Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

Title

Hi! I'm just a bit confused about the title. Is there a reason for why the full name of Russia (Russian Federation) is used? As far as I know, most articles use short names for countries such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Azeezm4r 12:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No reason. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably to distinguish from Annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire (previously -- Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire) but we are much better off using years instead if we want to be precise, hardly anyone refers to this as "annexation by the Russian Federation", rather "Russian annexation". Mellk (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a precise issue. "Russian annexation of Crimea" is not the same as "Russian annexation of the Crimean Khanate". Even "2014 Crimea annexation" seems preferable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Analysis

I'm kindof surprised there's no analysis or discussion of the causes of this conflict, specifically the https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-coalition-agreement/26703123.html Ukraine Parliment's goal of joining NATO, especially since that was Russia's explicit reason for invasion. Should there be a section on Russia's motivations and goals? Simul (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The causes of the conflict should be in the article about the conflict. Here they should be mentioned only to the extent they involve Crimea. Alaexis_¿question? 20:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Оffice of the President of Crimea

@Alaexis, Ukrainian authorities limited Crimean autonomy in 1995 is WP:OR referenced with primary sources, and LA Times article is from which year? While Ukraine did Abolished Crimea Constitution and Presidency, we as Wikipedia editors cannot characterize events as the text says. If you want to keep the paragraph, please rewrite it referencing academic sources (of which are plenty) on article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll find a scholarly source. Considering that the events themselves are not in doubt and the LA Times is an established newspaper, I believe that the proper course of action would have been to add a bettersourceneeded tag. Alaexis_¿question? 08:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not when secondary sources characterize events differently. For example, that Kyiv "defused" the "conflict potential" Russia's War Against Ukraine - Gwendolyn Sasse - Google Books . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

She wrote that the conflict potential was defused over these years due to a number of factors and not that the actions of the Ukrainian government in 1995 defused it. Alaexis_¿question? 11:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting percentage

This seems too pointy to me. We almost never do this kind of calculations elsewhere (cf. Only 30% of Ukrainians actually supported Petr Poroshenko in 2014). The sources that do this calculation aren't particularly impressive: an opinion piece in the WP and a (generally unreliable) WP:FORBESCON contributors article. Alaexis_¿question? 08:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Might be reworked using better sources.

"A New Imperialism? Evaluating Russia’s Acquisition of Crimea in the Co" by Trevor McDougal (byu.edu)
However, only about fifty-to-sixty percent of voters in Crimea as a whole were in favor of joining Russia with an overall participation rate of between thirty and fifty percent.160 These numbers are significantly lower than those officially reported numbers of greater than ninety-five percent approval and eighty percent participation.161 In addition, it appears that Crimeans voted for an end to the “corrupt lawlessness and thieving dominance of the Donetsk stooges,” rather than for joining Russia.162
...
... the actual overall turnout in Crimea could not have exceeded thirty percent.164 This also seems to comport with the experiences of some of the minority groups in Crimea: many citizens opposed to the vote, notably Crimean Tatars who make up about twelve percent of the population, chose “to stay home rather than participate in what they called a rigged vote.”165 In addition, many Crimeans loyal to Ukraine did not vote in the referendum,166 most likely, at least in part, because choosing to maintain the status quo with Ukraine was not even an option.167 Furthermore, it seems as though many ethnic Ukrainians chose not to vote in the election.168 Some potential voters who wished to remain with Crimea chose not to vote because they believed that the referendum did not give them a “choice to vote against joining the KGB-run government” and because they did not feel safe voting surrounded by Russian troops.169 ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)