This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Annexation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article says "annexation" of one country by another refers only to coercive actions. It therefore would not include the addition of Texas to the United States, which was the result of a voluntary agreement negotiated between the two countries. Yet the article on that event is called Texas annexation and right in its first sentence it links to this article. This is a direct contradiction. I suggest that "annexation" does not in fact always imply coercion, in which case this article needs to be retitled or else expanded to cover both meanings. -- 69.159.60.147 ( talk) 08:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
GwydionM and 82.73.99.163 please discuss your issues here on the talk page. The block is a week now but if you both continue to edit after the block without a consensus you will be blocked further. If needed, please look at the dispute resolution process. Woody ( talk) 19:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why the article organized by the annexed territory in some parts and by annexation authority in other parts. The structure lacks consistency and it's so confusing. If no one's objecting, I will move the West Bank paragraphs concerning Israel under the "By Israel" section and add another sub-title called "Golan Heights", and create a section titled "By Jordan" for the Jordanian part of West Bank annexation. -- Crazyketchupguy ( talk) 20:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm very new to Wikipedia and I wanted to ask why the so-called "Anschluss" from 1938 is not listed. Is it because it was not a voluntary annexation on the part of Austria? Adrianolusius ( talk) 18:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The article is trying to cover both annexations prior to modern international law, when the Right of conquest was accepted, and modern illegal annexations. It does not manage either topic well, because they are so entirely different. For most of history the right of conquest was the norm, and so there have been thousands of such annexations. Since the settling of modern international law, there have been very few and each one comes with a complex legal history. The story of the change in international law is best kept at our right of conquest article, leaving us with two distinct topics – legal annexation through history, and modern illegal annexation. I have some ideas on good titles, and how best to disambiguate. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
No split, but remove the list before 1949. They serve no purpose in explaining what annexation is. Post 1949 help explain the difficulties with international law, and states adherence to it, and complexities of some disputed annexations.
There are far to many cases before 1949, for it to be a useful list, and inevitably such a list will contain systemic bias (in favour of Annexations in Europe or by European states elsewhere).
The further one goes back in history the hazier and more frequent annexation gets as many cases will be missed out and others will become contriversial. This is particularly true before the concepts of military occupation as a legal concept was developed.
Did the English annex Calais? Did the French annex Calais? What about Berwick-on-Tweed which changed hands 12 times? In most of these cases there will be treaties that recognise the annexation, but not until after the annexation has already occured for a time (possession is 9/10 of the law just ask Israel).
It is particularly those of colonial expansion which will be problematic. Was the Zulu Kingdom annexed by the British Empire? (Did the Zulus annex teritory from neiboughing kingdoms?) What about the territory of the Hottentot? What about Australia? Did the Americans annex First Nations territory?
A list like this has lots of possiblities for OR, and even if one insists on sources like the List of events named massacres. All one will end up with is a list of little use to anyone, full of systemic bias, or poorly sourced examples. I was involved in the moving of List of massacres to List of events named massacres, to try to reduce the POV after failing to have the list deleted outright, but it was only partially successfull and today it is yet again a mess.
I used to spend a lot of time on contriversial subjects like Genocide. In those sorts of articles, we tended to move the lists out of the main article into list articles because it prevented the main article becomming the focus for edit wars. However keeping such lists at good list level is a neverending task with little appreciation or help from other editors, so most concentious editors, realising it is Sisyphus type existance, eventually move on and spend their time in a more collegiate atmosphere. The list then deteriorates.
Personally I do not think text about the legal develpments that predatee World War II text is needed. And I opposed its inclusion in this article. However if it the consensus is to keep such text in the article, then only keep annexation examples priorto World War II if thye illuminate the legal developments and appear in the text, not in a list.
I am opposed to moving the article to "illegal Annexation" there will be people searching for Annexation right now with regards to Russia's annexation of Crimea, and its current ongoing attempt to Annex Ukraine. What is need is an article explaining that Annexation in the 21st century is illegal, not an article about the good old days (pre 1949) when it was not unlawful. If we do have an article post 49 called "illegal Annexation" then cut and past the EB1911 article back into the article "Annexation", and have people concluding that Annexation of Ukraine by Russia is probably lawful, because they can not know in advance Annexation is unlawful unless they already know about developments post World War II. This comes down to WT:AT and not breaking most of the bullet points in the introductory section WP:CRITERIA.
— PBS ( talk) 02:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Annexation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article says "annexation" of one country by another refers only to coercive actions. It therefore would not include the addition of Texas to the United States, which was the result of a voluntary agreement negotiated between the two countries. Yet the article on that event is called Texas annexation and right in its first sentence it links to this article. This is a direct contradiction. I suggest that "annexation" does not in fact always imply coercion, in which case this article needs to be retitled or else expanded to cover both meanings. -- 69.159.60.147 ( talk) 08:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
GwydionM and 82.73.99.163 please discuss your issues here on the talk page. The block is a week now but if you both continue to edit after the block without a consensus you will be blocked further. If needed, please look at the dispute resolution process. Woody ( talk) 19:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why the article organized by the annexed territory in some parts and by annexation authority in other parts. The structure lacks consistency and it's so confusing. If no one's objecting, I will move the West Bank paragraphs concerning Israel under the "By Israel" section and add another sub-title called "Golan Heights", and create a section titled "By Jordan" for the Jordanian part of West Bank annexation. -- Crazyketchupguy ( talk) 20:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm very new to Wikipedia and I wanted to ask why the so-called "Anschluss" from 1938 is not listed. Is it because it was not a voluntary annexation on the part of Austria? Adrianolusius ( talk) 18:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The article is trying to cover both annexations prior to modern international law, when the Right of conquest was accepted, and modern illegal annexations. It does not manage either topic well, because they are so entirely different. For most of history the right of conquest was the norm, and so there have been thousands of such annexations. Since the settling of modern international law, there have been very few and each one comes with a complex legal history. The story of the change in international law is best kept at our right of conquest article, leaving us with two distinct topics – legal annexation through history, and modern illegal annexation. I have some ideas on good titles, and how best to disambiguate. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
No split, but remove the list before 1949. They serve no purpose in explaining what annexation is. Post 1949 help explain the difficulties with international law, and states adherence to it, and complexities of some disputed annexations.
There are far to many cases before 1949, for it to be a useful list, and inevitably such a list will contain systemic bias (in favour of Annexations in Europe or by European states elsewhere).
The further one goes back in history the hazier and more frequent annexation gets as many cases will be missed out and others will become contriversial. This is particularly true before the concepts of military occupation as a legal concept was developed.
Did the English annex Calais? Did the French annex Calais? What about Berwick-on-Tweed which changed hands 12 times? In most of these cases there will be treaties that recognise the annexation, but not until after the annexation has already occured for a time (possession is 9/10 of the law just ask Israel).
It is particularly those of colonial expansion which will be problematic. Was the Zulu Kingdom annexed by the British Empire? (Did the Zulus annex teritory from neiboughing kingdoms?) What about the territory of the Hottentot? What about Australia? Did the Americans annex First Nations territory?
A list like this has lots of possiblities for OR, and even if one insists on sources like the List of events named massacres. All one will end up with is a list of little use to anyone, full of systemic bias, or poorly sourced examples. I was involved in the moving of List of massacres to List of events named massacres, to try to reduce the POV after failing to have the list deleted outright, but it was only partially successfull and today it is yet again a mess.
I used to spend a lot of time on contriversial subjects like Genocide. In those sorts of articles, we tended to move the lists out of the main article into list articles because it prevented the main article becomming the focus for edit wars. However keeping such lists at good list level is a neverending task with little appreciation or help from other editors, so most concentious editors, realising it is Sisyphus type existance, eventually move on and spend their time in a more collegiate atmosphere. The list then deteriorates.
Personally I do not think text about the legal develpments that predatee World War II text is needed. And I opposed its inclusion in this article. However if it the consensus is to keep such text in the article, then only keep annexation examples priorto World War II if thye illuminate the legal developments and appear in the text, not in a list.
I am opposed to moving the article to "illegal Annexation" there will be people searching for Annexation right now with regards to Russia's annexation of Crimea, and its current ongoing attempt to Annex Ukraine. What is need is an article explaining that Annexation in the 21st century is illegal, not an article about the good old days (pre 1949) when it was not unlawful. If we do have an article post 49 called "illegal Annexation" then cut and past the EB1911 article back into the article "Annexation", and have people concluding that Annexation of Ukraine by Russia is probably lawful, because they can not know in advance Annexation is unlawful unless they already know about developments post World War II. This comes down to WT:AT and not breaking most of the bullet points in the introductory section WP:CRITERIA.
— PBS ( talk) 02:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)