Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions about section title 'Legal obstacles to Crimea annexation'

Extended content
Would it be possible to give the section Legal obstacles to Crimea annexation some more appropriate title, like Political obstacles to Crimea annexation?

Note that in the Wikipedia article Texas annexation, there's no discussion of 'Legal obstacles' although there's plenty of reference to the politics (within states and between national powers) of the era.

For the reference of those editors unfamiliar with American and Mexican history, the Texas annexation was an event in which the majority of the local people were in favor of annexation of a disputed territory by a foreign government, while many outsiders were not. It was somewhat analogous to the current situation with Russia and Ukraine, although of course Russia does not have a slave population as America did at the time Texas was annexed.

It seems like whatever nominal rules the Wikipedia has for section titling should surely apply the same way to the annexation of Crimea the way they do to the annexation of Texas.

Son of eugene (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This argument of it being 'analogous' has been brought up before (see this archived discussion,this archived discussion, plus others). It is not analogous: Crimea was annexed via a military invasion first and foremost. The 'political obstacles' are Minsk II for starters. Being understood to be an illegal military incursion by the majority of the world's sovereign states; economic sanctions being put in place; ongoing condemnation of invading a sovereign state and wresting territory illegally tend to put a damper on comparison of the 'democratic process' variety. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this and clarified one paragraph. This is very different time and different historical context. During annexation of Texas there was nothing like Helsinki Accords, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1994/Budapest Memorandum and other international agreements. My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo set a precedent. SaintAviator lets talk 03:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo did not set a precedent. Whilst the ICJ ruled that declaration of independence does not violates the :general international law", Russia and Ukraine had additional international treaties signed that forbidden any possibility of one sided secessions. Russia had clearly violated those treaties (budapest memorandum and the treaty of friendship).
Also russian military intervention had preceded Crimea's so called "secession", therefor the intervention was illegal, because at that moment it was still a sovereign Ukrainian soil. 37.233.63.200 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Kosovo? Do you mean that Kosovo represents a "Legal obstacle to Crimea annexation" (a subject of this section)? This is nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Ukraine the Crimea is gone, forever. They wont get it back. Kosovo was a legal precedent. SaintAviator lets talk 03:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The West recognized Kosovo’s secession from Serbia as legitimate, arguing that no permission from a country’s central authority for a unilateral declaration of independence is necessary. Same deal Crimea. Its a legal precedent. Whats Ukraine going to do? SaintAviator lets talk 03:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, Kosovo represents a "Legal thumbs up to Crimea annexation". SaintAviator lets talk 03:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think that Kosovo was not legal obstacle, but a legal precedent to Crimea annexation? OK. If you can reliably source this opinion and believe it is "due" to be included (I do not think so), then it should be in another section, entitled "Legality of Crimea annexation" My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what yr trying to remove covers it fine. SaintAviator lets talk 03:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SA, repeating something over and over does not make it true, or verifiable. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL look who turns up. Look you guys, you may be invested in things Ukraine, I dont want to know. But a POV article changes nothing on the ground. Crimeas gone, Russia won, Russia referred to Kosovo. Try to keep this encyclopdia NPOV. The Kosovo issue is important background whether you like it or not. SaintAviator lets talk 05:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"LOL look who turns up. Look you guys, you may be invested in things Ukraine" - you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo was not annexed by any other state, meaning it did not became a part of territory of US or any other country. Crimea was annexed: it became a part of Russia. Therefore, Kosovo is' irrelevant here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a blind spot, look up referendum, thats the precedent. (sighs). The military occupation allowed the people to boot out the fascists by ballot. (that democracy thing) PS stop following my edits on other pages, Wikistalking, is creepy. SaintAviator lets talk 22:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain the point of this discussion to me? Is it just a request to change the word "legal" to the word "political" in a section title? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you make a mass delete without understanding it. Re read it SaintAviator lets talk 23:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read what was removed and it was, indeed, POV pushing. We're talking about a law enacted in the RF in 2001, then reworked in 2014, which has only ever been understood as legal according to the RF's constitution. The United Nations does not recognise it. The majority of the world does not recognise it. A military invasion is not deemed to be a just and independent secession by a territory/region: it is the seizure of territory recognised as being part of another sovereign state by an invading state. Kosovo has been discussed long and hard for years on the principle of self-determination. What has been removed is WP:UNDUE weight being given to the RF's comparison to Kosovo. I've tried looking up this 'Kosovo principle' being bandied about. It carries no weight in reliable sources in any shape or form (i.e., it is considered an ad hoc exercise in manipulation of principle in order to justify an illegal action), therefore it has no chop in this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30 secound search. Kosovo independence precedent. & [1] SaintAviator lets talk 03:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IDontLikeIT. Time and again centering around Ukraine Russian articles there is a reluctance to write NPOV. There is a strong push to write POV pro Ukraine POV anti Russian. Neutrality is thrown aside. It makes no difference to how things are on the ground mind you or that Ukraine is in a hole, but its bad Encyclopedic reading. [2] [3] SaintAviator lets talk 03:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That's an article unto itself which discusses highly complex questions. This article is not about Russia's POV as opposed to the mainstream RS view. As for going on and on about the state of Ukraine, its economy, ad nauseam, this isn't actually the concern of this article, either. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it isnt but bitterness may explain POV. If you cant see why this sort of point needs to be in there somewhere........... well lets see. 'Nonetheless, it’s also true that Kosovo has created something of a precedent for other governments to exploit if they choose. The example set by the Kosovo war and the later recognition of Kosovo’s independence is simply this: a state or group of states can illegally force a weaker one to relinquish control over part of its own territory in response to purely internal affairs, and then separate that territory from the rest of the country against the wishes of its government. Russia is now throwing this in the face of Western governments, just as it did in 2008, partly because it sees an opportunity for belated payback for intervening in Kosovo in the first place, and partly because it finds the opportunity to rail against double standards–while indulging in the same–too tempting to ignore'. [4] SaintAviator lets talk 03:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterness? Erhem, the RF appears to be your 'hero' nation-state because you believe its interests lie in making mockery of the hypocrisy of other nation-states. They're not just in engaging in the same because it's 'too tempting to ignore': they're engaging in flouting their power because, like any superpower or aspiring superpower, they can. You seem to be of the persuasion that the denouncement of corrupt practices makes the denouncer the opposite of the power/system being denounced. It doesn't make the denouncer the 'good guy' by challenging the 'bad guy': it just makes them self-aggrandised, opportunists trying to build their own power base to the same level. If Ukraine falls and gets picked over for the best bits and pieces, them's the breaks. It's happened before, and it's happened to numerous states and ethnic groups all over the world again and again throughout history. If you feel compelled to read 'bitterness' into an article reflecting mainstream analysis of the annexation, I suspect you're reading other editor's understandings based on your own perceptions. Who has expressed any belief that Crimea will be handed back to Ukraine???!!! You're discussing this with editors who would have told you from the word go that it ain't gonna happen. I'm not even going to start addressing how simplistic your linear reading of events is simply because it's the wrong article, plus we don't engage in OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ SaintAviator, if you believe this article is anti Russian you are welcome to bring reliable sources. I could tell you that in my opinion it is not enough anti Russian. And so what? This is not the way WP works. Indeed, what I see going on is an uncontrolled expansion of the article in directions inconsistent with the title of the article itself. The article should merely focus on the annexation of Crimea by the RF and it does not. Logically, what happened after the annexation should even not be here. This is a big concern, because the article replicates facts stated elsewhere. And of course, it replicates the same associated discussions. Not good. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its certainly bloated. IMHO the Kosovo precedent could help focus on the annexation of Crimea by the RF. The uncontrolled expansion of the article in directions inconsistent with the title of the article itself does not. SaintAviator lets talk 00:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing common with Kosovo. Kosovo was not annexed by any country, meaning none of other countries occupied Kosovo and made it a part of its own territory. Little green men did not take over the Parliament of Kosovo to conduct "referendum". And so on. Kosovo should not appear on this page at all. But it does appear in several places simply because Putin used it in irrelevant polemics. So, whatever you argue about was already included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BTW MVBWs Im going to be doing some new edits, you can carry on wiki stalking me at your own risk. Clearly I got under your skin. Im not petty though and wont report you for your 1RR violation at Sohr. I do accept the apology you gave. The Crimean situation is not a Repetition of Kosovo, how could you think that?, but the two events Rhyme, even though you probably dont like it. SaintAviator lets talk 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible we have a bias due to source availability Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Availability_of_sources_may_cause_bias 173.177.183.115 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a matter of source availability. Editors working on this article are multilingual and reliable sources are used to represent mainstream, neutral evaluations of the annexation. Multiple biased sources are rejected (AKA propaganda outlets) are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not an exercise in WP:GEVAL. As it stands, there is a section dedicated to the Russian response, and RF media outlets are used to represent the RF view. What the article covers is the mainstream view. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Schirmer a German scholar of international law rejects the Thesis of an Annexation.--Feminismuskritiker (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argument the claim with sources, for what I can see it is WP:FRINGE. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The West recognized Kosovo’s secession from Serbia as legitimate, arguing that no permission from a country’s central authority for a unilateral declaration of independence is necessary. Same deal Crimea. Its a legal precedent." Hold ur horses body, this is not the words that the international court have used. Serbia have turned to the international court to get a ruling on the declaration of independence of Kosovo and if it violates the international law, and the court have ruled that the international law is about relations between states and not about domestic affairs, and since Kosovo is a domestic affair therefore it is not a violation of international law. The international law cannot rule on what is going on inside Serbia. Crimea on the other hand was invaded and occupied by Russian Federation, so it's a different story.94.139.128.110 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sivio1973, I hope you speak German: Friedens AG: Gregor Schirmer: Nicht legal aber legitim

@94.139.128.110 No Crimea was not invaded and annexated by Russia. Russia supported the Secession of Crimea which was advocated by a Majority of Crimeans. Representative Polls of different Foreign Research Institutes in Crimea showed that the Majority of the Population Majority wanted the Secession and the Association with Russia. The Thesis of an Annexation was disproved.--SBC Guy (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SBC Guy: 1). Wikipedia is not WP:SOAP. 2) Wikipedia represents what the (overwhelming) majority of WP:RS, not WP:FRINGE opinions (regardless of whether they're scholars or not) on the subject. The referendum was neither legal, nor was it legally overseen by other bodies bar some token extremists at the invitation of the RF. WP:POVPUSHing minority opinions is WP:GEVAL, and Wikipedia is not a venue for your WP:ADVOCACY. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a remark

"Whilst the "little green men" were occupying the Crimean parliament building, the parliament held an emergency session.[107][108] It voted to terminate the Crimean government, and replace Prime Minister Anatolii Mohyliov with Sergey Aksyonov." once the russian troops took over the parliament building, i don't think it's correct to keep referring to it as "crimean parlament", or to call any processes that are happening inside as "parliament decisions", or "parliament voting" etc. the moment that russian troops took control over the building, it turned into an occupied object and nothing more. it's the same as to say "whilst armed people were occupying the local american bank building, the branch management held a meeting and decided to open the vault and give away all the money"... it's simply incorrect writing. U just write "armed robbery", or "the bank was robbed under a gunpoint".37.233.63.200 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

remove saintaviator remarks

saintaviator is a troll, also he insulted ukrainians by calling them "fascists". Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of remarks.37.233.63.200 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bother. If he keeps doing so I will ask for a sanction. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biased terminology, Reunification not annexation.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

This statement of the public opinion of Cimmerians may be influenced by the intimidation tactics of Russia and this is not made clear or shared on the page. 67.226.156.206 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Conan is easily intimidated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, it is unclear what the request is.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact section

Has anyone else noticed that the section has become an illiterate piece of WP:OR weirdness which is WP:OFFTOPIC for the section? It's less relevant content than COATRACK pulled from raw data and unreliable sources. I'm seriously tempted to remove it and paste it to the talk page for discussion and development. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that the offending paragraphs have been removed as not being salvageable. Good move: I second it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&oldid=752044762"