Talk:Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
(No difference)

Revision as of 00:00, 28 April 2024

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

MOS:SCAREQUOTES misuse

So I checked MOS:SCAREQUOTES and 1. it does not forbids usage of quotes 2. It only says Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully. Which is actually our case - sources do make a difference between <referendum> and <"referendum"> used in quotes, and sources intentionally use quotes to load the expression to point out it was not a <referendum>. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Many sources use the quotations and explicitly state that the “‘referendum’” was a “sham,” “fake,” “media exercise,” etcetera. We follow the sources in expressing the fact that it was not really a referendum. —Michael Z. 15:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Text of the treaty

Can anyone find the actual text of the treaty itself? Volunteer Marek 12:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Think there are 4, suppose they are pretty similar. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Apparently they are included in the Russian constitutional court’s approval that is posted online, if anyone is able to hunt that down. Sorry, I don’t have a link. —Michael Z. 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Is it these dated 5th? they lead to lengthy pdf files. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Annexed" four oblasts?

It says in the lead that Russia "annexed" four Ukrainian oblasts, which is misleading, since the annexation usually means that the annexing party at least effectively controls the territory being annexed. However, neither of the oblasts have been fully controlled by Russia at the moment of "annexation". Moreover, most of Zaporizhzhia oblast (if counted by population) have never been occupied by Russia during the conflict, including its capital and the biggest city Zaporizhzhia itself. It might be better to say that Russia merely "declared an accession of the four oblasts" and that the act is nevertheless considered by most as an act of annexation of Ukrainian territory which is illegal under international law. Kammerer55 (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Annexation is strictly speaking a legal matter. In other words, it happens de jure, but not necessarily de facto. As the article annexation points out, it is "usually following military occupation of the territory." In this case, the territories in question have not been fully occupied (yet), and appear to be in the process of de-occupation (as the Ukrainian counter-offensives are moving forward), so this is an exception to the rule (as many media and experts have noted), but that doesn't mean it's suddenly not an annexation anymore in the de jure sense. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you threatens Ukraine with your yet?Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Here we go again with the completely unsourced “de jure” and “de facto” nonsense. Sources don’t use these terms. So why do so many accounts which are edit warring over these issues? And no “annexation” is not “strictly speaking a legal matter”. That’s also original research. Volunteer Marek 19:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, the annexation is not necessarily illegal since Russia held a vote on it with the people living there. Whether the vote is valid is a different matter, but the UN charter does allow regions to secede from one country and join another. 152.130.15.5 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
A 'vote'. Please be serious. Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
As the article points out, and the overwhelming-massive-supermajority of world opinion/scholarly sources has pointed out, those elections were a total sham. 50.111.15.31 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It's fine to say that in the article, but it can't be in "Wikipedia's voice" because there are notable contrary opinions, such as by Russia and its allies. I think you'll be surprised in the immediate future how many nations recognize the annexation once it becomes clear that Russia is winning the conflict. 152.130.15.5 (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you’ll be surprised. —Michael Z. 15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
How is it possible that Department of Veterans Affairs represents genocidal Russian government? Is there some illegal link to Russian Embassy?Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
We not only can but have to say these were sham elections in Wikipedia voice since that is what reliable sources say. There are people who think the earth is flat but that doesn’t make it a “notable contrary opinion”. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No, the fake annexation is necessarily illegal. Russia can’t legally hold votes in Ukraine, it can’t legally threaten people in Ukraine with harm, it can’t legally invade Ukraine. It is not just a fake annexation because the process and results are empirically fake, but because it is “de jure” not de jure. It is absolutely illegal, a crime against Ukrainian law, a war crime against the Geneva Conventions, an international crime against the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, and an atrocity crime. —Michael Z. 15:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I think this is taken care of by saying Russia "declared annexation", as I edited very recently, which leaves open the question of whether it is an actual annexation either legally or on the ground. See #"Illegally annexed"?. Zaslav (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I’m not against using that wording, but those questions are not open. It is neither. It is not legal, and not successfully imposed on the ground (not an annexation de jure nor de facto, for those who insist), and we can state that in wiki voice because reliable sources support it. —Michael Z. 15:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2022 (2)

The lead now says that "the four annexed regions make up 15% (108,842 sq km) of Ukraine's territory and 23% of population (9.5 million)". However, it is not clear how the population number was obtained, as many people have left the occupied areas. Kammerer55 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Adjusted to match cite in article body, removed pop figure not cited in article body. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Tone seems too pro-Russian

The article reads as if it's trying to be so neutral, that it sounds more pro-Russian than reflecting the actual situation.

For example no mention that in some areas, the voting was done by having an election official accompanied by armed police going door to door and verbally giving the vote.

I'm yet to see a media source report on this without also reporting about the referendum being legal or valid. Nfitz (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source on that? I've heard rumors that that may have happened, but no Western investigative journalist that I know of has confirmed that that is what happened. If there is a source, just put it in the article as, "so-and-so journalist for the BBC (or whoever) reported that armed police were forcing inhabitants to vote for Russia." 152.130.15.5 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There’s dozens of videos of this happening all over the internet. Nifitz is 100% right. Some editors try to take advantage and WP:GAME our policies by pretending that “neutral” means “both sides have legitimate arguments” when that isn’t true at all. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Any wrongdoing that occurred during the referendums belongs into 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, not in here. And if you take a look at that article, you'll find the armed coercion mentioned quite prominently. This article here is not about the referendums. It's about the formal annexations. And there isn't really that much more to say about them other than "Russia did this" and "a truckload of other nations said 'that's illegal!'" Herr Hartmann (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The title says completely something different."Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine".Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
That, that detail is primarily discussed in another article doesn't make the fake annexation real and pro-Russian tone of this article acceptable. Also there's a lot of text here referring to the referendums, which is far to pro-Russian biased, as surely any reference to such "referendums" should say something like "illegal referendums", otherwise it's giving the false impression. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


  • Russia says it annexes. I may say I am King of Wikipedia.
  • Russia controls parts of the four regions and is loosing some parts.
  • Any annexation is illegal.

Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction in infobox

De jure annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts by the Russian Federation, illegal under international law

So is it de jure or illegal? Was this meant to be de facto instead? Betseg (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that such details are best left to the article body where the legal status can be properly explained so I removed it. Selfstudier (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Event infobox

The event infobox at the top of the article needs to be updated: the color scheme of the map has changed again. --Nachtbold (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

In the image used in the infobox, the colors of the annexed areas have been changed from shades of orange to blue and purple. Please change the caption of the image to reflect this. 221.148.188.81 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done by Triggerhippie4 —Danre98(talk^contribs) 20:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The annexed areas are yellow now. 219.255.220.75 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Map

If you want a map in this article get/make one that doesn’t label “Ukraine” as the area that Russia is trying to partition. That’s explicitly POV (and unsourced since no legitimate source would have Ukraine within those fake borders). You can have a map which shows the relevant information without the mislabeling, whether that mislabeling is done for POV reasons or out of ignorance. Volunteer Marek 16:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It is also wrong because it doesnt show areas recaptured by Ukraine. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you’d address these things on the discussion page of that file. --Nachtbold (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Kaliningrad is Královec is in Czech Republic

Can we add this mocking reaction to the article? It seems to have quite an echo. [1] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

A whole article on it should be made. I've seen weather reports in Czechia by its top TV channels including Královec. Super Ψ Dro 07:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Typo on plants

In the following sentence, there is a a misplaced word:

On September 29, Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to Zelenskyy, said that the Russian plants to annex parts of Ukraine "do not make legal sense"

It appears it should be plans not plants. 97.124.39.222 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Countries that recognize the annexation

There should be a list of countries that have officially "recognized" the annexation, if any. All we know from reading this article is that Brazil, China, Gabon, and India did not condemn it. And possibly add a list of countries that have declared it illegal. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

I would like to request that in the "Reactions" section the following be changed: "On 12 October 2022, the UN General Assembly passed resolution A/ES-11/L.5, " Territorial integrity of Ukraine: defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations", by 143 to 5, with 35 abstaining." to "On 12 October 2022, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution ES-11/4, titled " Territorial integrity of Ukraine: defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations", with 143 nations voting in favor, 5 against and 35 abstaining."

The reason being that A/ES-11/L.5 is the name of the draft resolution and we now have the final resolution name as well as a wiki article on it. Rest of the changes are minor editing improvements. CrazyPredictor (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

In the Ukrainian reaction section, it can be added that Zelensky signed official decrees of his own on October 4 declaring Putin's decrees as "null and void". This was both noted by Ukrainian [2] and Russian [3] agencies. Kammerer55 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if that is surprising or news, tbh. Did any independent newsorgs pick it up? Selfstudier (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: no consensus that this edit is necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 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: moved. There is a broad consensus that the current title is vague and/or ambiguous. With regards to the new title, there are discussions on what it should be (MOS:SERIAL, inclusion of 'Ukriane' or 'Russian Federation', etc). However, there is a broad support on the proposed title.

Procedural notes: 1. My participation is procedural (in the clarifications on having RM template at the start of the thread). 2. WP:GS/RUSUKR is apparently in effect when this conversation is opened. However, there's no notice placed on the talk page to inform non-extended-confirmed editors about the non-participatory role they have on internal project discussions (including Requested Moves). Neither is this really enforced here throughout the conversation. There are one non-extended-confirmed registered user and a couple of anonymous editors participating. Nonetheless, striking out their votes/comments (or not) does not affect the consensus that has developed. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Annexation of southeastern Ukraine by the Russian Federation → Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts – The first RM has had an outcome I am personally not satisfied with, and I believe many (most) users feel the same. "southeastern Ukraine" is not a defined region, so it is ambiguous. I am also against the use of "by the Russian Federation", I will state why below.

As Criticalus pointed out, consensus seemed to form around two similar proposals, Annexation of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts by the Russian Federation by Nederlandse Leeuw and Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts by me. I believe this is one including the four oblasts is the ideal format the title should have and the one that has gained the most support. We could consider all other proposals similar to these two, but I want to argue why I believe my proposal is the most appropriate.

Second, "by the Russian Federation" has been a common proposal in the former RM in inspiration of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. The only reason why this article uses this wording is because there is another article of a Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. Therefore, it is necessary to specify which Russian state was it. But a Russian state has only annexed Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts once, and therefore, "Russian" or "by Russia" would be enough.
  • Beshogur proposed Russian annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. This and a few others have proposed "Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson" in the title to put Donetsk and Luhansk together as we are used to seeing these two oblasts together. However, this is arbitrary, there's no Wikipedia policy to justify this order, and if the aim was to put these two together, we could also use "Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts", which is also arbitrary. Therefore, I think alphabetical order must be followed. Also, Oxford commas are uncommon in titles, so I think one shouldn't be included here.

I think the other type of proposals did not gain as much support as the ones including the four oblasts in the title so I haven't discussed them here, but editors are welcome to do so below.

With all this being said, I think that either Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts or Annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts by Russia (this one is longer, so I'd prefer the first) are the most ideal ones as they're precise and unambiguous, they clearly state the territory subject of this article, unambiguously refers to the state that annexed it, cannot be confused with other historical eras (such as "annexation of southeastern Ukraine" could) and is not way too long. Super Ψ Dro 07:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus I am removing the RM template as it as first. This is not the right proccess for expressing your dissatisfaction with the close. Have you taken steps to resolve this with the closer? Was there an outcome? If not, carry out the dicussion first. If there's no way to resolve, then WP:Move Review will be the right location for challenging the close. Pinging @Paine Ellsworth as the closer of the recently closed discussion for awareness. – robertsky (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Robertsky, Paine Ellsworth's closing comment includes And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title. Super Ψ Dro 08:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah.. missed that last bit out. apologies. – robertsky (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support This proposal is far superior to all proposals including '2022' (unnecessary), 'Southern', 'Eastern', or 'Southeastern' (way too vague geographically/politically). The title should also include 'Russian' to say who is doing the annexing, and I think Super Dro is correct that 'Federation' (as I suggested) is not a necessary addition to the title in this case, whereas with Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation it is, due to possible confusion with Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. Alphabetical order is the only non-arbitrary order in which to name the oblasts. The issues of the word 'the', the Oxford comma after 'Luhansk', and capitalisation of 'oblast', are of secondary concern, for grammar experts, we can always revisit them later; the important point is that the contents of this proposal are spot-on. We should go for this option. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support your first proposal. Short and clear. Beshogur (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    By the way, opinions on the new shortdesc I added? Beshogur (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I would also clarify that it is an annexation by Russia. And maybe replace oblasts by provinces? The point of short descriptions is to be as simple as possible. Super Ψ Dro 12:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes but the shortdesc says it should be under 40 characters, otherwise it is not short, and has no purpose. Beshogur (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Then it's fine. Super Ψ Dro 14:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: before lending support to this title, I'd like your take on this question: is the use of the word 'Russian' also unnecessary, insofar as no other entity has attempted to annex these four oblasts? Taking the same reasoning you have as to why the Crimea example has to be disambiguated between the Russian empire's annexation circa 1800s and the 2014 annexation by the Russian Federation to its next logical conclusion, should we maybe go for Annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts instead? I see most articles about annexation don't mention the annexing entity in the title, unless there were multiple annexations of the territories in question. Criticalus (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That's an interesting viewpoint I hadn't thought of. I would argue many of the articles in that category are quite ambiguous. For example, Annexation of Western Sahara. The article is about the Moroccan annexation but the title could perfectly work for the Spanish one. Perhaps even for earlier eras, although I don't know much about the history of this region. Annexation of Santo Domingo is definitively ambiguous and its title should be changed, firstly because it didn't even actually happen, it was only a proposal, and second because the article is centered around a failed annexation treaty rather than the proposal itself, and I assume the treaty was not called "Annexation of Santo Domingo". I believe that article should have a RM.
I would argue it is best to include what country made the annexation in this title too. "Annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts" would indeed be unambiguous enough from any other Wikipedia article, but I am imagining what would help a reader the most. Note that there is no reference to Ukraine in my or your proposed title, and also removing Russia would leave the four oblasts as the main hint for readers to find the article they're looking for. And the average person does not really know Ukrainian geography as surprising as it sounds, so this could turn a bit problematic. Only Ukraine war nerds could even write Zaporizhzhia (it took me some time) and I'd expect people to only know Kherson by name. The average person may have heard about Donetsk and Luhansk in the news throughout all these years but I still think it could be a bit difficult finding the article. Adding "Russian" would make it clear that it is a Russian annexation which I think would make the scope of this article much more obvious to anyone who read the title. Specially since "Crimea" would not be included on it.
So while Russian is not 100% necessary, I think it will help the average person know what article is about when reading the title or find it in the first place. Super Ψ Dro 12:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, I appreciate your perspective. One of my concerns about including "Russian..." especially as the lead word in the title, is the possibility that it gives credence or legitimacy or confers connection between Russia and these regions. If the average person is not as familiar with the historical attachment of these territories to Ukraine, but the title prominently ties them to Russia, with no reference to Ukraine, I feel like it gives undue weight to Russia's position and might have issues re: WP:NPOV. Finally, I think most casual people who find the article will find it through links (in-wiki or elsewhere) or search engines, and anyone who Googles "Russian annexation of Ukraine" or the like will be almost certainly redirected to this article regardless of its name. But I'll chew on what you said over the weekend. Criticalus (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
In international law, the word 'annexation' itself is already widely regarded to imply illegality. Mentioning 'Russian' in this title makes it no more a legitimate move on the part of Russia than 'Russian' in '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' does; the word 'invasion' carries a similar level of implied illegality. Please check the consensus on the name of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, or the article annexation if there be any doubt about the implied illegality of the term 'annexation'. Russia itself uses the word 'accession', which implies that the population of the oblasts had the ability to give genuine consent to being incorporated into the Russian Federation, and actually gave it (quod non); 'accession' would be a pro-Russian POV title. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Nederlandse Leeuw here; I would also add that adding a reference to Ukraine to the title could be hard and unnatural, and is probably not possible without a long and grammatically bizarre title. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Have moved into the support column. Criticalus (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"Four Ukraininan regions" lacks specificity (what if Putin annexes another four regions next year?), whereas naming the oblasts provides precision and permanence to the titling. Even if it feels long or clunky, naming the oblasts is better. Criticalus (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That's what most news agencies cover. So wp:commonname in this case. Beshogur (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Criticalus, it is not specific enough (WP:PRECISE). Moreover, 'regions' is way too vague. 'Oblast' is the legal term for this administrative subdivision of Ukraine, we should keep it at that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a descriptive title. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. It's also a recent event, and WP:COMMONNAME tends to have less relevance on these cases. For example, we have no idea on the terminology that academic and scientific articles will use in the future, as less than two weeks have passed. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support first proposal. Current title is vague. --Bedivere (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close An RM was just closed yesterday. Start a move review if you believe the close was improper. See WP:MR. 162 etc. (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title. comment by the closing user. Super Ψ Dro 17:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for being patient, Super Ψ Dro! Editors have made the same mistake in the past, that is to completely ignore or disregard that passage, and to take the RM to MRV. Inevitably and invariably that effort fails and the RM closure is endorsed with lots of time wasted. So thanks again for being patient with editors and for starting a new RM. It is of course okay to disagree with me, as I think disagreement is the basis of almost all great improvement of this encyclopedia. It's how consensus begins to build. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Well in that case, allow me to disagree. Starting an RM immediately after a prior one has closed is completely counterproductive. WP:THREEOUTCOMES specifically advises against it. This fence-straddling proviso is certainly not advisable. 162 etc. (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
And you are, of course, entitled to disagree with the long-term consensus that has resulted in how this unusual type of closure is handled. There may come a day when editors agree to change it, but for now, taking such a closure to MRV has time and again resulted in a waste of editors' time. If the closer's choice is not accepted, then opening a new RM under these circumstances appears to be likely to help editors more quickly zero in on the highest and best title for an article. Hopefully, that's 'nuff said about this tangential subject for now. "Eyes on the prize"! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:IGNOREALLRULES. There's no point in talking about rules just for the sake of it. Multiple users have already participated in this RM, most of them expressing their support and with no opposes (except yours), in under 24 hours since its start. Nobody here wants to waste their time in formalities and bureaucratic processes, and that includes the person that closed the first RM. The first RM was useful for discussion among users to come up with potential titles; this one will now chose a definitive one for the article. Now, if you may be so kind, please elaborate on the reason for your dissatisfaction with the proposed title. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Might I add that I requested the closing of the last RM discussion fully knowing we'd probably be here again immediately (I even mentioned it in the closing request that we'd probably start another one immediately), that previous discussion had become too unwieldy to come to a quick consensus as we have here, with dozens of names presented. Rapidly iterative cooperation has resulted in effective wiki'ing, on a very controversial topic, and without bothering or pinging in uninvolved editors too much. Good job everyone. Criticalus (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: I would support the proposed titles over the current one, but would prefer that "oblast" is translated into a more common word, like region. More importantly for word-choice is including "Federation," which makes clear that the parties are joining together to form a union, something most readers in the US would easily understand, being part of one themselves, compared to annexing oblasts. So, a title like "Accession of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye into the Russian Federation" would convey more of the participation of the smaller parties than one with "Russian annexation," which conveys more of a Pac-Man action. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 05:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding your voice to the conversation! The word "oblast" is the official term used there, widely used, and we should respect that rather than trying to bend it to a word that's more common over here: us Americans often tend to be too America-centric, I think this is a good example of that playing out. Also, 'accession' and 'annexation' have vastly different meanings and connotations, accession's use would be more like: "King Charles acceded to the throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth II" or "Joe Mazzulla acceded to the coaching position after the suspension of Ime Udoka." Criticalus (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the reason we see "accession" used in Russian media is because it sounds more like something that happens willingly, and that also holds true in your examples. I haven't see it used in the same way elsewhere, so it doesn't look like we'll be using it here any time soon. If that changes though, I would support using the word.
It took a little more than just a definition search to understand how the term "oblast" came about, and even then I had to wonder if they became oblasts, or they already were, then their intermediate states before becoming oblasts again. If that's what everyone calls them, that's important, and I can see how it's much better to not translate it, thank you. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 17:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
All of these would be valid concerns had this been a legitimate geopolitical event, but this was decided by sham referendums that firstly made up the opinion and wishes of people living under Russian occupation and secondly had its fake results extrapolated into people who did not even live under Russian occupation and had nothing to do with it. It was an illegitimate act, and we will unconditionally portray it as such. For these purposes, "annexation" is more useful than "accession". There's also no particular reason for using the Russian-derived names for these areas when in English they're most commonly named with the Ukrainian-derived titles. Whether we should call Luhansk "Lugansk" is out of the scope of this article, and should be taken to pages more relevant to the topic such as Luhansk or Luhansk Oblast. As for "oblasts", other articles do not decide to change this word for another, so there's no reason for this one to be the exception. If oblast truly was too obscure of a term, pages like Oblasts of Ukraine would be titled "Provinces of Ukraine" or something similar. And "region" should not be a replacement, as it can also mean geographical areas rather than only administrative units. Super Ψ Dro 07:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn't (intend to or) realize I used the Russian or Ukrainian spellings in my example, please ignore that. The accession point is not important this early on, but I wanted to introduce it in case some people had never considered the referendums could have occurred as the the reporting from the regions claims they did. I don't have a problem with oblasts, and don't mind looking things like that up, but if there might be a useful translation for it here, I hope someone can suggest it. I don't vote against the proposal. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 17:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
In the previous discussion I have given some commentary on the terms 'annexation' versus 'accession'. Louis Waweru is correct that the latter implies that it happened willingly, voluntarily, with the consent of those involved (quod non). To add to that, in this context accession means no. #2: 'the act of joining a treaty by a party that did not take part in its negotiations; see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties#Signature, ratification and accession'. (As the article explains, parties normally write a treaty together, then they sign and ratify it; if some other party wants to join the treaty later, they don't sign and ratify it, but they accede to it). That is to say, the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts did not take part in the 'founding' of the Russian Federation (through the development and adoption of its constitution, the 'treaty' that binds all territories (as 'parties') of the Russian Federation together). Rather, the Russian-appointed governors of the occupied oblasts have signed instruments of accession that entail their accession to the Russian constitution, and thus the Russian Federation, after the constitution was adopted. (For a comparison, see Instrument of Accession in the last period of British India and the Partition.) However, this presumes that the Russian-appointed governors of the occupied oblasts were recognised under international law to have the authority to sign international treaties, but nobody except Russia (who had appointed them in the first place) recognised them as legitimate representatives of the population of the four oblasts. Therefore, these were not 'accessions' under international law, but annexations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, glad to have read the latter. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 01:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Didn't comment on the prior RM. But this is the least happy of the proposals. The word "Ukraine" is nowhere in it, and that is what most general readers will be looking for. This is an article title - it is supposed to be instantly informative, clear, useful and recognizable. The words "Russian", "annexation" and "Ukraine" should be in the title somewhere. The formal particulars can be detailed in the lede. The proposal makes it more awkward and less recognizable. Not helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You are quick to harshly criticize the proposed title yet it fullfills 2/3 of your wishes. You will also need to explain how is the proposed title not instantly informative, clear, useful and recognizable, and specially how it makes it less recognizable when specifically using the names of the four annexed oblasts. If you attempt to add both Russian, Ukrainian and annexation, you get with an unambiguous title. 2022 Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory failed to gain traction on the first RM, and so did 2022 Russian annexation declaration of four oblasts of Ukraine and the proposed merge Annexations of Ukrainian territories by the Russian Federation. Also note that Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation does not include any reference to Ukraine on the title. Most likely a 100% perfect ideal title is not possible, but we can approach it as much as possible. Other editors have noted the proposed title for being precise and clear (contrary to the "Russia-Ukraine-annexation" proposals) and not unnecessarily long. Super Ψ Dro 09:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Super Dro is correct, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation doesn't have 'Ukraine' in the title either, because it's not necessary. Neither does Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts need 'Ukraine' in the title. Two main reasons:
Risk of historical confusion is minimal: There are no, and have never been, oblasts with these names elsewhere in world history other than during the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (during which they were gradually established and named between 1932 and 1958 by USSR authorities rather than 'annexed by Russia') and the current Republic of Ukraine, so this title cannot refer to any other historical event except the one that took place a few days ago.
What people are searching for: People who search for 'Annexation of Ukraine' or something like that will find Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts as the top result in their Wikipedia or external search engine, I am pretty sure of that. The word 'Ukraine' is (or should be) all over the article, and search engines will pick that up regardless of whether it is in the title. We can expect readers to have a bit more curiosity and have the 'courage' to click on a link that doesn't feature 'Ukraine' in the title, but does have lots of boldened 'Ukraine' results in the body of the text that the search engines will show a few of. Inclusion of 'Ukraine' in the title should really not be our guiding principle if it's not necessary to have it there. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the vast majority of readers have no idea of the names of individual oblasts. They will be looking for recent Russian annexations of southeastern Ukraine in 2022. Crimea is sufficiently well-known and repeated everywhere in the general media, but these names aren't. There's nothing in the proposed title that instantly suggests this article is what they're looking for, and no reason to click it. These oblasts could be in the Arctic Circle for all they know, and the annexation done back in 1840. No, people don't click every article and check if the content matches their search. They'll keep looking until they reach an article title that they recognize and best matches what they are looking for. Your argument that it "doesn't need to be in the title" militates against the point of having article titles to begin with. Titles are supposed to be helpful to readers, not unhelpful monuments to precision. That's why we have WP:COMMONNAME as the paramount criteria. Walrasiad (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
First, the names Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia have been mentioned countless times in the media since February, often in headlines. Certainly 'Donetsk and Luhansk' is a pair of names that news consumers have grown accustomed to since 2014 (often used in conjuction with '(the) Donbas'), 'Kherson' is repeatedly mentioned as the first big city to fall to Russian forces and the oblast in the south where Ukraine has been publicly announcing that it is going to mount a counter-offensive since June 2022, and 'Zaporizhzhia' is constantly mentioned in articles about the nuclear power plant crisis. I think you're underestimating our readers. Second, Wikipedia is not in the business of saying what people already know about something (otherwise its existence would be redundant); it seeks to explain what people don't know yet (or to refresh their memory). Neither the presumption of widespread ignorance, nor the assertion that all parts of an article title must be known to the reader, is a good argument against the proposal. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I am one of those ignorant readers. I am not a news junkie, I haven't been paying much attention, and have no idea what oblasts were annexed or what they're called. The name "Crimea" I have long known (term comes up quite often in general history/culture). The others are not familiar. I just know some territories were recently annexed in southeastern Ukraine. These names (unlike Crimea) are typically not mentioned in news headlines pertaining to this event, and are often not even in the text of the news articles themselves. If this article title is unrecognizable to me, I suspect it is also unrecognizable to the vast majority of readers. The job of an article is to educate, yes. But the job of an article title is to point where that education can be obtained. Concealing it under mystifying titles doesn't help this task, but hampers it. Walrasiad (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are just one reader. Your experience is not necessarily representative, but only an anecdote. There may be other readers out there who still don't even know what 'Ukraine' is, and we don't bother to accommodate them by explaining in the title 'Ukraine (a country in Europe)' or something like that. The article Ukraine exists for that, and they can always navigate there if they want to know more. Likewise, there are articles on Donetsk Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Kherson Oblast and Luhansk Oblast. The proposed title is really not setting a high bar for readers. Besides, you are obviously not genuinely ignorant 'what oblasts were annexed or what they're called', because we have been discussing them here everywhere on the talk page that you have been reading (and I just mentioned them again). Feigning ignorance in support of your argument is not very compelling, really. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to compare knowledge of a country's name to knowledge of a subdivision. They are two completely different levels of knowledge. I am pretty certain you (and most everyone else) knows my country's name, but would not recognize the name of a province or region within it.
I've been on this talk page. Until I came to this talk page, and seen this proposal, I wouldn't know. And 99.999% of our readers haven't been on this talk page. If I saw an article with the title you're proposing, I'd have no idea what it was about and probably wouldn't be here. Indeed, I'd reckon most of the people even on this talk page still wouldn't be able to rattle off the names of these oblasts without checking (I still can't).
This page should not be restricted to those who have memorized the names of Ukrainian oblasts, or are sufficient news junkies to recognize them. This is a page about an event, not a test of people's knowledge. It is the event that readers are curious about that is being made obscure by this proposal.
If someone is looking for Donetsk oblast, they'll go to the page on the Donetsk oblast. It's in the title of that page. But if someone is looking for the page on the recent Russian annexation of southeastern Ukraine, they don't know where to go. It is not in the title of the page. Clarity is helpful, testing their news addiction is not. Walrasiad (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I wonder under what circumstances would a reader who has no idea what Donetsk or Luhansk are go and search for this article. They saw a news report on the annexation, but it didn't mention the names of any of the oblasts? Unlikely. They stopped watching the report and jumped onto Wikipedia to go and read about it before the report mentioned the names of the provinces? Not our fault. Maybe someone in a conversation with this reader casually mentioned Russia annexed a part of Ukraine? Out of our control. If the readers have no idea what Donetsk or Luhansk are, I doubt they are going to hear about the annexation in the first place. There is so much we can do. Super Ψ Dro 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a relevant guideline that and example on WP:NCE#Conventions using what is probably an obscure name for English speakers, the Japanese region Tōhoku, where it's even uncommon to talk about the places within the region using the name in the article's title. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 01:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts of Ukraine? That would be even better, yes. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Repeating my !vote in the first RM, pretty sure searchers will find this page at or near the top of search results. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because it’s an improvement, but 1) include serial comma so that it is unambiguously four place names (not including a compound name like “Bosnia and Herzegovina”), and 2) spell out “Russian Federation” so there is no ambiguity with the Russian empire’s colonization of the same territories that are now southeastern Ukraine in the eighteenth century (that is, historical Cossack Zaporizhzhia (region) and the northern Crimean Khanate, collectively renamed “New Russia”). Yes, the four Ukrainian oblasts should be listed in alphabetical order. —Michael Z. 17:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I think it's better than the previous term, but it's rather wordy. However I can't think of a better alternative. Also could we add a Serial comma to the new name? I know it's not necessary, I'm just a staunch supporter of the serial comma. FlalfTalk 17:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    • A glance at MOS:SERIAL guides us: Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent. This article has several instances where the choice can be made, twice in the lead, and the serial comma has been omitted. For consistency the title, if changed as proposed, would follow the precedent set by the article's content and omit the serial comma. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - I generally support this proposal. However, personally, I saw nothing majorly wrong with the previous-previous title of "Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine". I generally agree with Nederlandse Leeuw's statement in that the grammar issues are relatively minor albeit still not final. I agree that alphabetical order is the only correct order of the four oblasts. I don't necessarily agree that "oblasts" should lack capitalisation; personally, I typically capitalise this word specifically when it is used as a proper noun, and I don't capitalise it when it's used as a common noun. E.g. I would tend to say "Luhansk Oblast", or "Kherson and Luhansk Oblasts", but if I had already described Luhansk Oblast earlier, I would say "the oblast is located in eastern Ukraine". | Also, minor detail, but has Russia actually annexed a small part of Mykolaiv Oblast? Because if so, then Russia has technically actually annexed five regions of Ukraine not four. It's just that the fifth region only has a tiny piece that is under Russian occupation, and Russia has apparently streamlined this piece into Kherson Oblast (although I can't confirm this). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    By the way, “annexation in eastern and southern Ukraine” would be accurate and logically lettercased and alphabetized. The attempted annexation doesn’t correspond to all of either eastern Ukraine or southern Ukraine, according to any of the conventional definitions.
    Russia occupies slivers of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts. The Kremlin admitted it hasn’t decided what it has “annexed”: “Russia Admits It Doesn’t Know Where Its Western Border Is After Annexation,” Newsweek.  —Michael Z. 16:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no region called "southeastern Ukraine", and one can not combine one or two oblasts from southern Ukraine and two or three oblasts of eastern Ukraine into this non-existent "southeastern Ukraine". To simply list all four oblasts is much more correct. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment southeastern is an ambiguous word but I am not sure what the title should be. 2603:9000:CA02:CACC:B509:B228:9F35:7826 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose What is wrong with some of the people? Why keep proposing different names for this article? The current title "Annexation of southeastern Ukraine by the Russian Federation" is simple and straightforward. Why proposing some weird lengthy names for the title? Strange people. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    per WP:GS/RUSUKR non ecp editors may not participate in internal project discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    I've restored the substance of the IP comment stricken by Selfstudier, per WP:TALK. This is not an internal project discussion and IPs are entitled to participate in RM discussions. Personal attacks remain stricken per WP:NPA. - Station1 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    And I have struck it again per WP:GS/RUSUKR quote, "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Comments like these are the ones that tend to be ignored in these types of discussions. Clearly many, most in fact, people in this discussion expressed concerns for the current title as it is ambiguous. Next time please save your own and others' time. Immature comments alienating the other side for no reason are not needed and provide 0 value. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support —2601:204:E600:2050:2861:9A9A:CD91:65F8 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 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.

"Illegally annexed"?

Why does the article say "illegally annexed"? The fact is that Russia declared an annexation of territory. It appears to be legal under Russian law. It is illegal under the UN charter. Instead of making this an opinion, the article should say what makes it illegal after stating Russia's action. I want to change this to say something like "Russia declared its annexation of .... This action is illegal under the United Nations charter." but I am unable to edit the relevant text. I think "Russia declared" is more accurate than "Russia annexed" as the latter suggests the annexation really happened, while we know it is partly imaginary. Zaslav (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You really need someone to bother citing some of the ten thousand articles that say it’s illegal? Russian law doesn’t have jurisdiction in Ukraine.
Pretty sure I can find sources saying it’s even against Russian law, and would be impossible if Russian courts weren’t owned by the criminal in the Kremlin (I recall such opinions in 2014). —Michael Z. 02:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Zaslav has a point, though. Even ten thousand citable articles don't absolve us from our own NPOV policy. A more elaborate explanation of the situation may be in order. Herr Hartmann (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Because a sovereign state's annexation of territory from another sovereign state is by definition a matter of international law, it doesn't matter what Russian federal law says about it (or at the very least, that is of secondary interest). Even if it were a bilaterally consented annexation (e.g. the tiny territorial exchanges that happened between the Netherlands and Belgium on 1 January 2018), it would be a matter of international law. As Michael Z. says, Russia has no jurisdiction in Ukraine, so without a formal bilateral agreement with Ukraine, these annexations are illegal under international law (and the UN charter is just one instrument of international law that can be cited to support the fact that they are illegal annexations). Of course we must cite relevant RS, preferable secondary or tertiary sources. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The UN charter also says that people have a right to vote to move their region from one nation to another. Therefore, the annexation of these territories is not necessarily illegal under the UN charter. Therefore, by NPOV rules, WP cannot say, in its voice, that this annexation is illegal. The vote may be fraudulent, but that's arguably a separate issue. 152.130.15.5 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no 'may be' - there are massive supporting data that these elections were a total, complete, Russian-military forced fraud. Wiki does not have to put blinders on to the obvious, anymore than we'd give a Holocaust denier a platform. Your argument is less than useless. 50.111.15.31 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
You're wrong about there being data to back up your claim of the referendum being forced. If it exists, produce it here. The results of the referendum were predictable given the political situation in the donbass. In 2014 both Donetsk and Luhansk voted to break off from Ukraine and have been fighting a war against the government ever since. Most of the donbass is Russian speaking and the people have stated their intention of joining Russia. One voter said "I waited for the referendum and voted Yes. I cannot imagine our future any other way" [8]. Currently the data and testimony we have indicate that the referendum was legal and voluntary so until you prove the opposite the point about the right to self-determination still stands and "illegal" should be removed from the infobox. 2001:1970:564B:4800:0:0:0:40ED (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
"Data and testimony we have" means russian sources? 195.182.9.18 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The UN Charter does not say that. And it didn’t happen. The “annexation,” attempted annexation, is ecessaroly, objectively illegal, under the UN Charter and the law of the land (Ukraine). Aggression is even against the Russian criminal code.
Wikipedia must say so in its voice.  —Michael Z. 01:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Ordinarily we would have a UNSC resolution for the illegality question but with a Russian veto, that's not to be. We do have United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4 ("attempted illegal annexation") so then the question becomes whether or not there is a sufficiency of secondary sourcing confirming it and done. Selfstudier (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, by now, the text has been changed to "de jure annexed". This is probably supposed to indicate that Russia created the (supposedly) legal framework to annex these territories, even though they don't actually control them entirely. I'm still not entirely happy with this version. IMO it fails to point out that the legality of the annexation is non-existent outside Russia. Herr Hartmann (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • One other thing to realize is that the term "illegal" is wrong. The UN has no legal authority over the nations of the world except as much as UN members want to grant to it. The earth does not have a globally centralized government, and the UN is definitely not it. If the article wants to say that the annexation was condemned by the UN, that's fine, but there is no legal binding authority by the UN over any nation. Remember, for example, that the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against China in their dispute over some of the Spratly Islands with the Philippines and China has completely ignored the ruling and the other UN member states, including the US, have done nothing about it. 152.130.15.5 (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    The Soviet Union ratified the charter, in principle that binds Russia (the successor state) to the charter. RS call ignoring it illegal, so that's what the article calls it. 46.97.176.204 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that the annexation be described as declared by Russia, i.e., a statement, rather than "annexed" as if it were a fact either in law or on the ground.

As for "illegally annexed", that should have a reason, and the best reason is the UN charter. It is plainly illegal in international law under the UN charter, which is where I gather the illegality mainly comes from. I do not think this is either OR or POV, except that only a few sources explain the relevance of the UN charter. Zaslav (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Should use land area or similar when talking about "largest" annexations

The Globe and Mail reference states something like it being the "largest annexation in Europe since WWII" without saying anymore than just that. It sounds up to 30,000 sq/mi of territories of Poland once occupied by Nazi Germany were annexed by the Soviet Union into Soviet Ukraine, is this was the article is referring to? Also, the Wikipedia article also says that 15% of Ukraine was effectively annexed.

I think it would be good to make these sizes more precise (like with square miles), or easier to grasp (comparable sizes of well known countries). Talk⁄Louis Waweru 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It is incorrect though. If you look at the numbers. The territory that Russia officially annexed is less than East Germany both in land area and population. The area that it effectively controlled at the time of the annexation (which is even smaller now), is even smaller. I think this claim should be removed from the article altogether. We need to change it into "the largest internationally unrecognised claimed annexation since WWII" in order for it to be factual, and at this point it becomes pointless. --Antondimak (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be too pedantic. Still, I would rather that than to keep an unsupported claim in the page lead. It can be stashed here while editors think about how to include the idea of it still being a great area, while not creating misconceptions in readers' minds. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 04:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It is supported. See the first sentence, above.  —Michael Z. 01:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Neither East nor West Germany was annexed. The two Germanys reunited. —Michael Z. 01:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Then these areas were "reunited" with Russia as well. Viewing one annexation as "good" and the other as "bad" doesn't change anything. In 1990, East Germany was annexed by West Germany, legally. --Antondimak (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, is there any reliable source calling the German reunification an "annexation" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Technically, the reunification was accomplished by the GDR dissolving itself and the FRG annexing its five provinces. Whatever you call it, it is very different from Russia’s “annexation” of lands it is fighting over and has never physically controlled. —Michael Z. 19:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Much as I agree with you on the other points: I never read the word annexation in the context of the German reunification, and neither our article nor the German one (de:Deutsche Wiedervereinigung) use that word. The treaty was signed by the government of the GDR, not by the "provinces". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Unbelievable that I have to point this out: the two Germanys and four former occupying states signed the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, and all agreed on German reunification. For anyone that hasn’t noticed, the Russians illegally invaded Ukraine but never managed to occupy all of the “annexed” territory, but have driven out tens of millions of refugees, levelled a number of cities, deported millions, and killed over a hundred thousand.
They are different. Many reliable sources support the objective facts that the unprovoked Russian invasion is illegal, immoral, evil aggression. —Michael Z. 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point that you want to use the word for one annexation and not the other because you think of it as "bad". Annexation isn't "bad", it's a state incorporating a different territory. It's what happened in Germany and what happened in Ukraine. In fact the word fits Germany better because Russia doesn't even control the territory it claimed to annex. Legally and practically, no new German state was created. West Germany incorporated the area of East Germany. --Antondimak (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The point is that everyone agrees Germany was already Germany. East and West and the occupiers all agreed on the legal, technical annexation of land of he rest of Germany to the biggest part of Germany. Germany reunited itself with the permission of others.
In Ukraine a hostile foreign power uses deception and illegal coercion to try to wrest control of Ukraine from Ukrainians, in a violent eight-year conflict.
It’s not about good or bad. It’s about an aggressive extrnal attack. It’s why international law labels this an “illegal invasion,” “attempted annexation,” and “temporary occupation.” You can’t deny the qualitative, substantial, and significant difference.  —Michael Z. 15:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Antondimak: You still didn't provide a source that calls the German reunification an "annexation". Repeating your point for the umpteenth time is not helpful. As already pointed out by other editors, the claim is referenced. I just added the quote. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter in the end because as I had pointed out elsewhere I think East Germany turned out to be very slightly smaller in land area than the officially annex area of Ukraine, so the claim could still be made if it uses that definition, but I do find a lot of the arguments here baseless and answer out of principle in case they are reused as precedent in a more important discussion.
Firstly, when there is a claim that something is factually wrong, using simple data that is available to everyone, it wouldn't matter if a source that's generally considered reliable made the same mistake, it would still be a mistake. Similarly, there have been countless "reliable" sources since the start of the war calling it the largest war in Europe since WWII, which is false by pretty much any metric, unless maybe you subjectively talk about "impact on the world order".
Secondly, words have meaning. Annexation refers to a state incorporating of lands of a different state. It doesn't matter if it's illegal, it doesn't matter if it's good, it doesn't matter if you consider the two states to be "similar". If for PR reasons people want to use different words symbolically, that doesn't change the facts. People have called the reunification "annexation" in order to make a point about it too being "bad", but that's not the point I'm making, and I'm not proposing to call the reunification that in Wikipedia. Remember also that we're talking about English, a single language. The same things have different name for cultural/propaganda reasons all the time, like for example African leaders' titles which were translated to more "undignified" terms in English. Take the "Golden Stool" of the Ashante monarchs from example. Imagine if it was huge, the largest throne a monarch ever sat on in history. Now imagine the article for second largest one saying in the leed: "This is the largest throne in history", and when someone points out that the Golden Stool was larger, to claim "but this isn't a throne, it's a stool, nobody calls it a throne". It's a stupid example but I think you get what I'm saying. The sentence in this article is generally interpreted to mean "this is the largest official incorporation of a foreign country's territory since WWII", not "this is the largest official incorporation of a foreign country's territory since WWII, with the sociopolitical situation around it in the English-speaking word being such that it is called an 'annexation'". Antondimak (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

"Russian authorities did state that all of the Donetsk region would be treated as part of Russia, and that the portion not under Russian control would be liberated." Maybe it would be better not to write "liberated", or at least state that it is how the propaganda is calling it, rather than just copy the wording? "would be annexed" I suppose reflects what was being said, too. 2003:EB:9F03:D860:D935:72D9:11A1:A6C9 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. This is a quotation from Russian authorities. Although it is propaganda, we need to keep it as origin words. Lemonaka (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
It is not a quotation. Here’s an example of quoting the source, which used scare quotes: “[Peskov] said those would have to be ‘liberated.’” I have added quotation marks to the paraphrase,[9] to better represent the intent of the source.  —Michael Z. 00:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

TLDR: This is a suggestion for an edit. I suggest the word "illegaly" is removed (from the term "illegaly annexed").

Firstly, it is redundant, as annexation by definition is illegal. Secondly, NPOV.

If you disagree, I suggest you have the decency to make a reply (instead of ninjaediting my post away). If you disagree on political terms... go ahead.

My original posts can be read below.

Original post #1

The last sentence under the subtitle "Consequenses" is as follows:

"In December 2022, Vladimir Putin's spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that any peace plans to end the Russo-Ukrainian War can only proceed from Ukraine's recognition of Russia's sovereignty over the regions it illegaly annexed from Ukraine in September 2022."


I'm suggesting the word "illegaly" is removed, making the sentence rather as follows:

"In December 2022, Vladimir Putin's spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that any peace plans to end the Russo-Ukrainian War can only proceed from Ukraine's recognition of Russia's sovereignty over the regions it annexed from Ukraine in September 2022."


Reasoning: I am not questioning the legality of the annexation. Annexation is inherently illegal by international law. An annexation can only be claimed to be legal when this is supported by the international community at large (Tibet, Western New Guinea, North Vietnam, Queen Maud Land and Rocktall), or by treaty between the two parties (Hyderabad, Goa, Daman, Diu and Sikkim).

However, from the preceding text of the WP article, it is evident that this is not the case in this instance. Therefore, the use of the expression "illegal annexation" is both
1) redundant, and
2) breaks with Wikipedia's principle of a neutral point of view.


Side note: I do not support the annexation, nor the invasion, and I'm not Russian. I just want to keep Wikipedia, and its language, unbiased and neutral - unlike the media organisations on both sides.

Peace <3 SkoolWasaB (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Original post #2
I'm sorry. I see now that similar changes has been discussed before, and that my opinion might be fringe.
But I do want to lobby the idea that this kind of language might work against its purpose in two ways.
1. People who have a neutral stance about the issue at hand might be pushed to the opposite side:
If the police in my city suddenly were blowing up a criminal case before its trial, explicitly alleging how the perpetrator "illegaly killed" the victims, I would get the sense that something fishy were going on.
Killing is, as annexation, inherently illegal. It only makes sense to state the legality when it's on of the exceptions (e.g. a "legal murder", if we didn't have a more appropriate term, like "self-defence" for example).
I have seen news articles on the referendums initially explain why the referendums are illegal, but then use the expression "illegal referendum" throughout the article. In every single instance. And when this is the case with every single news article, it's hard to not feel like there's an agenda behind it, although that probably isn't the case.
2. People who are unsure/on the fence about Wikipedia's trustworthiness:
Someome might've broken through The Great Firewall to escape a web of state sponsored media, and explicitly visit WP because it has been blocked in their country and since the information here is crowdsourced. These people might be turned off our site because we use the same loaded language as traditional news media.
---
So to sum up: We should avoid this redundant, loaded and perhaps biased language, unless we use air quotes - just like we did in reference to Russian authorities wanting to "liberate" a portion of Donetsk. If we only do this with one side, we are picking a side. And that's not a neutral encyclopedia in my opinion.

SkoolWasaB (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

SkoolWasaB (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts/Archive_4&oldid=1221116467"