Talk:International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

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

BEFORE anyone wants to delete lets talk first

Lets have a discussion here first, I know some out there dislike international reactions articles and before we redo another AfD about it discuss it here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why create such cruft in the first place and try to pre-empt deletion with this??? -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because discussing an article before sending it to AfD it helps to generate more of a consensus.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be deleted and incorporated smart into the main article. Also, the United States' "reaction and comments" should be equally short to the other states reactions. 85.165.227.94 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was in the main article and was transferred to here, which seems sensible to me. As for whether it should be deleted, I don't really care either way, though if pressed I'd vote to keep it on grounds that some people may want to see how their country's reaction compared to that of other countries, plus Wikipedia is
          not a paper encyclopedia and the ability to provide this sort of list seems to be one of the advantages of Wikipedia. The notion that the US reactions are as unimportant as those of, for instance, my own country (Ireland), doesn't seem very sensible to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]

BEFORE ANYBODY WASTES ANY MORE TIME ON THIS (as I unfortunately have), please note that the Deletion Request has already been discussed and rejected (see here

WP:SNOW applies, as it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being deleted. Tlhslobus (talk
) 08:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Just delete it. It is pure propaganda as it is stated. China officialy supports Russia's reaction. I can't find an official statement from Greek or Cypriot government officials that they regard Russia's actions as invasion or whatever you want to call it This page is full of bs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.33.23 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is no longer part of the US Government so I'm wondering if her comments should be listed as part of the government's reaction- possibly in a separate section? 331dot (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment? 331dot (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map in Lead/Colour blindness

Suggesting that different colours be used for the map in the lead, as it's near-impossible for me (and presumably others) to read due to colour blindness. --Connelly90 12:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up on its talk page in the Commons and it has now been corrected. Thanks, --
talk) 19:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Cuban positions

The Cuban position seems much more supportive of Russia, more like the Syrian position, than like the Indian position (this is with regard to how its coded for the map) Ricardianman (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Visegrad - Nordic - Baltic position

After a V4 - NB8 meeting the 12 MFAs of the Nordic, Baltic and Visegrad countries have agreed to support a EU observation mission, to reaffirm the support of Moldovan, Georgian and Ukrainian bids to receive closer ties to Europe.

They also called the Russian actions as an unprovoked violation of Ukrainian society, called Russia to revoke the Federation Council's decision, and decided that the Crimean referendum is unacceptable.

I am citing the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/19360

I think we should add this position in. Thanks.--117.0.167.78 (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC vote today

I have included the vote, under the UN reaction. Some of the countries that voted for the motion were ones whose reaction was not previously documented here - notably Chile, Argentina, and Nigeria. Should those now be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

India's response

Although in the wiki article India's national security advisor S. Menon is correctly cited that ".. there are, after all, legitimate Russian and other interests involved.. ", the map seems to stress only the part of this statement that recognises the interests of Russia, but it does not indicate the position that "there are... legitimate... other interests involved...". Per se, it is unclear what 'other interests' means here; it might as well point to the interests of Ukraine. Is it possible to update the legend of the map correspondingly, please. 90.191.175.33 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. You might want to note it at the image's talk page in the Commons. Do you think we should delete India's entry and/or move it to the individual reactions section?--
talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Additionally, while the response of security advisor S. Menon is cited in the article, there are no references to the official statement by ministry of foreign affairs from the same day which does not point to the interests of any third bodies besides the Indian citizens in Ukraine and the population of Ukraine as a whole. [1] 90.191.175.33 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sanctions

Now that sanctions are being imposed, on certain Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean individuals, and on the Russian State, by the US, EU and Japan. it might be worth adding those - and perhaps (though I am not volunteering) someone might want to make a map of who is doing sanctions. Ricardianman (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update map to include Sri Lanka's postion

I added Sri Lanka's reaction to the article which should qualify as "Recognition of Russian and other interests" or "Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government" for the map. Could someone please update the map? I don't know how. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UN General Assembly Vote

There should be a country SVG map of the General Assembly vote today. Plumber (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links

[2]Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church

The position of the group keeps on being added. There is no reason to add their views to this page - they are non-notable in relation to this event. Yes, they are notable enough to have their own page, but they are not notable in relation to the Crimea crisis. If we have to include their views we would have to add the views of every micro-sect that also has a page on Wikipedia.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with this. Unless and until WBC's reaction gets picked up by the mainstream media (which would probably require them to have a protest aimed at it), it's not particularly relevant. And truthfully, even as far as WBC goes, it's not a particularly noteworthy reaction of theirs. They almost universally claim any crisis (whether on a world or individual scale) was caused by God punishing those involved for the sins of humanity. I don't necessarily agree, though, that the reaction need be notable in relation to the crisis to be included—we have a litany of reactions from nations and NGOs that themselves don't have much of a relationship to the crisis... so I think that requiring a significant relationship to the crisis itself is not quite the right standard (though it's probably close). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The title is International reactions... therefore international entities are what matters. That includes all states (and partially recognized ones, which are especially important considering that Crimea is essentially "partially recognized" now too) and international organizations. Religious entities are not that important unless they're huge international groups such as the Catholic church (already covered by the Holy See) and had something important to say on the matter. Considering that the Holy See, already a reference to a previous line on the article, is the only entity, I think that the religious organizations should just be removed period. They just don't belong or matter. CouchTomato (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian diaspora

I accidentally run into a "Memorandum 14" and added it here. It occurs to me it would be interesting to see the polarization of the Russian diaspora in the post-Soviet state.

Memo14 was signed by ~800 persons, of 300,000+

talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Serbia

Serbia supports territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine,[1] [2] but is still marked on the map as if it just voiced concern over political developments in Crimea and Ukraine. Could someone please update the map for Serbia and move it to the category "Supports territorial integrity of Ukraine", because I don't know how. Appreciate it. NeroN BG

References

  1. ^ http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php?id=104744&change_lang=en
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/serbiangov/status/530264487811895296

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International reactions to the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on International reactions to the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International reactions to the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change Colors on Map

add Cambodia, Tajikistan, Myanmar, Uganda, Burundi, and Eritrea to support[1] and China, Philippines, Uzbekistan, Serbia to the same color as Belarus-09:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.rt.com/news/413727-un-resolution-crimea-rights-vote

date for context

I think it would be a good idea to note in the lead that virtually all international reactions here has either happened during the Crimean crisis (as it was initially known) or its immediate aftermath. A time when there was a lot of uncertainty about what goes on, and Russia still maintained its public denial of military use for example. --Jakey222 (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add recognitions number?

Could we add the number of official recognitions in the opening paragraph or info box or somewhere? From the text, I see that it's only two countries recognizing it officially, but to be sure, the actual number should be stated IMHO. Chaptagai (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_reactions_to_the_annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&oldid=1212612476"