Talk:Annexation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International relations / law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Annexation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

List[edit]

Examples from this list have been split into a better formatted List of annexations. This follows the format of List of military occupations.

I have not moved some of the examples, pending further discussion of those names (some - e.g. West Bank - have not been annexed).

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Geohem: good question. The ones I didn't move to the list were ones which are either unusual or need discussion. Having looked into it further, the West Bank, Kuwait and Western Sahara were definitely annexed (Kuwait only 7 days after the occupation), so I will add them to the list.

For discussion:

  • Northern Cyprus (Turkey) - Turkey have not annexed this to Turkey. So I don't think it belongs here or in the list at all

I have now moved the two unusual / unpopulated examples (Rockall, Antarctica) into their own section.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It was a mistake to split out the examples into a list I have put the List up for an AfD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of annexations since World War II. For the moment having the example list here helps people compare and contrast the difference while the AfD takes place. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2017‎ (UTC)
@PBS: I am disappointed with your aggressive and disrespectful behavior, adding back old and outdated material twice. I will not revert you, because I don't want to join your edit war. An experienced editor as you are, you should be ashamed.
This change took place four months ago, with an explicit discussion thread which you did not participate in. Things have moved on since then, and the List of annexations is now a much better list than the unstructured and unclear random set of names you have added back here. So now Wikipedia has two competing lists of similar information, which is confusing for readers and new editors; and all because you don't want to wait for the discussion you have opened to run its course. Discussion is good, but edit warring to support your argument is not.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree edit warring is bad -- WP:BRD -- wait for the outcome of the AfD and let other compare and contrast. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Also your "let others compare" point is absurd. Others can compare by looking at [1]. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: nonsense and a cheap shot. I did the B and the D four months ago. Noone reverted. Now you make a big bold attack, adding back a huge block of outdated and badly structured text, and opening an AFD. I revert you, and then you revert me. After four months it is you who should be respecting WP:BRD and as an experienced editor I suspect you know it as well. You did not need to be antagonistic in your approach; you didn't even bother trying a respectful approach to the matter. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Onceinawhile: you definitely need consensus to make large-scale reorganisations like. Please write a coherent proposal and invite comment from other editors. (I am uninvolved as of now.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I did exactly that four months ago (see above). Onceinawhile (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see a proposal there. What you attempted to do is a WP:Content fork. It should only be done if a particular aspect of the content has grown too large (or has potential to do so), and would give rise to WP:WEIGHT problems. In the present article, there is not much content at all. So the issue of forking does not arise.
Secondly, Wikipedia prefers text over tables. Wikipedia readers are here to read and learn. Tables do not serve that purpose. We use tables only for listing items that are covered in more detail elsewhere. So, the table you have created is not a good substitute for the content that is here. (Tables are also magnets for POV pushers and are hard to maintain. They should have as little 'meat' as possible to avoid that.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines or policies which can verify the points in your post above? I consider myself an experienced editor but I am keen to learn.
To my mind, a List of annexations is valuable for readers. A separate article will encourage growth and improvement.
On a separate note, this is a very poor article at the moment, providing a convoluted and confused introduction to an important subject in international relations and military history. The list of examples as added back by PBS is an example of this. As is the section on 1949 protections, which relate to occupation not annexation.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I have already referred you to WP:Content fork. Have you looked at it? The prose issue is mentioned in the WP:Manual of style. (You will have to search for it.)
You cannot treat Wikipedia as a personal project. Whenever you want to make large-scale changes, you need WP:Consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: WP:content fork includes a section called "2 Acceptable types of forking" with a subsection "2.6 List formats"; it specifically mandates for lists to be forked.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables says "The sortability of tables makes them very useful for "List of..." articles in Wikipedia, which are intended to give an overview of the subject area, and to allow easy comparisons among many similar items. Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries; if appropriate, the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to read a full, detailed article corresponding to a concise table entry."
I would accept your WP:OWN critique if I hadn't opened a talk page discussion here four months ago, and if I didn't accept that consensus can change. I did and I do. I am simply unhappy that PBS rode roughshod over that and refused to wait to build consensus himself. He has refused to respect the fact that four months is a long time. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Onceinawhile, I suggest that instead of arguing this here(in this section) you reserve these arguments for the AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of annexations since World War II); as replicating conversations can be seen as forum shopping. If the consensus is to keep the list then it is a moot point what is discussed in this section. However please leave the examples in this article until the end of the AfD, because it allows other editors to compare and contrast the differences and to make an informed choice as to which they consider the better approach. -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I currently have no intention of contesting the AfD. I am too disheartened about the way in which you have twisted things to ignore the attempt I made to build consensus here four months ago and to force this article back in time in order to maximise your chances of winning the AfD, and your lack of engagement with me here before opening the discussion there with a misleading claim. There are more important points to fix on this article (i.e. in the two sections below) than the binary question of whether the list is kept as a separate article or merged back in here. I hope you will engage on those in good faith. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus[edit]

Neither Republic of Cyprus with the support of the other EU nation, or Turkey, recognise the Cypriot territory under Turkish military control (Northern Cyprus) to have been annexed. This was made clear by Turkey when it raised the possibility of doing so (Turkey says it could annex northern Cyprus March 2012). -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you'll see I made the same point above, and already removed it in List of annexations. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Examples since 1949[edit]

@PBS: perhaps we could move on from the arguments about formatting and splitting, and focus on the actual content. You don't appear to care about treating other editors with respect, so I am not going to waste my time on critiquing your behavior any further.

Perhaps we can work together to fix this article instead. You added (back) in this chunk of text, so there is some form of WP:ONUS on you here.

A few points for discussion:

  • 1949 - why are we only showing examples post 1949? The second paragraph of the lead and the entire "international law after 1949" sections are an extremely poor summary of a topic much better dealt with at Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war, which explains that the distinction between occupation and annexation began in the late 1700s. As a result this article is providing a very poor picture of what annexation is and was. Having all these examples from post-1949 is a WP:WEIGHT problem.
  • Uninhabited vs inhabited - Why are we mixing annexation of uninhabited territories with those of inhabited territories. The international laws such as the Geneva Convention apply to protection of civilians, not to rocks, so annexation is very different when there are no people involved.
  • Consistency - what points are each of these examples supposed to convey? At the moment they read as a bunch of random facts. Much of the text in there is irrelevant to the actual act of annexation. Perhaps it is the debate around the legality of each of these annexations? If so, that is interesting and we should structure it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no onus on me (see Kautilya3 comments above), this is a WP:BRD issue, let the AfD play out.
"sections are an extremely poor summary of a topic much better dealt with at Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war", Thank you. If you had looked through the history of the articles you would see that most of the content of the sections to which you refer were written by me way back (MO diff February 2005 Annexation diff April 2006).
Have a look at the s:1911 Encyclopædia_Britannica/Annexation it helps explain why laws regarding Annexation prior to the post WWII are not much use in understanding what annexation means in the modern world. It is far cleaner for a modern understanding to keep it to the law post world war II and examples of it use since then. Including Kuwait as an example allows people to see how the UN can intervene to stop an annexation, while the annexation of Crimea is an example where it can not, and other methods have to be tried outside the auspices of the UN. -- PBS (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: I am surprised that you point me to EB1911, having dismissed its relevance in your conversations with other editors above. I have read it, and it does not do what you say.
Your position in all the threads so far today suggests that you do not consider a de facto annexation to be an annexation. Nor do you consider a de jure annexation to be an annexation unless the law involved is international and recognized as such
Let's be clear - there are two types on annexation: de facto and de jure. And de jure can be the annexing country's law, or international law. The primary factor that has changed over the years is the legal position regarding what is needed to move between the different types of control including:
  • occupation
  • protectorate (per EB1911, although much less relevant today)
  • de facto annexation
  • de jure annexation (based on the annexing states' laws)
  • de jure annexation (based on international law and recognition)
These are all different types of control. This article should cover the last two.
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Some sources:
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Those sources do not talk about "types of annexation". You are misreading them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: what these sources prove is that annexation does not have to be "legal" (i.e. de jure) in order to be annexation. This appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding by some editors here, and we need to clear this up so we can fix the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Having looked at the edit history here, I see that your edits in 2007 are responsible for the current state of this article. I look forward to working together to fix this. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This kind of discussion is not constructive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes being direct with feedback can encourage improvement. It depends on the personalities of the editors. I figured it was worth a try. Before this argument today, when I tried to improve this article at the beginning of this year, I remember thinking that this is one of the worst and most unclear articles about an important topic that I have seen in recent times. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Revision history of the edits to this article since the start of this month shows that you made two edits to the page:

  • 08:51, 22 March 2017‎ Onceinawhile (27,457 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (moving rockall and antarctica into own section)
  • 19:18, 23 March 2017‎ Onceinawhile(10,968 bytes) (-16,489)‎ . . (→‎Annexations of populated territories since 1950: all of this text (and more) is now at List of Annexations, with the exception of Northern Cyprus (see talk))

This seems more like removing the furniture "when I tried to improve this article at the beginning of this year" -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct. My intention is (was) to focus this article, remove all the chaff, and let it grow into an article which properly explains the concept of annexation. There is no rush. My frustration as to the recent turn of events is that we are wasting time having arguments about an irrelevant question of formatting, instead of what the reader actually cares about which is substance and clarity. I think our objectives are the same, so we could have done much better here if we hadn't got off on the wrong foot. Choose collaboration, not conflict and bullying, and we will make this encyclopedia what it should be. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems with articles like this one, and lists like List of massacres (now renamed List of events named massacres), is that they are often subjects of original research, inexperienced editors frequently find some example of what they think is an annexation or a massacre and add it, often with no sources or non-reliable ones. It is a common mistake that inexperienced editors make. Like calling aircrew terrorist because the are employed in "terror bombing", words like tyrant, annexation, genocide and massacre are often used to describe people and events from a specific POV. The words used often carry emotive overtones, and are often used in sources by people who are making a point. During the troubles in Northern Ireland, US media such as CNN did not label IRA members terrorists nor did much of the US government (while the British--with the exception or Reuters--habitually did). However once the US was under attack by people using similar methods to the IRA, then those people were labelled terrorists by most of the US media and by the US government.

It took a long time to do it, but eventually myself with others succeeded in persuading the editors who frequently edit the Al-Qaeda to remove the use of terrorist from the passive narrative voice of the article and instead explain which authorities call the group terrorists. I think it is a better article for it. However there is no shortage of reliable sources that use terrorist as an adjective when referring to "Al-Qaeda terrorists".

It is for this reason that we have a link from terror bombing to the article and the section Strategic bombing#Enemy morale and terror bombing, before this was done Wikipedia had two article one on Strategic bombing and one on terror bombing that back in 2009 was becoming a list of any air attack that had ever been called terror bombing. Such a list might be useful if one was to turn it on its head and ask in each case why the claimant used the emotive term "terror bombing" instead "bombing", but even so one would probably have to restrict it to informative examples and it would be difficult to find a reliable sources that had done such an analysis so that the article/list was not OR. By its nature a list of "terror bombing" was only ever going to be a subset of all strategic and tactical bombing, although one of the reasons for strategic bombing is to break the morale of the targeted population (in emotive words terrorise them into submission or "shock and awe to use one such euphemism).

As an encyclopaedia, lists of every event that has ever been called "a something"" falls foul of the WP:NOT (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) an example I like to use is a why not create a "list of all the armies that use black boots" (WP:INDISCRIMINATE and OR). One way to help keep rampant OR/POV under control with list is to use a definition. This is why the list of massacres is now called "List of events named massacres", and why it is useful to try to keep lists in articles such as annexation under control by making it a list of examples.

In this case both of the references Onceinawhile has presented are talking about annexation prior to the changes in international law in 1949. This is not much help for someone wishing to understand what annexation means in a the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving from below@PBS: I see from [2] this edit 10 years ago you that you don't think there should be examples here from before 1949. You made a similar comment at the AfD. Other editors in the various threads above argued against you, but you fended them all off single handedly (and apparently against consensus) with indirect arguments. Are there any policies or guidelines you can point to which support your position here? Because, irrespective of your "other stuff exists" refutation, Wikipedia common practice is relevant, and the lists at Outline_of_war#History_of_war suggest your concerns that an open timeframe "will inevitably lead to the list expanding" are not widely considered to be a problem by the community.
I have read and reread your posts above, but nowhere have you explained (a) why 1949 in particular, and not any other milestone date in the history of international law; (b) whether you really think your position achieved consensus on this point from all the discussions you had over the last 10 years on this talk page; (c) what policies and guidelines support your position; and (d) whether you really believe that your position reflects accepted community practice for important lists across the encyclopaedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: You and I share the same views and objectives on this. I have worked on a similar matter at List of pogroms, where a different but related solution was found for the problem you describe above (like List of events named massacres, it was narrowed down only to those commonly named "pogrom", with a similar set of requirements, with footnotes added against those events where the appelation has been disputed in the scholarly community).
As to the read across to this article, as I have said above and below, it appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of the word annexation. Or if not a misunderstanding, you are choosing to use your own definition, whereby an annexation is only an annexation if it is legal in international law and recognized by the international community. In scholarly sources it is not used in just this most narrow of senses.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The list is not separate you created a separate list (as you did here) and the outcome of an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom was to put incorporate it into the article Pogrom! -- PBS (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It is a piped redirect. It is a much better use of everyone's time to focus on the content instead of these split-merge nonsense debates. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, can you please explain what you think readers are looking to understand when coming to this article? Do you think they are not interested in what annexation meant prior to the Geneva Conventions? And then please explain how you consider the prose you have added back under "examples" helps to achieve that goal. We can then remove the chaff in a consensual manner. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
First point to make is that I did not add most of these entries, and I am not necessarily in agreement with all of them being used as an examplex. But the format of text allows for an explanation and the pros and cons of the situation including the who says it was an annexation and how claims otherwise. A table tends to be far more binary in its format. I this case take the first one "A condemnation of the action by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was vetoed by the Soviet Union." this explains why the UN did not take an active role in this particular annexation.
Now for one from the List of annexations since World War II the very title states that what is included is an annexation (that is POV statement). Ogaden which I presume means British Somaliland. Who says it was an annexation and not a cession and amalgamation? -- PBS (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Seeing that you are "not necessarily in agreement with all of them being used as an examples" has rekindled my infuriation at your behaviour. Why on earth did you dig them out of four month old archives and add them all back then?! Even the Cyprus one. Four months is a long time. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Revert of your delete is the first step. I deleted Turkey because over and above the merit of the text, it was obviously a cut an past job just dumped into the examples and so was a copyright violation as no recent edit clear marked it as a copy (see WP:COPYWITHIN). Infact much of the text was copied from the article Northern Cyprus without the attribution (see Revision as of 12:31, 9 February 2017).
I think it would be a mistake to have reverted and simultaneously changed the text, and I do not think that significant changes should be made to the examples until after the AfD is finished (after all the list may be kept). It is you who asked at the start of this section "and focus on the actual content." which is what I am doing, and so please explain why you think "Ogaden" should be included and what are the sources for justifying inclusion. -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, British Somaliland is today known as Somaliland. It has nothing to do with the Ogaden, other than geographical adjacency and the same Ethnic group. Ogaden was annexed to Abyssinia (later Ethiopia) in the late 19th century, under the expansionist Menelik II. It later passed into Italian hands and then British during WWII.
In 1954, the British allowed Ethiopia to "reassume jurisdiction".[3]. I am not aware of any sources referring to the 1954 act as an annexation. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
If you have no reliable secondary sources that state an annexation took place why did you include "In 1954, former British Ogaden (a Somali Region) was annexed by Abyssinia" in the list List of annexations since World War II (Revision as of 23:39, 21 March 2017)? -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Touché.
Having said which, making an oversight is one thing, whereas non-collaboration, ignoring status quo, edit warring in order to manipulate the outcome of a discussion and ignoring numerous challenges (all still unanswered) to huge amounts of text added or deleted, are quite another. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Onceinawhile like the Ogaden entry you added the following Karki, Barxudarlı, Yuxarı Əskipara, Artsvashen all "de facto annexed" to List of annexations since World War II without any inline ciations, what ar the reliable secondary sources that makes this claim for each of these places and is it a commonly held opinion (eg a UN resolution; or for example: an opinion held by a number of academics, or neutral news sources)? -- PBS (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This one I had researched at the time (I think only the Ogaden I overlooked because I mixed up the previous annexations of the same region). However, I will not answer your questions until you start answering mine. One way traffic is not an appropriate way to collaborate. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Shrug! "whereas non-collaboration, ignoring status quo" Please see the comments on this page by user:Kautilya3 and I would remind you that your removal of text has also been reverted by another editor user:Geohem. While you claim 4 months had gone by (and silence implies consent) it was less than than that and only two intermediate edits that did to alter the text:
  • 12:06, 13 April 2017‎ J 1982 (11,005 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (added Category:Latin words and phrases using HotCat)
  • 19:11, 9 July 2017‎ Tobby72 (11,594 bytes) (+589)‎ . . (add images)
Also I have explained to you why I have reverted you deletion and await the outcome of the AfD to see if the consensus is to keep it here or have a separate list.
"edit warring in order to manipulate the outcome of a discussion" presumably as no other editor was involved you are stating that you thought you were edit warring (as it take two to tango). Personally I do not consider that we were involved in an edit war.
I could go on but your recent statements seem to me to be a long way from your opening statement in this section perhaps we could move on from the arguments about formatting and splitting, and focus on the actual content. You don't appear to care about treating other editors with respect, so I am not going to waste my time on critiquing your behavior any further. So perhaps you would like to answer my question about content. --PBS (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
When I said until you start answering mine I didn't mean this argument about behavior (I disagree with a number of your interpretations above, but don't consider further debate to be a good use of our time). I meant the three bullets about content at the top of this thread.
Either way, I consider your post above to be an attempt at reconciliation. So I will answer your Armenia / Azerbaijan questions. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Sadly my attempt to replicate my research is not coming with the literal description that "x, y and z" were annexed. There are very few, if any, true WP:RS which cover the subject of these four tiny enclaves, because they held little population and were of little significance to the wider war. What is clear is that they all had their populations expelled p.156, and they are all administered by the acquring power under their normal provinces in a manner no different to the rest of their territories. So this is definitely a de facto annexation, but I cannot find a single WP:RS which covers this matter in appropriate depth or technical language to source it directly. Better remove it then. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Per your initiation of Talk:Pogrom#RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria and the RfC on Talk:List of ethnic cleansing campaigns that I initiated, you must be aware that "So this is definitely a de facto annexation, but I cannot find a single WP:RS" means that inclusion is WP:OR. -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That is exactly why I removed it. It was originally drafted by @Zntrip: at List of military occupations: [4]. Zntrip, can you provide sources for this? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: What's the specific question? I apologize, but I do not have time to catch up on this discussion. – Zntrip 01:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zntrip: in [5] this edit, you added that these four Armenia/Azeri enclaves were "de facto annexed". I am sure this is correct (for example this blog [6] explains it), but we need WP:RS. Do you have any WP:RS to support your "de facto annexed" statement? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: No, I do not. I believe I was just relying on the individual articles of those enclaves for that assertion. – Zntrip 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Copied from above "I see from [7] this edit 10 years ... Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)" Far too many questions. To answer in own go but to explain the reasons for 1949. It is the same reason as why the List of military occupations starts with the Hague Convention of 1907. That is an arbitrary cut of date, but it is meaningful because those in the list are defined under the current meaning of military occupation. The further back in time one goes the more arbitrary the definition of military occupation. Likewise with Annexation. The ICRC footnotes in the section explain why 1949 is the most significant date. The examples given should help the reader understand the practical interpretation of the 1949 conventions and not be a exhaustive list. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point at all. 1949 simply changed the ability to avoid human rights protections under annexation. It did not, in itself, change what annexation is or make annexation more difficult or less legal. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Annexations before WWII[edit]

@PBS: I see from [8] this edit 10 years ago you that you don't think there should be examples here from before 1949. You made a similar comment at the AfD. Other editors in the various threads above argued against you, but you fended them all off single handedly (and apparently against consensus) with indirect arguments.

Are there any policies or guidelines you can point to which support your position here? Because, irrespective of your "other stuff exists" refutation, Wikipedia common practice is relevant, and the lists at Outline_of_war#History_of_war suggest your concerns that an open timeframe "will inevitably lead to the list expanding" are not widely considered to be a problem by the community.moving up as requested

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Far to many section. I will not respond here as you are filling the page up with sections, which will make the conversations disjointed. -- PBS (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I don't understand. How do you want me to format the conversation differently? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: now we've covered your questions above, could you share your thoughts on this one? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
See my posting in the previous section with sigs ending 18:19, 17 July 2017 and 11:10, 18 July 2017. Reply in that section. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tibet[edit]

This edit:

removed Tibet without an explanation by an new account which to date has only made this one edit (Napolekov contributions).

I would usually revert such an edit and ask for details of why Napolekov thought that removal was the correct move. However in the article Simla Accord (1914), where is a section called "2008 British policy change" that explains that unto 2008 Britain was the only state that did not recognise China's full sovereignty over Tibet. In 2008 Britain changed its position. This means that since 2008 no state supports the stance that Tibet was annexed. Britain's change of position on this probably makes it worth a mention as the NYT thought the change was made to because Britain wanted China to help financially and thought HMGs change on this would help oil the wheels. It is a good example of power politics (and how an annexation can be turned into something else by power politics).

I am going to ask Napolekov to comment on why the Tibet section ought to be removed. -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Supporting China's sovereignty and considering 1950 an annexation are not mutually exclusive. Numerous sources call it an annexation (e.g. Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations Sumit Ganguly; Sumit Ganguly; Andrew Scobell; Joseph Liow (4 December 2009). Handbook of Asian Security Studies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-22962-7. ). Onceinawhile (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
"Supporting China's sovereignty and considering 1950 an annexation are not mutually exclusive" yes they are, or are you suggesting that a state can annex its own territory? To consider 1951 an annexation one has to take the previous British position on Chinese sovereignty". Yes some academics such as "Elliot Sperling" (the author of the article you cite) may consider it an annexation, but the international community does not, so if it is to be included then this ought to be made clear and annexation should be attributed in-text. -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Simla Accord (1914) explains that the British position was
One theory is that China's claim for sovereignty today stems from Tibet's previous status as a Chinese protectorate. Annexation can be used to bring a protectorate under full sovereignty. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
"Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view" (quoting the text of the Simla Accord (1914) which contains citation to support the sentence). No state holds the view that "Tibet's previous status [was] as a Chinese protectorate". Before 2008 and the British change of potion, then Tibet had an ally on the UN security council, since then the view is one that is unsupported by the international community. If this is to remain in the list of examples it would make a good case for showing how to paraphrase Kissinger and Lord Palmerston "states do not have friends; they has interests." (q:Henry_Kissinger#1980s). As I said some academics such as "Elliot Sperling" (the author of the article you cite) may consider it an annexation (it would have to be in articles published since 2008), but the international community does not. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a firm view about whether Tibet should be listed in this article, as there are claims that it was "annexed", but the international legal interpretation as accepted by the UN and the international community is clear and consistent. This view is that Tibet was not a sovereign state before 1949-1950, it was under the sovereignty of the Republic of China (or, as PBS points out, suzerainty, according to the UK historically) but enjoyed a large degree of autonomy; some time around 1949-1950 the People's Republic of China succeeded to the same sovereignty; and between 1950-1965 the People's Republic of China reduced that autonomy. Even taking "annexation" at its broadest legal sense, to say categorically that either the replacement of the Republic of China by the People's Republic or the invasion of Tibet and/or the subsequent reduction of autonomy was an "annexation" would be to give WP:Undue weight to a view which is not accepted by the international community, and could be said to be simply wrong. However, it is true that some commentators do describe the invasion as an "annexation", possibly because they subscribe to the minority view, or because they are ignorant about the law, or because they are using the word metaphorically or hyperbolically. If the widely accepted view is respected, I don't think a mention that some commentators use the word "annexation" to describe the invasion and/or the subsequent reduction in autonomy is totally objectionable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Western New Guinea[edit]

I have removed this section as uncited. I have searched for sources supporting its inclusion, but I cannot find a single one describing it as "annexed". Transfer actually took place under the terms of the 1962 New York Agreement. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Commentry on GCIV[edit]

@ Onceinawhile thus making it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation There was citation covering this. Removing it and then asking for a citation is strange. -- PBS (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Onceinawhile If you would like to explain what it is that you wish to change in this paragraph and why then lets discuss it. -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure. That goes for your removal of the tag as well please.
My points:
  • The ICRC source does not say what the text says it does. I corrected this in my version (see [9])
  • The ICRC source does not support the text in green in your above
  • Article 49 and Protocol I relate to occupation, not annexation. Wrong article.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote in a previous section: "I don't understand your point at all. 1949 simply changed the ability to avoid human rights protections under annexation" but it did change annexation. see the comemtry by theICRC

-- PBS (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have read that many times. The entire article is about "INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS". Please quote the exact part of the source you are aiming at explicitly, so we can discuss properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
See the section on annexation in the commentary, and this sample paragraph:
It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective "alleged" before the word "annexation"
My emphasis. Annexation is part of a larger change in international law that explicitly made wars of conquest illegal. -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The words "unlawful character of annexation" imply clearly that annexation can be done, it is just illegal. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The footnote (5) against this quote links to:[10]

In its report, the ICRC had proposed the following text: "In case of annexation of the whole or part of an occupied State by the occupying Power, the civilian population of the occupied country shall, until the signature of final peace treaties, enjoy the rights guaranteed by the present Convention". One delegate pointed out that this wording seemed to recog­ nize, to a certain degree, the legality of a total or partial annexation during hostilities. To obviate this misunderstanding it was decided to add the word "alleged" before "total or partial annexation". The Conference, going further than the ICRC proposal, considered it useful to provide also for the case of :changes in institutions or government carried out by the occupying State. The meeting was further of opinion that the expression "until the signature of the peace treaties" was ambiguous and inadequate, and that it should be deleted.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
And footnote (6) links to:[11]

p.663 Mr. MEULBLOK (Netherlands) drew attention to a discrepancy between the English and French texts of the Convention..The French text covered the possibility of annexation which was not referred to in the English text. The omission was preferable, since annexation in time of war was not recognized under international law. The Netherlands Delega­ tion would suggest that if it was desired to keep the provision in the French text, the word "annexion" should be replaced by some such expression. as "infraction au statut".... Mr. DE GEOUFFRE DE LA PRADELLE (Monaco) supported the proposal of the Netherlands Dele­ gate. Certain theories tended to confuse occupation with annexation, but such theories should be repu­ diated as contrary to positive international law. It was essential that no text should be adopted which might throw doubt on the legality of occupation.
p.773 Colonel Du PASQUIER (Switzerland)... A reference to annexation, to be found only contained in the French version of the Stockholm text, had been omitted in the draft adopted by the Drafting Committee, since certain delegations had observed that a unilateral annexation in time of war was inadmissible in international law.... Mr. CLATTENBURG (United States of America) felt that it was immaterial whether a reference to "annexation" was made or not, as the Article, as drafted, applied to all cases of occupation in time of war, including so-called "annexation".
p.827 The Committee has decided to accept the text of Article 43 as it was presented to the Stockholm Conference, in place of the text adopted at that Conference. Apart from drafting changes, the text now accepted provides that no annexation. of the whole or part of an occupied territory by an Occupying Power can deprive the persons in the territory of the benefits of the Convention.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Also:
As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts.
If exchange of territory involve in a treaty then it is cession and amalgamation no an annexation.
@Onceinawhile thus making it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation There was citation covering this. Removing it and then asking for a citation is strange, so why did you do it? -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Re the citation - because the citation does not support those words directly. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@PBS: the Max Planck source below should hopefully have ended this debate. Please can we now cut this section down as I proposed? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I note you are now busy elsewhere. Now we have a source explicitly showing how international law regarding annexation evolved (not just regarding protection of human rights in annexed military occupations, I will fix this. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Annexation in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law[edit]

See [12].

We should use this source to rewrite the article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? I have not come across this as a standard text. Is it used as a text book in your jurisdiction? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It is considered THE standard reference work in international law. I have added a source to the article itself.[13]. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

The lead included a number of unsourced sentences which I have tried and failed to find support for.

I have removed them all here.[14]

If anyone wishes to add them back, please bring a source.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Examples since 1949 - starting afresh[edit]

The thread above has become too complex, and appears to have run out of steam. Please comment on the proposals below:

  1. Change 1949 to 1928 - i.e. the Kellogg–Briand Pact
  2. Add examples pre 1928 - to illustrate the differences (since scholars do exactly this when describing the concept of annexation)
  3. Separate ininhabited from inhabited - we should not be mixing annexation of uninhabited territories with those of inhabited territories. International laws such as the Geneva Convention apply to protection of civilians, not to rocks, so annexation is very different when there are no people involved.
  4. Separate legally recognized from unrecognized - this would be a useful separation for readers
  5. Consistency and focus - these examples all appear to be trying to convey different things, almost as a bunch of random facts. Much of the text in there is irrelevant to the actual act of annexation. I propose we restructure this to focus on the debate around the legality of each of these annexations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am busy at the moment on other things. However
  1. No, It is confusing.
  2. No, there are no need for example before 1949 and they will be confusing, particularly as it includes illegal annexations by the Axis powers. All that is needed is the comment that some annexations prior to 1950 were illegal and hence the chance in international law.
  3. No the examples post 49 are useful to show that a few annexations can take place because some territory is/was not territory of a sovereign state that is a member of the UN. This is part of the justification that Israel uses for some of its annexations.
  4. No there is no separation post 1949, because annexation is either recognised or illegal they are illegal under international law.
  5. Yes. I agree that they ought to me more focused. See for example the conversion above about Tibet.
I do not thing that long quotes in citations are needed in the article (and they are confusing), particularly as they are selctive. If they are needed (because an editor queries the content then they can be placed on the talk page.
-- PBS (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS:
2. What exact change in international law you are referring to? 1949 is a red herring. Also, there were a lot less Axis WWII annexations than you appear to be implying. How many true annexations do you consider there were? Also leaving out the Anschluss is excluding one of the most famous examples of annexation is world history - it seems very strange.
3. That is an interesting point and should be incorporated in this article. Please can you bring sources?
4. Can you explain further? You seem to be saying "there is no separation because there is a separation"?!
On the quotes, can we please leave these for others to comment. The term is complex - this article has misunderstood it for a decade - so the extra clarity may be helpful for readers and editors alike. I participated in a recent WP:AN discussion at which the question of quotes in footnotes was discussed. A number of editors suggested it is best practice that all articles on complex or controversial topics should aspire to.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to giving examples from before 1949 because most of the world had been annexed or otherwise controlled by the European powers. It is not proper to ignore them and talk as if the "first world" is the only thing that existed. The decolonisation after the Second World War was also pretty chaotic as the newly independent countries consolidated. It is hard to get NPOV information about these events. So, I think 1949 is a good starting point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kaitilya, colonization is not the same as annexation. Annexations were comparatively rare even in the late 19th century.
If you don't believe me, can you provide a source for your claim? Proving a negative is not always straightforward, but if I am wrong you should be able to disprove me easily.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Try these references:
I don't mean to suggest that the British were the only ones to annex overseas lands, but they are the ones I am most familiar with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. You are right that these are annexations. But they were annexations to the East India Company, not to Great Britain itself. Colonies were rarely formally annexed to the "mother country" - exceptions such as the 1908 annexation of the Belgian Congo and the 1848 annexation of French Algeria were unusual. However, even these were rarely true annexations as we use the word today, since citizenship rights were usually not extended to the "native" population. This book gives an interesting overview:
Koskenniemi, Martti (29 November 2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge University Press. pp. 151–. ISBN 978-1-139-42943-6. 
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Please note that the topic of the page is Annexation. A Wikipedia page is supposed to cover everything reliable sources say about the topic.
I agree that, in some sense, the European nations were more sophisticated than the rest of the world in the discourse of law and diplomacy before 1949. But the rest of the world sees it merely as game-playing to cover up what they see as lawlessness. So I maintain that 1949 is a good starting point. By then a level playing field had been established in the world and we can cover events equitably. What happened prior to that should be regarded as "History of annexation", and should be covered in all its aspects, Companies or otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Ok, that makes sense and I am happy with that.
Are you ok with 1945 rather than 1949? 1945 is the date of the United Nations Charter. 1949 is a misunderstanding introduced by another editor who mixed up human rights with sovereignty transfer. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No. There was no level playing field in 1945. Until the United Nations reached roughly the present size, it was still a world dominated by the European powers. As I already mentioned, 'decolonisation' would have been pretty chaotic all around the world. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: see [15] for growth in UN membership. 1949 is a red herring. We need to pick a firm date grounded in whatever is most relevant. Scholarship suggests 1928 was the key date. I am proposing 1945 as a middle ground, even though the idea that there were dozens of annexations during WWII is nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the feed through the UN was slow. But many of these countries were independent for several years before they became members. For example, Ceylon was a Dominion in 1948 and "United States of Indonesia" was formed in 1949 and so on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
What has that got to do with 1949? Why not 1951 or 1947, or an equally random date of 4:59pm in the afternoon on 7 February 1946? Or the date of the United Nations Charter.
This all seems like an academic discussion - what annexations between 1945 and 1949 are we actually talking about excluding/including? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)