Wikipedia

Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 2

< Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Seryo93 in topic Munich agremeent
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

DO NOT MOVE THIS PAGE

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 "[doesn't] 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 [noticeboard discussion] 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)

Sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)

Requested move (April 2014)

Latest comment: 10 years ago31 comments14 people in discussion
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 Wikipedia 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 [often larger] 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 [seemingly] 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:
walk victor falk talk 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


walk victor falk talk 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)
  • Support - I am for changing it to "annexation" as it was unilateral and due to the reasons given by user:victor falk above. Can be changed to "incorporation" after (if) this will be recognized by world community. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 06:09, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. :)
  • Comment Factually speaking, literally millions more people Google and look for "Annexation" than "Accession" and even less for "Incorporation". This is just an observation. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
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.

Request for comment: How to name this article

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

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
    These options have also been mentioned/suggested in the earlier move discussion:
    2. Adoption of Crimea to the Russian Federation
    4. Entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation
    6. Reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've found this one on a website:
    2. Re-adoption of Crimea into the Russian Federation. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Different preposition:
    2. Adoption of Crimea into the Russian Federation. --Moscow Connection (talk)
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 Wikipedia. "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)
  • Joining of Crimea and the Russian Federation. Perfectly neutral (only alphabetically ordered). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Galleries

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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)

  • I agree, this should be done, it was a while back on this page, I don't know why it changed.Hardkhora (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Extra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location helps support this idea.Hardkhora (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reverted. Please read WP:GALLERY a policy which encourages the use of galleries. There are so many images that it's too difficult to see how they are relevant to the text. Besides, the placement of floating images depends on the user's screen size. By putting them on a gallery we ensure everyone seems the same thing. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh wow, I just saw what happened. People broke the gallery settings. Give me a few minutes, I will fix it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, everything should be running fine and dandy now! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
        • These galleries are too large and with an inappropriate size for such a small article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Secession followed by Admission

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia 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, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - a western theory

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion

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 wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is a joke. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The key word is generally. Why we don't have annexation of Hawaii but have Newlands Resolution? First term is more prevalent than second one. Seryo93 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And also consider this: Annexation of Tibet has 45000 hints (or 10300 with exact phrase). Incorporation has 2760 exact phrase hints and 12300 non-exact. We use latter term, so I hope that we stop applying double standards when it comes to Russian topics. Either "Incorporation of Crimea" or "Annexation of Hawaii" and "Annexation of Tibet". Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree entirely: annexation of Hawaii (Sandwich Islands), and annexation of Tibet are correct.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Prevalence is not determined by search engines. Prevalence refers to prevalence in high-quality sources, not generic web pages. A search engine will return any hits it finds, whereas we're only interested in high-quality reliable sources. As to Tibet, what sources say about Tibet has no bearing on what we should call this article. --Dailycare (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I searched in GBooks. And what do you mean by "high-quality reliable sources"? Why we have to label Russian event annexation (which (term) is disputed and deemed offensive by Russia) and Tibet one "Incorporation"? Seryo93 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And please consider Tibet: it was named annexation at some point, but after discussion article was moved into incorporation - which was seemingly invented title (balanced between PRC "liberation" vs CTA "invasion"). Why Crimea shall be treated differently? To follow systemic bias on attacking Russia? "Cheers", double standards and POV all the way. Seryo93 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Concerning reliable sources, you need to read WP:IRS. In fact, in order to be able to contribute meaningfully in Wikipedia you need to have a good grasp on what reliable sources are. What the Tibet article is called is, again, not relevant here. The title of that article turns on what sources say about Tibet. The title of this article turns on what sources say about Crimea. --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm rather abstain from that titling issue. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Munich agremeent

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Does this unattributed Nazi parallel qualifies as POV-pushing? What's next? Nazi war crimes? 1936 Summer Olympics? Or maybe Gleiwitz incident? Seryo93 (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and its annexation by the USA in 1898, 1938 German annexation of Austria, the 1939 German annexation of Western Czechoslovakia, the the 1939 Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and the 1940 Soviet Annexation of the Baltic States are closer parallels. The 1895-6 Jameson Raid is an example of such an operation failing. Suggest we add all of these parallels.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to agree, because they are no longer limited to Nazi-only parallels (abeit it's still better to use "See also" for events, directly related to Crimean crisis). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Updated 08:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If we look at aircraft articles. They have "see also" sections. I have looked at the following aircraft article see also sections and all of them list related developments and comparable aircraft of different nations: MiG 15#See also, Hawker Hunter#See also, Tupolev Tu-16#See also, Vought F4U Corsair#See also, Fokker Dr.I#See also. Some of them also have links to articles on people, or incidents/battles, or "list articles" of interest.
Articles about military-political events also have see also sections. For example Jameson Raid#See also, Cuban missile crisis#See also. My impression is that it is 100% normal on Wikipedia to have "see also" sections on comparable things.
Notice also that the comparable things, in the "see also" section, do not need to be directly related or cited as being comparable. If they were directly related, they would be part of the article. For example, the article on the Cuban missile crisis has wikilinks to articles on UGM-27 Polaris, PGM-19 Jupiter and Ilyushin Il-28. These links are in the text of the article, and not the "see also" section.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, now I agree to parallels. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have implemented this, as agreed, using piping to ensure a neutral POV.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about your airplane examples. Is this the new type of car analogy? Anyway, both your airplane and historical event examples have some things in common in their related links: they are to either contemporary or directly (e.g. geographically) related subjects. The events you picked are neither contemporary, nor is there a clear direct link or a reliable source drawing such a link. Which leads me to believe that they are either the product of original research or a blatant attempt at POV pushing (like pretty much every Nazi comparison is). One could draw a link between the situation in Crimea and the status of Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as contemporary territorial conflicts that also involve Russia. But even then, we shouldn't label them in a subsection as "comparable", which always carries some extra judgement. Don Cuan (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Ruwiki contained anschluss referendum link in See also, but it was removed as non-relevant - and I agree with that. WP:SEEALSO "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant". Seryo93 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_2&oldid=1047291668"