Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Ukraine in violation of flight rules over the Crimea carries out missile firingwhich threatens in flights of passenger sides

1 2 December 2016 http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2826131 http://www.krsk.kp.ru/daily/26611/3628858/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.143 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

State run media does not qualify as WP:RS, but as a propaganda tool. Find some reliable sources backing up this claim. Also, read WP:SOAP. Hysterical talk page headers are not appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

So?? What it has to do with the topic?212.90.182.118 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Biased terminology, Reunification not annexation.

Population of Crimea, 18–21 centuries (green stands for Crimean Tatars, red for Russians, yellow for Ukrainians)

Biased terminology is used in this article starting with the title, which should be "Reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation" (as it is called in Russia & Crimea). A referendum is a legal democratic process and calling it annexation is a disrespectful denial of the people's right to self-determination. The UN has absolutely no legal rights to invalidate this referendum. When Germany was reunified there was no referendum and the DDR has been completely erased as a country, yet we don't call it annexation. It's these biased dual standards that degrade the credibility and reputation of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congoclash (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:SOAP. Please have the courtesy to read talk pages (and archived talk) before writing any form of comment. This has been 'expressed' (and I use the term assuming good faith on your behalf) ad nauseam already. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Thank you kindly for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

did west germany invaded east germany? NO. Did Russia invaded Crimea? Yes. That's why it is annexation.212.90.182.118 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No. We lived in Crimea for centuries. We cannot invade ourselves. We just re-unified with our own country. Francois (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Are U from Turkey? (see the graph)—Pietadè (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No. From Crimea. Why are you asking? Francois (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Francois: Pay attention to the diagram Pietadè provided for the ethnicity of inhabitants of Crimea for these 'centuries' of some sort of Russian majority, and long-standing 'ownership'. Sorry, no cigar... There was no massive influx until the 20th century... but you can certainly 'invade' Crimean Tartars and other ethnic groups who made up the majority on land they had occupied for centuries. So much for your WP:OR, and WP:POV opinion based on thin air and a lot of propaganda. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Well, I am born in Crimea, while many Tatars recently immigrated from Middle Asia... Check Pietadè chart! And even more, although it may sound shocking to you, majority of Tatars support reunification. Contrary to Western propaganda. The reason is quite banal: this brings them more money. Russia and Russian tourists are much more well off comparing to the Ukraine and Ukrainians beggars. Francois (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. 'Immigrated'? You mean 'dared to returned from deportation' (not they they can get their land back). Oh, and where are your WP:RS for how happy the Crimean Tartars are? The Russian Federation's state press? You've obviously had no grounding in the issue outside of the propaganda you've been spoon fed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, all the above is just your POV grounded in Western propaganda. I bet a bottle of Syrah, you've never even been to Crimea or talked to a single Crimean Tatar person, yet, as every indoctrinated person, you think that you know better what's going on on the other side of the globe... And no, they didn't returned from deportation. Vast majority of the "returned" Tatars was never deported. They were born in Uzbekistan, etc. BTW, Tatar immigration has nothing to do with the fact of reunification. UPD: Crimean Tatars, who were deported from Russian Federation now returned to Russian Federation. Isn't it the true historical justice, indeed? Francois (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As for me, I have lived in Crimea for some months, decades ago. As far as I remember, very little tap water, that was compensated by plenty of vodka and salted pickles; and portraits of dead Politburo leaders, with very beautiful flowers in front of the pictures. And the brave guardians of peace in the port of Sevastopol, on their splendid atomic submarines (the film I took, was almost momentarily taken away, so, cannot prove). And the Tatars I spoke with, they were not deported, bozhe moy, upozhi, they were presented free one-way tickets to much better land (though some of them managed to sink in the sea on their way (and no one to blame for this but the Azov)). And all this was for FREE!!!, even their burials, if these took place.—Pietadè (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

God bless the Russian tourist ruble, and all her sail in her. I believe that some of Francois' best friends are Tartars from Bakhchysarai. (Oh, and just dropping in a reference here for my own use on a couple of articles about how wonderfully the Crimean Tartars have been treated under Eastern Slavs in modern times before I forget where it is. If anyone else is interested in a scholarly read - not personal opinion - please feel free to do so.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

References

The crimean peninsula doesn't belong restrictively to the actual inhabitants that live there, but to the whole Ukraine and Ukrainian people. Once the russian federation occupied the territory, it occupied a piece of Ukraine. Maybe you Francois personally were reunited or whatever, but as it goes for the territory itself- it was occupied and annexed by force.

Also Francois allowed himself to insult Ukrainians by calling them "beggars". This is not the first time I see that Ukrainians are being insulted here, without any reactions by the moderators. A user named SaintAviator called ukrainians "fascist" and the moderators let it slide. This is not good job by the moderators, you should react and remove such obscenities.

Also another thing I want to tell the moderators. There are countless paid kremlebots out there, or simply brainwashed russian citizens, that will continuously try to edit this page and claim that Russia didn't annexed Crimea and bla bla bla. This is going to repeat itself like FOREVER, since we are in the middle of an information war, and Russia is investing a lot of money into this. They already own wiki.ru for example, where it is not called "annexation", but "incorporation". Which is not encyclopedic. 212.90.182.118 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Partial restoration of the old lead

I reverted that edit and restored the lead to a pre-POV state. The lead was much discussed previously, so I don't think it's useful to bring major changes (either in favor of "return" of something) by "pro-" or "anti-Ru" hopping IPs without discussion. As for temp. occ., there are concerns about crystball nature of "temporary" notion (see here for example). Anyway, I added recent UNGA resolution regarding Crimea, so, I think, the "temporary occupation status" isn't missing in preamble. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Seryo93: Agreed that the changes were POV, and that your tweaks to the lead and body improve the fluidity and consistency of the reading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment category

I've just reverted the addition of the anti-Russian sentiment cat to the article here. While I can agree that anti-Ukrainian sentiment is valid for the article, I can't agree that a military takeover merits the addition. Yes, in general terms, it can be argued that such actions are one of the reasons for perpetuating anti-Russian sentiment, but it's pushing the envelope on WP:NOR, and is actually WP:OFFTOPIC as an encyclopaedic cat worthy of being applied. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal aspects - how the Ukrainian Soviet leader Khrushchev transferred Crimea

I found an interesting aspect in a German book of the former Ukrainian minister N. Asarow:

From a constitutional point of view, however, Nikita S. Khrushchev broke the Constitution of the Russian Federation (RSFSR), which committed the territorial integrity of the fatherland. The process has never been properly investigated. Documents from the archives opened in 1992 also showed that the decision was also illegal in other respects. Neither had the Supreme Soviet in Moscow voted on the subject, nor the one in Kiev, but, what was inadmissible, only their presidencies. Almost half of the members of these committees were missing, which must be understood as a demonstrative vote against this arbitrary decision and meant, that they were not formally legitimized. Protest also came from the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Crimea, Pavel Titov, who had been cited to Moscow to receive the notification of the change of ownership. He was then removed and replaced by Ukrainian Dmytro Polianski.    The external occasion for this generous "gift" of Moscow to Kiev was the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Peresyaslav. Truth,2 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but here he's wrong. On 2.6.1954 Soviet Russian parliament excluded Crimea from the RSFSR Constitution, explicitly citing transfer as a reason for that move. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please tell the source. Have you a possibility to see the Documents from the archives opened in 1992. I did not find another source.Truth,2 (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I cannot do original research, because I don't understand Russian language. But perhaps somebody is able to look for Russian sources.Truth,2 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Закон РСФСР от 2 июня 1954 года «О внесении изменений и дополнений в статью 14 Конституции (Основного Закона) РСФСР» (in Russian). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Scare quotes and the phrase 'local "self-defence" units'

The text has a sentence that read as follows, before an editor removed the so-called "scare quotes":

The February 2014 revolution that ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych sparked a political crisis in Crimea, which initially manifested as demonstrations against the new interim Ukrainian government, but rapidly escalated. In January 2014 the Sevastopol city council had already set up local "self-defence" units.

Where does this phrase 'local "self-defence" units' come from? It is not in the article, which uses a phrase that can be translated into English as "people's militia", and does appear once in scare quotes («народных дружин»).-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with.[1]-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

geostrategical aspects not fully explained

why not doing the speculation about reasoning in a seperate section ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.57.67 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318050317/http://society.lb.ua/life/2014/03/17/259752_pogibshiy_krimskiy_tatarin_shel.html to http://society.lb.ua/life/2014/03/17/259752_pogibshiy_krimskiy_tatarin_shel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201194141/http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/25274499.html to http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/25274499.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogi.newsweek.pl/Tekst/swiat/684527%2Crosja-przygotowuje-sie-do-zbrojnej-interwencji-na-ukrainie.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/In-taking-Crimea-Putin-gains-a-sea-of-fuel-reserves/articleshow/35312595.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda article

This propaganda article on so-called neutral Wikipedia (dominated by American editors) doesn't mention the election and its results in Crimea. Can we ask why? 121.46.85.54 (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Fourth paragraph of the article discusses Crimean status referendum, 2014. Cloud200 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Civilian deaths in infobox

To my recollection, the two civilians who died during the protester clashes were only identified as being confirmed deaths. I don't recall any reliably sourced information as to whether they were pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian. Ametov was killed by 'vigilantes' when he went to enlist with the Ukrainian forces, so he's the only one who can be verified as being pro-Ukraine. Unless there are WP:RS for the allegiances of the other unfortunates, I think that three civilian deaths reported (sans whose 'side' they were on) with the refs currently cited is ample. Firstly, we should not be touting misinformation. Secondly, although it isn't policy-based, I think it's tawdry presenting the waste of human life as being allegiance-based. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Good reasoning, yes. — JFG ^talk 12:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Two deaths resulted in a single funeral for two held in Simferopol. Sounded like a reconciliation to me. Moryak (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You're probably talking about Simferopol incident, which isn't the case discussed here. Simferopol incident casualties were both combatants, not civilians. --VoidWanderer (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

'Legal obstacles to Crimea annexation' is not neutral in discussing the issues

Having just read this section for the first time in ages, it is quite clear that the title itself is not neutral and this leads to a section that is not as neutral as it should be. Rather than setting out to prove that the annexation was illegal - (it may well have been, but that's not the point) - it should be discussing both sides of each argument fairly. An easy way to address this problem is to have a more neutral title which, in turn, will influence how the section is edited going forward. I will therefore change the section title to 'Legality issues around Crimean annexation'. I trust this will be accepted by all as an improvement. Lin4671 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you're misunderstanding WP:NPOV as opposed to WP:GEVAL. 'Neutrality' is not a reflection of what editors think is 'neutral' wording, but what mainstream reliable sources say on the subject... and the mainstream global response (including academic responses) is that the annexation is deemed to be illegal. That is what the article is to say, not that there are two sides to the story. The tone of the article was fine. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BALANCE: trying to balance the minority view is not impartial but WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think anything you have said disagrees with anything I have said. My proposal is that 'Legality issues around Crimean annexation' would be a better title than 'Legal obstacles to Crimea annexation'. Do you disagree with that proposal? (And if so, why?) Lin4671 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that (grammatically speaking) "Legal issues surrounding Crimean annexation" would be a better subheader. 'Obstacles' is indeed POV: it isn't an awkward little bit of red tape for the RF to get around as is implied by the original title. Good observation. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've made the change you suggested. Lin4671 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The term "Invasion".

I can't believe I actually have to lecture about the simple definition of the word "Invasion". Regardless,"Invasion" is OBJECTIVELY defined by the situation in Crimea.

in·va·sion - inˈvāZHən - (noun) - An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

This includes the use of Russian special forces to takeover SOVEREIGN Crimean public buildings, Ukrainian military bases, and blockade of public roads (as is told in the substance of this wikipedia article). All these institutions are under higher jurisdiction of UKRAINE which the autonomous constitution of Crimea (before the invasion) acknowledges. Russia was never asked by the Ukrainian government to make its incursion. Additionally, the 1997 Black Sea Agreements NEVER addressed that it would allow Russia to intrude on Ukrainian sovereign land on its free will (as popularly believed). If one actually read the agreements, it says that Russia can ONLY leave its military bases with the approval of the authorities of the central government. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. This is why the opening paragraph should include "invasion", instead of "military intervention".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.248.79 (talk • contribs)

We do not use opinions of anonymous editors, we use reliable sources. A vast majority of those defined the events as military intervention, and the text in the article is the result of consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter How is this an "opinion", when literally the wikipedia article has already covered this definition IN SUBSTANCE (already with sources). This is NOT an opinion. It even says ALREADY in the article "Russian masked troops INVADE and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders."

May be you should read policies first before resuming edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@YMblanter Which I already have. I hope you paid close attention to what I wrote instead being doubtful of my abilities as an anonymous editor. I'm not here to have this irrelevant discussion other than the appropriate use of "invasion" in this article. Please contribute or move on. 98.166.248.79 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Look. I have almost 100 000 edits here. You came out of the blue and started edit-warring, and when I directed you to read our policies you suggested that I "contribute or move on". What you suggest is not based on our policies, and, in fact, contradicts them. This is highly inapproppriate, and if you resume edit-wearring, I will just block your IP from editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@YMBlanter For the second time, I ALREADY read the policies. Yet you are still having this irrelevant discussion when I have made a simple offer with plenty of backup to lay my claims. Will you discuss the relevance of my discussion or not? It is only inappropriate because you refuse to discuss my topic right now. I already debunked your first counter argument here. In addition the 3RR was never broken in this article, AND I DON'T INTEND TO. 98.166.248.79 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss your argument because it disagrees with Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:OR.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter And yet you are absolutely wrong. Because for the third time now, I told you I used existing substance from the article which is already sourced. Now if you aren't going to post an appropriate response, I will no longer waste my time with you. 98.166.248.79 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be great if you stop wasting your (and my) time. The sooner you do it the better. However, if you resume edit-warring in the article, I will block your IP for disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@YMblanter You are literally the one who is posting nothing of relevance to the talk I created. Instead you want to espouse things I clearly know better to not do. YES I KNOW the policies for the third time now. I have used Wikipedia for many years now. You will continue to waste your time here if you continue this irrelevant/unnecessary admonition. 98.166.248.79 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, I highly suggest both of you to Wikipedia:Desist. IP user, I already told you it's not necessary to change a synonymous term and the consensus has already been made to use "military intervention". Ymblanter, please just ignore IP user in this talk. Thanks. CCC24243 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@CCC24243 Gladly 98.166.248.79 (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything you say and the definition of "invasion" definitely matches this situation. You are obviously highly educated about the 2014 Crimean crisis. However, the term "military intervention" can be synonymous with "invasion" and is also appropriately used here. CCC24243 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@CCC24243 Thank you, I appreciate a constructive response. I hope I can at least bring awareness of why this situation is a textbook definition "invasion". 98.166.248.79 (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, it looks like you are talking to yourself to create an illusion of mass support.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not IP user;) CCC24243 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUCK says you are.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUCK isn't saying anything to me, it’s an assumption. Please chill, this talk is settled. CCC24243 (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, you should stop posting irrelevant commentary and delusions to this discussion. 98.166.248.79 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, both of you need to be WP:CIVIL, Thanks:) CCC24243 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading map?

The abstract map currently attached to this page (by Seryo93) shows the area around Crimea rather differently than it appears in the satellite view.

Looking at the abstract map attached to this topic, Crimea appears to be quite detached from the Ukraine. My impression viewing the map was that geographically the Crimea is perhaps more attached to Russia than the Ukraine.

Looking at the actual satellite view, we see that Crimea is in fact solidly joined to the Ukraine where on the map it appears disconnected. In short, the map attached to this topic is in error. (Whether that error is accidental or intentional on this highly contentious topic - is a question.)

Does someone want to offer an updated map?

--pbannister (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually the satellite view can be misleading when the view is distant as areas of water that forms much of the border between Ukraine and Crimea are coloured a light green which is different from the blue of deeper water in the Black Sea. If you zoom in closer you will see that the satellite view becomes more like the view depicted on the map. Lin4671 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.taraskuzio.net%2fmedia24_files2f15.pdf/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301065847/http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-7-decoding-documents-indicting-dictators/ to http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-7-decoding-documents-indicting-dictators/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140314131955/http://vizit.ks.ua/news/post_chongar_kontroliruet_krymskij_berkut_podchinennyj_janukovichu/2014-02-27-3148 to http://vizit.ks.ua/news/post_chongar_kontroliruet_krymskij_berkut_podchinennyj_janukovichu/2014-02-27-3148

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed an external link

I have removed an external link:

*"Крым. Путь на родину" ("Crimea. The Road to Homeland"), documentary of Television Rossiya (in Russian)

I do not think a documentary in Russian language is useful for the English speaking readers. Also Rossiya is hardly a reliable source on the matter. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A Russian-language "documentary" made for Rossiya 1 is not a useful source of facts on modern Russian (or historical Soviet) military-political operations. It is potentially useful as a primary source on how the operation has been presented on Russian television - but then only if the article cited reliable secondary sources talking about how Russian television covered the annexation. Note though, the Russian government has changed its version of events several times. Any link to the documentary should give the date it was first broadcast on Russian television, and a summary of which version of events it presents. In effect it would need to be like a picture caption. (See Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID bullet point 2.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC), modified 12:16 (UTC)

The so-called Annexation is only a Narrative

There are Scholars of International law who reject the Narrative of an "Annexation" like Michael Geistlinger from Austria.--217.92.58.201 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is interesting. Does anyone have English language statements or publications by him or others making this point?Dogru144 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This any help: [2] [3] [4] Birtig (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Crimean crisis is an ongoing conflict, the annexation itself ended successfully (for Russia) 5 years ago. — CapLiber (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't "Crimean dispute" now be the appropriate way of phrasing this, as it is not so much of a "crisis" anymore but simply a "dispute". - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose split proposal, the proper way to handle this issue would be to rename (and rearrange) Political status of Crimea into, say, Crimean conflict. But one would be required to provide sources for that composition. This article's title hints to that possibility, but that's only in the lead, while the body says that "But the basic problem remains unchanged: the crisis in relations caused by Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 after Ukraine’s pro-western Euromaidan protests, the subsequent low-intensity war in the eastern Donbass region bordering Russia, and the international community’s chronic failure to find a solution.", i.e. views it in context of Ukraine crisis. Likewise, this one is also ambiguous a bit, it says that Kerch Strait incident is "an alarming escalation of an ongoing but neglected crisis.", but what is it - questionable. It indeed could mean proposed arrangement (Crimean crisis composed of 2014 annexation and subsequent conflicts around Crimea), but it could also been more narrow (Sea of Azov/Kerch Strait issues), or more wide (Ukrainian crisis). So, unless "hard sources" are provided for proposed arrangement it's unlikely to be implemented.

And yes, "it is not so much of a "crisis" anymore but simply a "dispute"" is not so quite, since, as proven by 2016 and 2018, the conflict is a bit "hotter" than, say, "purely diplomatic and purely bilateral" Kuril Islands dispute. But again, to rearrange Political status of Crimea into an article about ongoing international conflict over Crimea one must find sources, that unequivocally place 2014, 2016 and 2018 into context of Crimean conflict (and not into context of Ukrainian crisis in general). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I see no need to split. This article adequately covers the annexation, other articles cover the war in Donbass and the political disputes. — JFG ^talk 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Political status of Crimea" already covers this. There's no actual "conflict" and no "crisis". --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree on assesment that there is no conflict (Kerch Strait incident and 2016 events in northern Crimea rather point to opposite conclusion), yet agree, that neither splitting nor reorganisation of Political status of Crimea into "Crimean conflict" are viable solutions. First is not an option because it wil lead to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and second one is premature unless one gives "hard WP:RS", i.e. ones which explicitly place Crimea-related issues into "post-2014 ongoing Crimean conflict" (not Ukrainian conflict/Ukrainian crisis - this is a bit different topic). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support the position of Moscow Connection above.Dogru144 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the same reasons already pointed out. TrailBlzr (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

I found an interesting article, discussing different aspects of the legal aspects of the annexion of crimea, for example regarding the Kosovo comparison: https://crimea.dekoder.org/law In this new artice, an Ukrainian, a German and a Russian expert on international law discuss certain topics concerning the annexation and add some new perspectives) I suggest to add a new sentence OLD: The declaration directly referred to the Kosovo independence precedent, by which the Albanian-populated Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija declared independence from Russia's ally Serbia as the Republic of Kosovo in 2008—a unilateral action Russia staunchly opposed. Many analysts saw the Crimean declaration as an overt effort to pave the way for Crimea's annexation by Russia.[160] NEW: The declaration directly referred to the Kosovo independence precedent, by which the Albanian-populated Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija declared independence from Russia's ally Serbia as the Republic of Kosovo in 2008—a unilateral action Russia staunchly opposed. However, the comparability of the two cases is highly disputed [link to article: https://crimea.dekoder.org/law). Many analysts saw the Crimean declaration as an overt effort to pave the way for Crimea's annexation by Russia.[160] Kamenog (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

In 2017, the Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS), led by Oxford Professor Gwendolyn Sasse, conducted a research on Crimea on questions concerning economy and identity. A knowledge transfer project first use and visualized this data (https://crimea.dekoder.org/identity). I propose to add this information under "Crimean public opinion"

OLD: A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation.[279] Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise the results.[279]

In a survey completed in 2019 by a Russian company FOM 72% of surveyed Crimeans said their lives have improved since annexation. At the same time only 39% Russians living in the mainland said the annexation was beneficial for the country as a whole which marks a significant drop from 67% in 2015.[280]

NEW: A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation.[279] Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise the results.[279]

A 2017 survey illustrates, how the majority in crimea and Crimean Tatars assess the economic conditions and their own identity after the annexation. At that point, 91% of those polled state a general rise in prices for everyday life goods.(Link: https://crimea.dekoder.org/identity in The Crimean Archipelago: A Multimedia Dossier)

In a survey completed in 2019 by a Russian company FOM 72% of surveyed Crimeans said their lives have improved since annexation. At the same time only 39% Russians living in the mainland said the annexation was beneficial for the country as a whole which marks a significant drop from 67% in 2015.[280] Kamenog (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Denial of involvement

It should be noted in the lede Russia lied about their involvement. Just like they did when they killed a few hundred Australians on a civilian aircraft. Just like they did when they sent mercenaries and regular troops in Syria to attack Americans. Saying it's not us is pretty much the state norm now. Even when it clearly is. And when they're eventually caught red handed they shrug it off and the media is silent. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2020

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → Occupation of Crimea – Seems much more common than the current name being used. "Occupation of Crimea" has become the common name for these events, used in many reliable sources and publications on the subject. Thus the title will be in line with similar events: Occupation of the Baltic states, Occupation of Poland etc. Leaverland (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – This article is specifically about the events of the annexation itself in 2014, not any longer occupation. The common name for those events is and was "annexation of Crimea", as demonstrated by Google, which shows 1,010,000 hits for 'annexation of Crimea', as compared to a mere 175,000 results for 'occupation of Crimea'. RGloucester — ☎ 15:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is a difference between an occupation and an annexation. Territory can be occupied without being annexed. Where it has been formally annexed, that is the appropriate word to use. Crimea was annexed in 2014. Birtig (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As it is said before me, check the annexation article (we should not necessarily mix this issue with international recognition, though per it is the earlier mentioned, by the Russian interpretation it was not, but a joining to the Russian Federation by a referendum).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC))

• RGloucester , Birtig, KIENGIR, oke, thank you for your comments. Then I think the best solution will be to create separate article about longer occupation from 2014 till now. Thus this article will be specifically about the events of the annexation itself from 20 February till 26 March 2014. Can I, as the nominator, withdraw my move request? --Leaverland (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that such an article is necessary. Such matters can (and are) be discussed at the existing Republic of Crimea page. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has revealed to me that Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine exists...this seems the most appropriate target. RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 1 July 2020 (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.

Infobox invade and occupy

@Seryo93: about this edit - diff. I ask you to self-revert, because "invade and occupy" was there before (means we have a consensus for that) and I disagree with this change for now. You need to follow WP:BRD before changing it. I need some explanation from someone who attempts to change it. It's a known fact, that Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, like it or not. These attempts to smooth things over are just non-constructive and aren't based on RS. Are you really going to contest the fact, that Russia invaded and occupied Crimea? I really want to see your arguments.--Renat (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: I contest the word "invasion" here, albeit with a different rationale than Moryak. True, Russia seized Crimea in a military intervention. But invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity (emphasis mine). Russian forces were already present in Crimea before February - March annexation of 2014. So, this word is problematic, as Russia did not "enter Crimea" anew, but rather breached basing conditions of existing forces. A case can be made, that Russian entry of additional troops "under guise of strenghtening security of our objects" constitutes invasion, but "large numbers" makes that problematic as well. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Seryo93: I asked you to self-revert per WP:BRD before this discussion is over and you ignored it. Very civil behaviour. Anyway, we have many reliable sources, that say that Russia invaded Crimea, so you need something more than just your personal interpretation of the word "invasion" to contest that:
1 ― "Russia, trying to salvage its lost influence in Ukraine, invaded and annexed Crimea ...".
2 ― "The covered invasion and the annexation of Crimea ..."
4 ― "... Moscow chose to invade and annex Crimea ..."
5 ― "Russian troops invaded Ukraine ...".
And believe me, the annexation happened 7 years ago and now we have a lot of high-quality sources to support both statements: "invasion" and "occupation".--Renat (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-reverted, sorry for the delay. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Britannica also says "Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea". And in this case Britannica is reliable because it happened after 2010 (so it means it was from editorial board, not non-staff).--Renat (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, what is stated here as a "result" is, in fact, a sort of "breakdown of stages", not really a "result". For example, "The Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent" is not a result (outcome) of the annexation overall, but a part of, a stage. A result would be smth like, say, "X victory". And while the original reverted edit doesn't cite any sources, in fact we DO have RS, stating that in Crimea Russia indeed was victorious (for example, In Crimea, Russia achieved quick success through direct application of military power, emphasis mine, also Russia's Crimea plan detailed, secret and successful, speaks for itself) — after all, it took the territory and administers it since (and any concern about future scenarios, Ukrainan claims of "temporary occupation" or so on don't change the fact that in February-March 2014 Russia emerged victorious in Crimea: Invasion of Sakhalin was a Japanese victory despite the fact that some time later Soviet Union regained entire island, Battle of Kiev (1941) is a German victory despite Battle of Kiev (1943) and so on). One could, indeed, point that "Russia won Crimea but lost Ukraine" or something along similar lines, but that's not a problem too, as long as victory is qualified ("Russian victory in Crimea", not absolute/unqualified "Russian victory" as stated in aforementioned reverted edit). I suggest writing the result as "Russian victory in Crimea, coupled with weakening of Russian positions internationally (including introduction of sanctions on Russia and its suspension from G8). and in non-annexed parts of Ukraine" and, probably, add the "Territorial changes" field with "unrecognised establishment of Russian federal subjects in Crimea". So, we get rid of that "treaties of accession", referendums, "one-day independencies" from the box. and write the result as a result, not "stages as a result". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, given the fact that the article is called "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation", I think it makes sense and would be more precise to write "Russia annexed Crimea" instead of "Russian victory". At the same time, we will face the problems of dealing with the consequences of oversimplification. Maybe we should write "Russia illegally annexed Crimea" instead of "Russia annexed Crimea"? Or "Russia de facto annexed Crimea"? Etc.
  "X victory" can be applied to the "Russo-Ukrainian War" (now it cannot, but potentially) or any other war/battle article. But in this case the annexation is a part/stage of the war. Anyway, such a large section trim would require a detailed revision of the Aftermath section so no information is lost.--Renat 18:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2021

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Renat 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → 2014 annexation of Crimea – Simpler. -- Maudslay II (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to 2014 annexation of Crimea. Not a proper noun. O.N.R. ^(talk) 16:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Less informative and recognizable, but at the same time overly specific. The current useful and suitably simple title says exactly what the subject is; it is unhelpful to replace that with the year, day of the week, or time of day it was committed. —Michael Z. 18:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Also maintains wp:CONSISTENT pattern of titles in Annexation of Crimea. —Michael Z. 15:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Michael Z. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons listed as Michael Z. Unless the peninsula is annexed again (And making distinctive years necessary to denote when the annexation was), there is no reason to move the title. Larcondos (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – The proposed title is less clear (as it excludes the actor that initated the annexation, which is the essential point), and inconsistent with Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  RGloucester, sometimes that actor is indeed excluded from the article title (annexation of Goa by India, for example), but given that our particular event is commonly (in RS) called with actor explicitly named (be it "Russian annexation", "annexation by Russia", or other similar variants) I oppose renaming too. Seryo93 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2021 (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.

Defectors

The article includes “Ukrainian Armed Forces defectors: 15,000” in the list of forces, giving the citation “Ukraine troops leave Crimea by busload; defense minister resigns after Russia seizes peninsula,” CBS. The cited article doesn’t mention defectors at all, only quotes the Ukrainian defence minister, the day before the end of the invasion operation, saying

Before resigning, Tenyukh said he had received requests to leave Crimea from about 6,500 soldiers and family members- meaning about two-thirds of the 18,800 military personnel and relatives stationed there were so far taking their chances in the peninsula newly absorbed by Russia.

So about 12,300 soldiers and family members decided to stay in their homes. As far as I know, Ukrainian forces remained blockaded in their bases throughout the initial military operation starting in late February until after the annexation was officially proclaimed by the Kremlin near the end of March, were disarmed, and were only inducted into the Russian military afterwards. Apart from a few infamous officers who turned coat, there were no Ukrainian armed forces and “defectors” actively taking part in the invasion force, certainly not fifteen thousand.

As I write this, I realize it’s not even worth discussing. I’ll remove the statement immediately. If any relevant info comes up, please post here or edit the article. —Michael Z. 2020-04-06 16:35 z

Here are my relevant edits. —Michael Z. 2020-04-06 17:02 z

A couple of days ago I read in this article that 6,000 of 20,300 returned to Ukraine, or 30%. In the German language article it says 2,000 of 18,000 returned. It would seem that those who went to the Ukrainian mainland were not from Crimea originally, but the majority was. They did not need to return because they were already home - so it seems. If there were defectors, Ukraine would have certainly taken them to court in absentia. Maybe I ask one of the Russians I know who are from there and have relatives in Sevastopol. The difference in numbers could be from counting Medicos and civilian support staff - or not. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:5C4A:805D:5A5C:2FFA (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Section?

What is a "section begin=HumanRights" tag that is used in the article? --Jakey222 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It is an HTML element used for generic sections of a document. It was added here - diff. Renat 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it still relevant in 2021? Can it be removed or at least expanded to include the whole article section? --Jakey222 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

“Bloodless”

Hi, user:Weaveravel. You seem intent on labelling the annexation “bloodless” in the lead [5][6] I object. This broad characterization does not reflect a WP:NPOV on the subject, and its basis is not factually correct or complete. If you want to describe the level of bloodiness, please review all of the people killed, shot, murdered, disappeared, tortured, and otherwise subjected to violence during the course of the Russian occupation preceding and related to the annexation, and then summarize that. Here’s a start:

• Reşat Amet was kidnapped by Russian forces, tortured and murdered around March 15, 2014.
• In the 2014 Simferopol incident, two were killed by gunfire, two wounded, and one beaten with iron bars on March 18.
• Stanislav Karachevsky was murdered and another soldier beaten at Novofedorivka on April 6.
• The UN human-rights agency reports[7] four killed and two died during related incidents, “Multiple and grave violations of the right to physical and mental integrity” including torture, and ten cases of enforced disappearances, as of 2017.

I object to the whitewashing statement based on a single, incomplete, and dated item of news, analysis, or editorial. —Michael Z. 17:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

BBC seems to characterize the invasion as "a remarkable, quick and mostly bloodless coup d'etat". I don't think this is necessarily a pro-Russia viewpoint. The BBC piece appears to be highlighting the neatness (so to speak) with which power was projected and with which the territory was brought under Russian control, contrasting it with the brutality of prior Russian invasions. I think there is room for this viewpoint in the article, but it should obviously not be shoehorned into the lead. It is undue and does not conform to the requirements in MOS:LEAD. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the lead could sum up some evaluations of the invasion and subsequent occupation. It was certainly a successful surprise attack and occupation with virtually no combat. But then it ought balance this by mentioning the régime of human-rights abuses that was imposed. —Michael Z. 04:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. I would support something to that effect in the lead if you'd like to formulate the prose yourself. It's not strictly necessary to add either of these, though, so I won't change it myself. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Only one month??

This doesn't make sense. Russia is still in Ukraine. Why does the article state that the annexation was for one month and six days.123.103.210.114 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Presumably, the article is talking about the length of time between the beginning of conflict and the Russian Federation establishing control over Crimea, not the stuff after. 165.161.20.216 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Obviously the official annexation (recognized internationally as “attempted annexation” and “temporary occupation”) started March 18, 2014, and continues to this day. This appears to be the dates of the active military operation, from the official date inscribed on the Russian military medal which was adopted by Ukraine as well, to the statement by one source that that on March 26 “the annexation was essentially complete, and Russia began returning seized military hardware to Ukraine.”

I have clarified. —Michael Z. 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → Annexation of Crimea by Russia – I think it would be little too long to use a country's official name. I strongly agree for the renaming. Utkarsh555 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose since the name is to differentiate it from Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. Without it, it's much too ambiguous. The "Russian" annexation of Ukraine is not a unique occurrence, unfortunately. WP:PRECISION should be referenced. Cartographile (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

While it is not impossible, that shortnaming might come to be a commonname for modern occurence rather than Imperial one (such as how Russia is used for a modern country, despite the fact that the Russian Empire's short name was also Russia), one must present evidence, that when searching Russian annexation of Crimea/annexation of Crimea by Russia/etc. one looks foremost for 2014 event rather than 1783. Absent that, the title must be retained (albeit another option to "disambiguate with a short title" would be to use year, then it would become 1783 annexation of Crimea by Russia/2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia pair). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose use of an ambiguous descriptive title. Srnec (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reason Cartographile explained. Also, renaming the articles for their years wouldn't make sense because while Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is actually primarily concerning February and March 2014, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire is largely describing the several long struggle in Crimea and not just 1783. Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cartographile - the proposed new name is ambiguous and year-based disambiguation is unnecessary. For the record, if you ask the Russians, they would say that Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation is the correct name, but the Russians don't get to pick the article title here -- and English language sources prefer "annexation". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  There’s no reason both disambiguated article titles can’t have fully unambiguous precision, to satisfy WP:criteria. —Michael Z. 18:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cartographile. It's a descriptive name and as such needs to be unambiguous. tw^sabin 17:00, 29 January 2022 (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.

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation

Why the name of this article starts with "Annexation of ..." but for the Baltic states the name of the article is "Occupation of the Baltic states"? In both cases there were occupation and annexation and in both cases it is internationally not recognized. In both cases many countries condemned the occupation and the annexation and consider them to be a violation of international law. We should develop single approach either "Annexation of ..." either "Occupation of ..." and then rename one of this articles. I open the same discussion on another talk page too: Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states#Occupation and annexation. --Somerby (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF says pretty much about that type of arguments. Basically, no new arguments since Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_9#Requested_move_27_June_2020 means that no move would happen here. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Seryo93, even if you are sure that no move of this page would happen, how can you deduce from this that no move of another page would happen too? I opened two topics on both talkpages as you can see. Somerby (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I see, but that particular page topic is not limited to an annexation = not much appropriate renaming. More appropriate candidate for renaming would be Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940), but one needs to present strong evidence that Soviet annexation is WP:COMMONNAME for 1940 event, otherwise page title will stay. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

COMMONNAME implies that each can named independently. (The WP:CRITERIA also place value on consistency, but that’s more about written form than the kind of logic about the definition that’s proposed above.) In any case, this discussion is kind of moot until someone does a reasonable survey of current usage in WP:RS. If you want to go deep, then there certainly are good arguments to rename it. —Michael Z. 03:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, Crimeans voted to become part of Russia. It was not an annexation. Neither did Russia attack or invade Ukraine. The resistance in the Donbass was made by the citizens of Donetsk and Lugansk. There were undoubtedly Russian (and other) volunteers fighting alongside them but no official Russian military. If accuracy is our aim, rather than politics, the Wiki title and article will be altered to reflect this. I doubt that it will. psic88 17:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psic88 (talk • contribs)

Crimea did not vote to become part of Russia in any meaningful sense. The rest of your post could also be lifted from Kremlin propaganda. And please don't accuse others of politics over accuracy when you're doing precisely that. StrongWindsBlowMyWay (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ya U right, title it Glorious reunification of Crimea with its primeval homeland, because accuracy and Donbasss. —Michael Z. 03:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure why this article isn't entitled "Seizure of Crimea by the Russian Federation." Bog4rt — Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

we was not annexed we had a referendum 84.92.127.128 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No, Crimea was, and is annexed It isn't just a referendum Crimea is sole Russian territory IcerPad the BFDI fan (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn This was technical request that has been withdrawn at the proposer's request (Onetwothreeip) per their post below. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea – A more standard and concise title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not objecting, but this has been moved before back in 2015, so possibly should have a full RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not supporting it either - am currently neutral. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  What is the evidence that this is more standard? I see that the other annexation of Crimea article was moved without discussion today. The inclusion of the year improves the WP:CRITERION of precision, but the use of “Russian” to represent both the Russian empire and the Russian Federation conflates two different states, reducing precision. So it’s kind of a wash. Would be good to discuss the two moves in a coordinated manner. —Michael Z. 16:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the other article back to its stable title Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire, as its move would also require discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Some history to look over:

March 2014 RM, no consensus to move from Accession of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation

April 2014 RM, consensus to move to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

More discussion, May 2014

More discussion, December 2014

July 2015 RM, not moved to Crimean Crisis

June 2020 RM, withdrawn requested move to Occupation of Crimea

April 2021 RM, not moved to 2014 annexation of Crimea

January 2022 RM, not moved to Annexation of Crimea by Russia

162 etc. (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: My username was used to start this move request without my permission, seemingly by GeoffreyT2000. The supposed reasoning given was actually a note I made on a technical request, which is obviously insufficient for a talk page discussion. @Mzajac and 162 etc.: Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, if a technical request is disputed, an RM discussion is opened as a matter of process. I have understood your post above to be a withdrawal of the proposal. The same thing has occurred at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Requested move 18 June 2022, which I have also closed with your thanks. If you make requests in future, you should be aware of the process. You can also withdraw an RM yourself. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2022 (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.

I have no problem with someone opening a move request for a disputed technical request, but this has to be done in the editor's own name and cannot be done by impersonating me, unless with my permission. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, your technical request became a move request once it was contested. The initial request and any comments that contested it were moved here as a matter of procedure. This was noted by GeoffreyT2000 in the small text immediately below the text of your proposed technical move. I understand your concerns. It did take me a bit to work out exactly what had happened but there was nothing inherently improper in what GeoffreyT2000 did. It does, however, make me think that there is a better way to do things. You are indicating that comments made in response to your request for a technical move were sufficient for you to withdraw your request or modify it. It would have saved a lot of time and angst if you had been asked rather than opening the RM discussion as a matter of process. I can also see that where the moving notice was placed didn't make what had happened as clear as it might have. I can see a couple of potential improvements involving template messages and the bot that already manages the process.

1. Once a move is clearly contested, editors managing the move page would place a template that it is contested.
2. The template would cause the bot to place a notice on the proposer's user page giving them the option to withdraw or proceed with an RM (and to do so within a prescribed time). The proposer would respond by changing a template parameter.
3. No response would result in withdrawal and the requirement for an RM should the proposer wish to proceed but had not responded in time.
4. Withdrawal would close the original request with no action.
5. Proceeding would result in the bot opening an RM at the subject page (or the target page of a redirect).
6. The bot would copy the originating request and any comments already made. The bot would make a clear statement of the process below the copied text (perhaps in a banner or other denoting symbol) making the provenance of the resulting RM very plain to see and without ambiguity or confusion.

I realise that this is not the place to make such a proposal but would request some initial comments from those involved before taking this further. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, Wikipedia talk:Requested moves would probably be a more proper place to discuss this, as this feels like hijacking Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, but GeoffreyT2000 did follow the current process (the "discuss" button at WP:RMTR already does some of the work), which has rarely been an issue previously in my experience. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, my post was offered as both an explanation to Onetwothreeip and an initial suggestion which I have fully acknowledge should be taken elsewhere (to the RM talk page). However, I am seeking some initial feedback. Doing so here has the advantages of directly evidencing the issue and is most likely to directly engaging those involve such as yourself. I don't know exactly how much work is done by the discuss button in respect to the above, but it could be a good place to start. Perhaps you could explain. Also, I think I have been very clear that GeoffreyT2000 did follow process and have tried to explain this to Onetwothreeip. It doesn't mean that there isn't scope for improvement in the process. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't mean to be controntational, and had meant to reinforce what you said about GeoffreyT2000, but this isn't the place to even get initial feedback on the overall process, as this talk page is only for issues regarding this specific article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this should be discussed elsewhere, but I will leave this here. [...] but there was nothing inherently improper in what GeoffreyT2000 did. Yes there was, that it was done using my username and without my permission. I expect to be asked for my permission next time. The procedure at WP:RM/TR clearly states If your technical request is contested, [...], create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. (Emphasis mine.) The technical request was not GeoffreyT2000's, it was mine. If they or any other editor wishes to request a move on the talk page, they can do so either with their own username or asking for my permission to use my username. Using my username was a clear violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments. I believe this was not done in bad faith so I have no desire to pursue this further and I bear no animosity to anyone. cc: @Cinderella157, GeoffreyT2000, and Kj cheetham: Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is my last comment on this here, but the "discuss" button is what puts the requestors name and original request on the article talk page, along with the note about it being a contested request and the permalink. It is clear the technical request was yours, and your comments were not edited. That text you quoted does not prevent someone else doing it, as the convention at WP:RM/TR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My comments were edited by being moved so that the meaning changed. What prevents others doing that is the talk page guidelines. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t this pushing a one-sided propaganda

This seems to be the western view of what happened. Should we not have a more balanced view? 71.172.113.129 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. RGloucester — ☎ 14:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't expect balanced view from wikipedia. It's never a place for balanced view. Only a place opened for debate such as a court can give you the truth. Puetsua (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked, legal courts only serve the side with the most expensive lawyers. Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't sound that biased to me Greek Architect (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking the Russian Federation military were already legally occupying Crimea via Sevastopol since forming from out of the USSR military in c. 1992 courtesy of a military lease with the newly formed nation of Ukraine. In that sense there was no 'invasion' at least according to the UN Charter, and so the opening sentence "In February and March 2014, Russia invaded..." is strictly incorrect and probably politically motivated.

Previous to 1992, the Soviet/Russian military had occupied Sevastopol since taking it back off the Nazi Wehrmacht in 1944 after having defended and lost it at the cost of some ~160,000 dead in 1942. Prior to that and into the Tsarist era, the Russian military had occupied Sevastopol since Catherine the Great founded it in c. 1883(?) apart from about 6 months in 1855-56 during the Crimean war when it was occupied by the French and British armies. So technically speaking the Russian military has been occupying Sevastopol for about a quarter of a millennium. Zeug (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Please learn Soviet history. There existed multiethnic Red Army called in the West incorrectly 'Russian'. The second big ethnicity was Ukrainian.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"The majority of the losses, excluding POWs, were ethnic Russians (5,756,000), followed by ethnic Ukrainians (1,377,400)."Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s a lot of nonsense. Please bother reading the article. The Russian Federation leased some base facilities in Ukraine for their navy under conditions of obeying Ukrainian law and crossing the international border through customs. They illegally invaded with over a dozen units of army and airborne forces, and illegally overthrew the constitutional government in the peninsula using invasion forces and some that were already present.

Anyway, there’s no concrete proposal for improvements to the article here. This is WP:CHAT and should be closed. —Michael Z. 17:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Attack on train

The film "Crimea. The Way Home" mentions an attack on by pro-Maidan militias on a train with returning Crimean anti-Maidan protesters. It should be mentioned as one of the event that shaped public opinion in favor of joining Russia. Musicmouse (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This so-called “Korsun massacre” was some incident exaggerated, or more likely wholly fabricated by Russian propaganda to enrage the Russian public. It supposedly happened in Korsun-Shevchenkivskyi, south of Kyiv, perhaps chosen because it shares the name of Chersonesus in Crimea. Russian media even made a fake documentary with eyewitnesses. Since it was completely without evidence or victims, it later completely disappeared from the all the Russian news sites. —Michael Z. 17:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Invasion and occupation

Shouldn't this article be named the "Invasion and occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" ? The UN does not recognise the annexation and refers to it as an attempted annexation and illegal occupation. Marlarkey (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable proposition. The United Nations refers to it as a “temporary occupation” and “attempted annexation.” The unfortunate current title looks to me like a false balance between the actual legal and widely recognized situation and the claims of Russian propaganda (halfway between the truth and a lie is not the truth), but unfortunately that is the position some of the media has taken. It might be difficult to challenge it based on WP:COMMONNAME, but on the other hand, sometimes a survey of how recent reliable sources refer to something can surprise us. —Michael Z. 17:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Percentage of people that indicated Russian as their native language in the 2001 Ukraine census.

The picture should be removed from the article. It rationalizises Russian criminal actions:

1. 2001 was 21 years ago
2. many Russian speaking Ukrainians are victims of Russian terror or are terrorized to join pro-Russian troops
3. many Russian speaking Ukrainians learn Ukrainian, the best know of them is the President Zelenskyy.

Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The language map is not referred to in the text, and it’s caption makes no connection to the subject of the article. It only potentially leads the reader to make some unfounded connection, like “Russian-speakers are separatists,” when in fact there was little or no separatism in Crimea before the Russian invasion. —Michael Z. 14:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

One could just as easily post a map of Crimean Tatar population, which would look similar, and potentially lead to some opposite conclusion. —Michael Z. 14:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Putin defending the referendum as complying with the principle of the self-determination of peoples.[56][57]

Russia has not accepted self-determination of Chechnia. This is Russian propaganda, should be removed from the lead. Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s also non-NPOV because it doesn’t explain what nonsense Putin’s assertion and logic are. 1) Self-determination is a collective right of peoples and nations, and no one is claiming that “Crimeans,” “Donetsk People’s Republicans,” or “Luhansk People’s Republicans” are a people. 2) Self-determination is not a right to separatism or violation of national sovereignty. And obviously, an invasion, war of aggression, fake referendums, forcible deportation, torture and rape, and everything else used to accomplish Putin’s goals are human-rights violations, not protection. —Michael Z. 00:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the page. There is no similar information in the text.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Self-determination does not inform about Crimea. It describes the Chechnia self-determination.Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

POV wording

The phrasing "annexed Crimea" is problematic and POV as it presents the occurrence as final and undisputable. Past tense, fait accompli, nothing to be done about it, it's done. But of course nobody outside of a few Russian client states recognized the annexation as legitimate, and oh, there's a little war about it now. The proper wording, the accurate wording, should be "claimed to have annexed Crimea". Volunteer Marek 01:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The United Nations considers it a “temporary occupation” and “attempted annexation.” Russian propaganda has objected to the term annexation at all because its puppet government was declared “independent” for a day, but now there is open war in progress and Russia considers four partially occupied oblasts and Crimea in Ukraine to all have the same status as Russian subjects.

The phrasing “occupied Crimea” might be more neutral.  —Michael Z. 02:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Annexed is fine and doesn't imply anything other than it was integrated into the civilian government and was not a military occupation. Alsace-Lorraine was Annexed by germany but then was returned to france after WW1. Just because something is "annexed" doesnt mean its "annexed" foreverGranarkadis (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It was a military occupation in February 2014 and continues to be one today.  —Michael Z. 18:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)