![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Use of "annexation" is POV, violates NPOV policy
Crimea has declared independence as per UN-guaranteed right to self-determination that in condition of humanitarian concerns prevails over territorial integrity principle and local laws (as shown in Kosovo precedent). As an independent state Crimea has reunited with Russian Federation. So legally to call it "annexation" makes no more sense, than, say, calling reunification of Western and Eastern Germany with that term (or even less sense since they did not even have referendum). Calling Crimea's case "annexation" just because it is narrative of StateDep, and, hence, of the majority of Western media sources, is a blatant violation of NPOV policy. The article should absolutely mention that many (most of) countries call it "annexation", however, using of this term though the article as if it is a fact of reality is highly manipulative. Whether humanitarian concerns were warranted enough in this case to work as foundation for declaration of independence is matter of dispute, but it was not subject of a trial, it was not established legally in an ultimate fashion. The next step, where independent Crimea has joined Russia, is indisputable already as independent countries as per UN clauses can totally join other countries, if they wish (vote) so. No "annexation" here is established -- at least not yet. 95.27.94.132 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The word "annexation" makes no statement about the legality of the action that occurred. Regardless, we use the common name in reliable sources for any given event per WP:UCN. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- The word "annexation" does make a statement: "In international law it is the forcible transition" Annexation, and this is what the contributor above argued against. "common name in reliable sources": This kind of argument is basically saying "we use the name which media promoted the most" which contradicts NPOV. Teodorz (talk) 23:20, 05 July 2016 (UTC)
1. what kind of humanitarian concerns were in crimea? was the local population in some kind of danger or suffered from discrimination?
2. there is no comparison between Kosovo and Crimea. Kosovo had a civil war with elements of ethnic cleansing and genocide. There were long debates before Nato military intervention, and Kosovo was under UN protectorate for like 9 years trying to negotiate a solution with Serbia. Crimea had nothing like this. It was a peaceful place.
3. Crimea declared independence? Really? With russian soldiers with masks and no insignia all over the place? How long was that independence? A one day? Recognized by whom? Did west Germany invaded the east Germany with camouflaged troops, and had a referendum at a gun point without East German government consent? Don't think so.
4. Crimea is a sovereign ukranian territory, a local referendum has no legal power to change borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton9999 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC) In response to the above: 1) The local population was in danger of attack and ethnic cleansing by the Ukrainian armed forces, much like happened in Donbas. 2) Again, Crimea was facing invasion and ethnic cleansing by Ukrainian armed forces. 3) International observers noted no significant problems with the referendum. 4) The vast majority of voters in Crimea voted for Yanukovych in the latest election. When he was deposed in the Maidan coup, the Crimeans generally felt that the new regime in Kiev did not represent their interests.
And yes, I agree that the the use of the word "annexation" simply parrots Washington's portrayal of events, and is not an accurate description of the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.233.119 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140320221039/http://www.concordmonitor.com:80/news/politics/11209502-95/putin-signs-treaty-to-add-crimea-to-map-of-russia to http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/11209502-95/putin-signs-treaty-to-add-crimea-to-map-of-russia
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/act/11433
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/act/11551
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/04_02_14_3
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140915180534/http://council.gov.ru/media/documents/pdf/41d4c5222e07062d3f21.pdf to http://council.gov.ru/media/documents/pdf/41d4c5222e07062d3f21.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/act/11748
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Archived sources have been checked to be working
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources used in the section mapping
I am unsure what is the objective of some users who posted wrong information (supported by unreliable sources) in the section mapping. I must assume they are in good faith. Well, in this case they should first ask for permission before acting so boldly. However reliable sources have been added and the article has been formatted accordingly to the content of the sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
is this wikipedia or kremlinpedia?
The article is overcomplicated, too much irrelevant stuff. The article doesn't point out that Russia have invaded Crimea and occupied the peninsula. Look at the contents table, do u see there something like "russian military intervention"? you don't,do you? That tells you pretty much about the quality of this so called "article". I guess Putin pays a lot of money to wikipedia, for making those kind of "articles". what a joke. 94.139.128.250 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if you can point specific section of the article in need of being improved please tell us. Coming here and calling names does not help. We need knowledgeable and calm editors here. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- At least you could point out the russian military intervention as the key factor to the events. Something like this "Russia used the Euromaidan events as a justification of military invasion into Ukraine. In Crimea Russian soldiers blocked all the Ukrainian military bases, and also seized the Crimean Parliament building. Then they replaced the Crimean Governer with a new one that declared he doesn't recognize the new Ukrainian governement and called for a referendum. Prior to the referendum russia managed an aggressive propaganda campaign, claiming that the Crimean people are in danger from "Ukrainian neo-nazis", and that by joining Russia they will get protection and also a better salaries and pensions..."
Also you fail to explain to the reader that what caused the annexation is not the maidan, and not the referendum, but the russian military intervention. And why didn't you explain that to the reader? Maybe because mr. Putin was very generous to wikipedia lately? 94.139.128.68 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Firstly I recommend - as I usually do with all IP users - to open an account on Wikipedia. Secondly, I have no doubt that some people might be paid to write on Wikipedia. This is a known fact. It is easy to have major influence on the Web paying a restricted number of users. But certainly it is not with your claims that things will change. If you want things to really change you need to propose a variant to the existing text, and you need to support it with sources. You cannot ask other editors to make this job at your place. In a nutshell: find sources and propose a variant to the existing text which is organic to the sources proposed. I won't have any problem to follow you if you will act proactively. Dear IP user from Moldavia, this is not a forum. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
-
What "sources"? lol. it's in the article itself. You chose to write the article in a complicated and twisted way, that the reader will not be able to understand that the peninsula was invaded and occupied by the Russian army. You chose to focus on the referendum, which has NO LEGAL BASIS to change the Crimea status. It was the russian military intervention and occupation the deciding factor, and not the referendum itself. This is really a joke, I'm wasting my time here, I'm talking to a wall. 94.139.128.92 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am not contesting that the factor driving Crimea to be annexed by Russia was the military occupation of the peninsula, and not the referendum. No-one actually does. God only knows how many people actually voted and in which context of intimidation. And however that referendum had no legal basis, because organized by a foreign country and without the consent of Ukraine. Beside a restrict number of countries aligned with Russia's position for tactical reasons of opportunity, there is no serious country recognizing the validity of it. But this is not the point. WP works on sources. If you want to modify something, you need reliable sources supporting it. Again, I kindly tell you that if you want the article written the way you suggest, you need to rewrite it bringing sources. No user is going to do this job on your behalf. To conclude, please open a new section here and propose something, source it adequately and I will be more than happy to help you and to have an active role in this process. There are zillions things I do not like on WP but it is not your approach which is going to make this project any better. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Alternative wording for the lead of the article
Perhaps a stronger link should be set in the lead between the Annexation of Crimea and the Russian military intervention. I have proposed a variant, and by sure some users might dislike it. Still the current wording is "too much on the other side". Any kind comment is welcome. And again, I urge all users to focus on the actual modification and to assume good faith. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)