Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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/wiki/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:

• http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraine-protests-against-russias-recognition-of-self-proclaimed-republic-of-crimea-339810.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/International/dueling-protests-held-moscow-ahead-crimea-referendum/story?id=22925606
• http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-march-moscow-protest-crimea-vote-150812036.html

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)

[Technicality] 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)

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

There's an ongoing discussion at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country

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)

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)

Requested move (March 2014)

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)

• Support. Accession is an inappropriate description. This is what an annexation is, comparable to others in history, it fits the description of unilateral act. Ottawakismet (talk) 18:58, 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.". Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

• Strong oppose - the proposed new title is not neutral, it's Ukrainian POV. maxval (talk) 18:30, 18 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

• Support. "Annexation" I don't see it as POV but as a technical term.Hardkhora (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Using Annexation word is a biased POV, and we should strive for neutrality. Saying that this is an Annexation is as bad as the POV that Ukraine occupied Crimea illegitimately and that now Crimea is liberated... Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The observers did not report any notable coercion for people to vote in referendum. So it is hardly what is usually called "annexation". Russia just grabbed a low hanging fruit (while shaking the tree a bit, I must agree. - Altenmann >t 04:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The example of Goa in Wikipedia's article on annexation is similar to what is happening with Crimea. 193.40.31.83 (talk) 09:35, 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)

• Oppose - Annexation is a unilateral act. — Petr Matas 22:18, 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [присоединение Крыма] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (the Joining of Crimea) and not [аннексии Крыма Россией] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) while the Ukrainian uses [анексія АР Крим та Севастополя Росією] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (the Russian Annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol) and not [приєднання Криму і Севастополя до Росії] 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 Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  Editors, please note the following: Here at Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia...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 Wikipedia 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)

• Comment. I think that "Annexation of Crimea" is a wider subject, which includes military occupation, non-military events and this page. Right now, it exists as a redirect page. Nothing prevents from developing Annexation of Crimea by placing some appropriate content out there if anyone wants. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  I think the widest subject is at "2014 Crimean crisis" already. If someone does what you are proposing it would create a fork of this page with some additions from the 2014 Crimean crisis article. (I'm not sure what the scopes of all these articles are, though. Cause there are more.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:59, 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/w/index.php?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 wikipedia 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

• Comment: Why are we still disputing this whenever it is quite clear that it is an "annexation" due to the military aggression of Russian forces and the direct comparability of this to the annexations of Texas and Bosnia? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 09:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Because titles (and articles in general) must be neutral. Annexation is pro-Ukrainian POV (even if it's dominant now). From Russia's POV it was accession of independent Republic of Crimea, proclaimed in compliance with Right to self-determination and Kosovo independence precedent. "Incorporation..." is pretty neutral (it don't implies armed annexation or voluntary accession, but establishes a clear fact of peninsula's entry (legal or not, under coercion or not) into Russia). Seryo93 (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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 wikipedia which, if anything, would be expected to have a more pro-US bent than anything (meanwhile, German wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 [so-called] "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.

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.

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)

• Support. I agree. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. That section should be called "Background" but someone renamed it to Timeline. We don't use timelines as background information for articles. It must be switched to prose. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I called it "Timeline" originally. I don't think it was ever called "Background". --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• diff when it was changed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Diff when you changed "Timeline" to "Background" without asking anyone and tagged the section. Why didn't you say it was you who renamed it and tagged it? --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, now we have a separate background section. Feel free to improve. Seryo93 (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)