legal *sovereignty by one state over the territory of another, usually by *occupation or conquest. Annexation is now generally considered illegal in *international law, ..."
  • The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy: "annexation. The formal act by which a *state incorporates conquered foreign territory within its own jurisdiction. It is now almost universally regarded as a violation of *international law."
  • Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Political Science: "Annexation Refers to forcible incorporation, wholly or in part, of the territory of another state or nation. ... Annexation is a gross violation of international law."
--Moscow Connection (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If something doesn't reflect Russian POV it doesn't mean that it is not neutral. usually, frequently doesn't mean always, or it would be written so. conquered, forcible - I don't think that Ukraine ceded the territories voluntarily (please, for more information see 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine). I gave my opinion, submitted my proofs and point-of-view, that's it. So I gave my 5 cents. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This intervention "occurs" only according to Western claims, which seems to be sort of widespread conspiracy theory. Russia stated many times, that 1 March decision was a mandate (i.e. delegation of power from FC to President), not actual decision on invasion. But West ignores that as "lie" (which is their point of view). And btw, if something doesn't reflect Western (even dominant) POV, it doesn't meant that it is not neutral. Likewise, bests. Seryo93 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I am neither from Russia, nor from Ukraine, or another "Western" country, whose international politics I usually do not support. I don't have any problems with NPOV. And the article I mentioned above exists with 343 (!) references. If something is wrong with the facts there, no one has problem with adding new point-of-views and references. The question was about renaming the article to "Incorporation ..."; and I gave proofs stating that incorporation of a territory of another country in International Law is called annexation. The word, usage of which is also more widely used (can be seen from the links added by user:victor falk). Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, "The word, usage of which is also more widely used" is what exactly Non-neutral but common names are. Annexation, while generally just a term of Int'l law (and I agree with that point), often used in negative connotation with regard to that particular event (often intermingling with "referendum at gunpoints" and similar points). Many states, which now criticize Russian decision to admitt breakaway Republic of Crimea (country) into ranks of federal subjects on constitutional grounds have, in fact, created precedent, where self-determination leads to unilateral declaration of independence (in violation of national constitution) by breakaway state. This state, in turn, can ask other country to admitt it (breakaway state) into that "other country", thus making process *close to* bilateral. This makes claimed unilaterality disputed (and "annexation" term with it). Bests Seryo93 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 'Incorporation' seems like the most neutral term available, per Seryo93. IMO 'annexation' implies aggressive conquering by Russia, 'reunification' implies the event was morally justified, 'accession' implies that Crimea's participation was voluntary. 'Incorporation' doesn't imply anything in particular, so let's use that. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to international law it was an accession of an independent country to the Russian Federation. Tibet2014 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hey all, sorry for the recent disturbance, that aside, I support "Incorporation" (of course, denotatively, I still support Annexation—this means due to the dictionary definition of the words). Also please, I must insist that people stop using encyclopedias to define words; this is what dictionaries are for!! As for the three encyclopedic entries you listed, Moscow, these are obviously biased by warmongers! Many of the states of the United States were ANNEXED and it was not considered "illegal" for those processes to occur. It is a simple fact that Crimea was annexed to Russia; HOWEVER, what we CANNOT definitively state on Misplaced Pages is that it is (or is not) illegal, and if we state it, it must be stated as an opinion or as a sourced subjective point-of-view. For example, in the article, I said that it was "considered by...to be illegal"; at that point, I listed who calls it illegal. I did not just say "this process is illegal" without a source. Incorporation is fine, annexation is better (and just as correct); if you see anyone attempting to abuse the article's facts by cluttering it with biased, unsourced opinions, being listed as fact—then please, take action against them! Thank you. :)
Biased by warmongers? By "Russian warmongers"? Hey, many of these sources were released YEARS before this crisis (this one in 2007, for example). And it's hardly to see Britannica biased by Russian point. About "millions of people look for annexation": it's exactly what non-neutral-but-common-name is. Many people got info about it from Western sources, not surprising they are looking for definition, which has become familiar to them due to these sources. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 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.

Secession followed by Admission

Juridically, it was a secession of Crimea followed by admission to the Russian Federation. That the process of the secession was controversial in some parts of the world is a different matter. The title of the article violates neutrality standards to which Misplaced Pages wishes to adhere. OAlexander (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, there is ongoing movie review related to current title. Seryo93 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I thank you very much for your kind advise. OAlexander (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The very first line at the top of this article breaks off the modifier from the neutral and concise root word, but it seems like the only options are multisyllabic and directional (long and pointed). Why can't the Annexation camp and the Accession camp join to agree on the word they have in common? Not "by" or "to" or "from". Just "of". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - a western theory

It is only a western theory. Stick to NPOV and describe all views. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are

? ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely, totally different cases. For one, there was a constitutional and legal process by which each of those states entered the EU (as opposed to a hastily organized vote conducted under the supervision of Russian troops and masked "self-defense" units); for another, the EU is not a federative state, it's a supranational organization. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, these are completely different things. AcidSnow (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion above and the reasons why article is named so. Besides, before making some claims do some research, at least read the difference between the Organizations and Federative States. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Either way, "after Russia invaded" is controversial (but "intervened" would be less so, because Russian assistance to CSD (Crimean Self-Defence), confirmed by President, is definitely intervention in Ukrainian affairs, regardless of whether it was or wasn't justified). And "appointed by Russia" is definitely a POV (just like "Yatsenuk appointed by Nuland/State Department"), thankfully it's reverted. BTW. still insist on "Incorporation..." title - after all, Iraqi parliamentary election, January 2005, Iraqi legislative election, December 2005, various Afghan elections since 2001 were conducted in presence of American troops, which, just like Russian ones now, created conditions to ensure "free expression of popular will" and safety of voters - but we don't call them "elections at gunpoint". Seryo93 (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
For the US Iraq and Afghanistan elections they also seem different. The elections were not about incorporating their countries into the US. I've said it on this talk page before and I'll say it again, just use the legal term, and that is Annexation...any POV is from cultural experiences like the word retard in science, the POV came after it was used not before.Hardkhora (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: Referendum (per UN-Charta) -> Secession (per UN-Charta) -> Accession (per Constitution of Russia). POV: Annexation. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an open RFC on this very subject higher up on this page, you should consider presenting your input there. For what it's worth, those pages are probably not on[REDACTED] since reliable sources don't employ that terminology. Reliable sources do describe the Crimean event of this year an annexation. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I would refer to WP:NDESC, which states that "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions". "Incorporation..." doesn't even need to be invented, it's in RS (abeit less used than "Annexation" - but that might be a systemic bias of *former* opponents of Russia in the Cold War). So I proposed this solution (a time ago). Seryo93 (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead of the policy article to which you refer says concisely that "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." I don't see any reason to deviate from this basic rule. WP:NDESC provides specifically that we should "Avoid (...) non-neutral words", and "incorporation", being different from what sources predominantly use, is by definition non-neutral and thus not a feasible option also for that reason. Systemic bias in sources (not commenting here whether there would be some in this case) isn't something that we could correct as editors as far as I can see. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Haha. Two views. One view has more websites and then this is regarded to be neutral. LOL. Misplaced Pages is a joke. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annexation
  2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate
  3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanction
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/Portal:Current_events.
Categories:
Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: Difference between revisions Add topic