Talk:2014 Crimean parliamentary election

Related
Talk:2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine/Archive_1 is clear. I support 's changes. But we could put the number of seats by party at State Council of Crimea if we have reliable sources like here. Panam2014 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The RfC applies to one 'referendum' in 2022. Please also read WP:CANVASSING. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but the facts and well-reasoned argument apply equally to this subject, and I hope editors agree to apply it without going to the trouble of holding a near-duplicate RFC. I presume the purpose of this discussion is to allow us the opportunity to do so. —Michael Z. 19:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping.
 * I haven’t reviewed available sources, but the article seems to be severely lacking in mentioning some key facts at all, like that it was held not merely “after the illegal annexation”, but under a foreign occupation regime in Ukraine and without accredited international monitors, and represents a mass violation of human rights and sovereignty. UN OHCHR reports might be a source on this. It also needs a section on responses and assessments.
 * Regarding the infobox, I’d remove, in light of the very detailed and well reasoned consensus summary linked above. All (sham) elections imposed by the Russian Federation in occupied territories are equally suspect. —Michael Z. 14:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * nope, RfC does apply for all election in Russian-occupied Ukraine. could give his position as the people behind 2022's closure. Please Assume good faith.  is not a partisan/biaised user. See Canvassing.
 * Your accusations are unfounded. Instead, you should notify missing contributors if there are any. Panam2014 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, it is just a coincidence that you pinged only those that voted "support" (all three) in your last RM at Republic of Crimea? Sorry, but you are not fooling anyone. If it continues it might lead to a block. Mellk (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * enough is enough. You could be blocked for your you are not fooling anyone a clear violation of Assume good faith. Canvassing. Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). I have pinged only Mzajac from previous RM, and for Rsk6400, both are regulars contributors about Ukraine.
 * And rather than no assuming good faith  you should notify missing contributors if there are any.
 * , an admin, have thanked me for the ping. Panam2014 (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now read WP:INAPPNOTE, also WP:VOTESTACKING. It doesn't matter whether someone is an admin or not, especially if they have been topic banned for disruptive POV-pushing before. Mellk (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * stop now. I have proved that my pigging were appropriate. if they have been topic banned for disruptive POV-pushing before. is a new (the second) violation of Assume good faith against both . Panam2014 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not prove anything. But sure, if it happens again then we can let an uninvolved administrator deal with this. The warning was sufficient. Mellk (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not prove anything and again. Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
 * It is high time to stop your aggressive comments and accept the consensus per WP:STICK. Panam2014 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are trying to influence such discussions by only pinging those that supported your RM and not anyone else, and leaving blatantly non neutral notifications such as here, therefore your behaviour is disruptive. Mellk (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are trying to influence such discussions by attempting to exclude some users  who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, therefore your behaviour is disruptive. AGAIN you should notify missing contributors if there are any.Your aggressiveness is punishable. It is time to stop your POV pushing. Panam2014 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, leave a complaint at ANI. Mellk (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Two months ago, you accused me of canvassing, an accusation that both I and Michael Z. rejected then. I think that you are absolutely blameless in pinging us and also in notifying me about Russian propaganda on my user's page. Mellk, please remember that verifiability is at the very core of WP, which means that any kind of propaganda is highly detrimental to our project. Having some (not much) experience at ANI, I don't think that a case there would result in anything. But I also think that Panam2014 is right in criticising your choice of words and your not assuming good faith. If I were you, I'd strike your remark of 21:59, 13 September 2023.

You still haven't answered to Michael Z.'s explanation of why the RfC is relevant. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think everyone has now thoroughly expressed their opinions on participation and the accusation of canvassing. If anyone is dissatisfied with the interested participants they can post notices on relevant pages to get a broader set of participants, if anyone would be interested. Or they could start an RFC. Maybe the discussion at hand can resume. —Michael Z. 13:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are both regular participants on Ukraine even outside of the RfC which is why I asked for your opinion. For the removal of propaganda, this is an important action, which is why I asked Rsk6400 since I don't know how to do it perfectly unlike him. The infobox is not propaganda and personally I had no opinion but since it was decided in 2022 not to add an infobox, the consistency is not to put one for Crimea . Also, for the number of seats, if and only if reliable sources speak about it, we could display them on the page of the so-called elections or the so-called State Council of Crimea. Finally, the RIA/TASS sources must be replaced. Panam2014 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were canvassing. This is indeed disruptive because the consensus-building process is being compromised. It is no coincidence that Panam2014 only notified/pinged editors that supported his RM. It is not my responsibility to now ping editors who I perceive as supporting the other side. But this does not matter, if it continues, then uninvolved admins can deal with this. Deny all you want. Mellk (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No canvassing. And not the first time you made false accusation. And Time to stop your agressive comments. Panam2014 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

From the closer's decision of the RfC I mentioned above: There was very little justification as to why these infoboxes give the reader key facts per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. In contrast, opposers brought up how the infobox could be misleading and the relative unimportance of the vote totals that were given heavy prominence in the infobox. "Relative unimportance": That's exactly the case here. At least I don't see reliable secondary sources giving importance to the vote totals. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Same for 2014 Donbas general elections. For the number of seats we can display them somewhere or on another page. If we find a reliable source it can help explain how the Kremlin distributed seats with its allies and the official opposition. Any thoughts on my suggestion? Panam2014 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think any illegal election that’s conducted under foreign military occupation, or occupation by militias under overall control of a hostile foreign government are inherently coercive. Their reported results are not key facts in the best of cases, much less under the control of Russia which is known to cheat in all of its domestic and illegal foreign elections since what is it, 1993? I think these infoboxes are objectively misleading, because they legitimize criminal human-rights violations by making articles about them look like real elections.
 * The point was made that the numbers are key facts when they make the fraud obvious, like when total votes are higher than turnout. No. Then the fact that the fraud is obvious – the relationship between the numbers – is a key fact, and just presenting them like legitimate election figures is contrary to plainly showing key facts per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. But anyway, that’s not the case here. —Michael Z. 22:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. We should do the same for 1938 Austrian Anschluss referendum. Panam2014 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d agree based on the situation of occupation plus the details in the #Conduct section. There is a redundant table in the text anyway. —Michael Z. 22:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the infobox again. If anybody wants to restore it, IMHO they should also explain why they think the RfC mentioned above shouldn't be applied here. In that case, we'd have to start a more specific RfC. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * we could do the same for 2014 Donbas general elections and 1938 Austrian Anschluss referendum. And for the number of seats? Panam2014 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the infobox at 2014 Donbas, but I won't do so at 1938 Austrian. I think that the 1938 article is at least not misleading, because few people nowadays believe Nazi propaganda, while many (too many) believe Russian propaganda. Also, I don't want to impose the results of discussions that refer to 21st century Eastern Europe on articles about 20th century central Europe. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * and for 2018 Luhansk People's Republic general election? We should merge. Panam2014 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Results
Number 57, I again removed the "results" you added. My reasons: There is no reliable source for the results of an irregular election. The so-called "election commission" cannot be trusted since it is well-known that "elections" in Putin's Russia are manipulated in numerous way. Also: WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Why should Russian fantasy results have any encyclopedic value ? Rsk6400 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Huge numbers of elections are rigged or fixed and the idea that we should somehow not include the results seems bizarre to me (and I'm glad to see they have been restored). If you really believe this, why aren't you attempting to delete the results table at 2024 Russian presidential election?
 * Also, could you please avoid blindly reverting edits. You just hitting the undo button meant you removed some grammar fixes and category sorting – doing this is unhelpful and will unnecessarily annoy other editors. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The arguments above are not addressed therefore it stays. @Mellk and other editors should not edit war but seek consensus for new changes instead. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. We have articles on hundreds of elections that have been rigged. Why is this one so special that we have to hide the results? Do you actually have an argument for hiding the numbers from readers? Number   5  7  01:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to delete the table. As said above, the practice on election pages has always been to include the sourced tables, as well as the paragraph saying they were rigged.--Aréat (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS clearly says that the editors who want to include something have to reach consensus. I hold that the results of that "election" are not relevant for an encyclopedia, and RS seem to think the same. The problems of other articles are not relevant here. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As is the case everywhere, elections are organized by an election commission and the election commission releases the results. The table already says what the source is. We do not decide that we can cite only certain election commissions and not others based on personal preference. If you want to include secondary sources that explain issues with the conduct of the election, then you can do this. Mellk (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if RS mention the results, then there is no reason here not to. Mellk (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, are there independent sources covering the subject? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary says, You're the only one deleting the table. That's obviously wrong. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was wrong about that, sorry. As said above, election results come from electoral commissions in every country, and so are sourced their election pages, national as well as local. There simply isn't other sources for it, and secondary sources only then use them, sometimes in full. And they may call them rigged, which we then source there. Even in obviously rigged pages we include results. Finally, the page itself is about an election. It's in its very own title. You can't use a wiki policy about not including information which isn't interesting to justify not including what the page is about in the first place. --Aréat (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)