Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum/Archive 2

Invalid votes
I think that the percentage of invalid votes should be kept in the infobox, especially for this particular election, because many voters wanted to boycott it. &mdash; Petr Matas 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

. Invalid and blank votes were negligible for this referendum (0.59%). I think you mean "registered voters that did not participate" since that would reflect that 16.9% of the voters didn't present themselves at the polling stations. But to be honest, that's negligible as well. In America, voter turnout is at like 60% for presidential elections and that's more than fine for us. If the results would have been close your request would make sense. But when 80% of the voters turn up to vote and of those 96% vote in favor of a choice.. well, that's pretty much a landslide even if you take into consideration the boycott. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I really meant those invalid votes (0.71% of cast votes, 0.59% of all registered voters). It is precisely this overwhelmingly high turnout and tiny fraction of invalid votes, what I find unexpected and interesting. Therefore I would like to see it in the article. &mdash; Petr Matas 17:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . I see no problem including it. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Translations of referendum title
Are the Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar translations of the referendum's official name into the lead really necessary. It seems like clutter for something so trivial. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the referendum does not have an "official name". We included the translations because we were one of the first Wikipedia's to have an article on the subject and we wanted to be fair to our non-English speakers. But now that the event is over, and now that several Wikipedia's forked the article, I really see no point in having them anymore. I mean, we don't call referendums by name here in America either. We just refer to them as, "the 2014 referendum" or whatever. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I'll go ahead and remove it then. Thanks for the explanation. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Version" of the Constitution
I don't think it's proper to characterize the amended constitution as a different version. There are 33 amendments to the US constitution but nobody talks about the 33 different versions of the US constitution. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the input. I wasn't just referring to my edit but also as a guide to future edits on the topic. Based on what you say I suppose there is a good argument for calling them different versions but I don't think the article needs any further elaboration on it anyways. Better to leave all this nonsense to the poor editors of Constitution of Crimea to explain. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We do in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican people ratified their constitution in July 25, 1952 so they refer to that version as the "original constitution" or "the July 25, 1952 constitution". Puerto Ricans would then amend their new constitution almost immediately three months later on November 4, 1952. The amendments were so significant that it is common to refer to that version as "the November 4, 1952 constitution". A similar event happened in 1961 and they refer to that one as, you guessed it, "the 1961 constitution". IMHO, the same applies to Crimea. You can see it here: You will notice that "Ukraine" is only mentioned three times, and only one of those had a huge impact: "Crimea is a part of Ukraine". This changed everything radically. The previous version didn't mention that anywhere and that version pretty much made Crimea completely sovereign. Having said all that, I don't think the sentence has to be mentioned anymore in this article, considering the outcome of the referendum. This detail is better left to Constitution of Crimea. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I just saw the changes and I think it is better worded now. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Results from Sevastopol
Results from the City of Sevastopol should be added. The official result has been published on website of the Sevastopol City Council:. Aotearoa (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide the turnout number? Unfortunately, I can not read Russian. Thank you. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Potentially Declare Independence"
It has been at least three times now that editors reverted the "potential declaration of independence" verbiage. This referendum is clearly between two choices (as the options themselves state) to stay with Ukraine or to join Russia. Anything beyond the simple ballot embedded within the article is speculation. For that matter, there is no mentioning of independence neither on the ballot or on the 1992 Constitution page. We only include it here as "potential" because CNN, Fox News and Kyiv Post say it might happen. Please keep this article NPOV! --Truther2012 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly! It's not even potential question! They will not ask people about it, as intro & infobox claims. It is was potential outcome with declaration of independence. So actual NPOV version would be something like that: "The referendum will ask the people of these regions whether they want to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they want to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and restore Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. Some media also speculated that the referendum has not "no" option[1][2]...[n] and the second option means declaration of independence with joining Russia later[n+1][n+2]...[n+m]". Furthermore, Crimea is already an independent state. — 128.73.28.173 (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Crimea is not already an independent state - as your page states, "they express their intention to self-declare themselves independent after a referendum to be held on 16 March" - This is proof positive that Option B on the referendum is to declare independence. --Львівське (говорити) 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, misread that. And no, only Option A on the referendum is to declare independence. — 128.73.28.173 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * well, one is, one is for russia, that's my point. There's a slew of sources now, to say it's only a 'potential' outcome is just original research now --Львівське (говорити) 22:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And all the sources essentially based on Volodymyr Yavorkiy's opinion or putting out of context words by Vladimir Konstantinov. Really, I can find any number of articles that claim that relativity theory is false. But if I wrote it as an absolute truth in WP, I will be banned. I am not implying that the "yes and yes" theory shouldn't be mentioned here. I am not even imply that DoI would not occur if option B wins. Just say that it is opinion of some media, not printed-on-bulletin reality. — 128.73.28.173 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will restore my password. — 128.73.28.173 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Done. — Alex Krainov (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, how is posting the actual ballot considered original research? Copy and paste it into any translator and point to the spot where it says "independence"? The "slew of sources" express opinions what the outcome may be, which is fine and which should be reflected in the article, but only as what they are - opinions!--Truther2012 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a long post-Soviet (and late-Soviet) tradition to make referendum questions intentionally obscure. This allows the authorities a freedom of interpretation of referendum results even if the results of the poll do not support their favorite options. The second option for the Crimean referendum is a good example of a such an approach. I think we should give a literal translation of the poll question and then provide attributed opinions what it might mean Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not just Soviet or post-Soviet tradition, have you seen Quebec referendum questions?...Truther2012 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At least that was a yes or no question. Also, because of the legality of secessionism, they couldn't state to unilaterally secede, but "declare sovereignty after XYZ" --Львівське (говорити) 14:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite having several refs saying its to declare independence, it seems users are ignoring the refs and inserting their own WP:OR interpretation of the referendum (that it wants to stay in Ukraine). Please refrain from disruptive edits that contradict the actual sourcing. --Львівське (говорити) 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look here and then you will see broken link Б Ю Л Л Е Т Е Н Ь для голосования на общекрымском референдуме 16 марта 2014 года (which leads to old site www.rada.crimea.ua . Visit http://www.vsarc.ru/textdoc/ru/6/act/1702pr.pdf (domain changed) and you will see official bulletin - it still has "Ukrainian" option. Secondary sources sometimes misinterpret official acts, we've already had one such precedent, when sources reported "questions" instead of options. Seryo93 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "inserting their own WP:OR interpretation of the referendum (that it wants to stay in Ukraine)" - it's not a interpretation of WHOLE referendum, it's just one of two options. Seryo93 (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just fixed the infobox to avoid misinterpretation. Seryo93 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the definition of Original Research. It's not your place to say secondary sources have it wrong and your personal interpretation of the situation is correct. --Львівське (говорити) 17:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. For laws and regulations, we usually quote or translate the primary source, e.g. the document itself. 174.19.174.16 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske: The official ballot says, and I quote (source ):

which roughly translates into English as:

Option 2 says clearly and unequivocally that choosing that option is in favor of Crimea remaining as a part of Ukraine. Why is this being disputed?

Please provide an official document that says that Crimea will "potentially declare their independence" if Option 2 has a majority. Not the opinion of a journalist, not statements given by a politician, but an official document.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess we could seek consensus on this... Should we use literal translation of a legal document or some biased third party interpretation (and, I'm sorry, but Kiyv Post would be biased on this one). But then again, do we really have to? --Truther2012 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I now understand where all this confusion is coming from and it's from the fact that the ballot does not state which version of the constitution does it refer to when it says "1992 constitution". Constitutions are amended from time to time. That's why when you mention a constitution in a document you just don't mention the year, you mention the whole date. For example, the Puerto Rican constitution was amended a couple of times, but people refer to the original one as "the July 25, 1952 constitution" and any others as "the so-and-so month-and-date-year, version of the constitution". Unfortunately, the Crimean parliament didn't do this and we now have all this mess because of that little detail that escaped them. My guess is they are under a lot of pressure and their legislative advisors might not even be allowed inside the building. This is why you never make big decisions like this in haste. Oh well, nothing we can do about it except state facts. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * can someone find us a version of the 1992 constitution? If we have that we can check what it says and find out if that versions says Crimea is "an independent state" and whether it is "as a part of Ukraine" or not. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, dismissing major media outlets as "biased sources" and relying on our own translations? You say that that is your translation, my own translation is that its restoring the 1992 constitution and Crimea's status vis a vis Ukraine. See, we have different interpretations of the text. So what do we do? We use secondary sources. Right now the entire introduction to this article is a joke, it's textbook original research, and it reads like a C-student's sloppy essay. I hate to describe a wikipedia article as 'amateur' but this right here is the cake. --Львівське (говорити) 04:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The New York Times differs from your translation and states that Option 2 is translated as: "Are you in favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?" (source: ). Can you please provide a reliable source that translates Option 2 in a different manner? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * : I just used the verbatim text by The New York Times which stated that, "A return to the 1992 Constitution [...] would effectively provide for Crimea’s independence, while remaining part of Ukraine." Do you have a copy of the 1992 constitution that we can check? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1992 Constitution:
 * a) May 92', May 94', Sep. 94, Oct. 94, March 95: "Республика Крым входит в государство Украина и определяет с ней свои отношения на основе договора и соглашений." (art. 9). Roughly translates as "Republic of Crimea is a part of Ukraine and establishes relations with it on a basis of treaty (договора) and contracts (соглашений)".
 * b) Sep 92': "Республика Крым входит в состав Украины и определяет с ней свои отношения на основе взаимосогласованных законодательных актов и соглашений." (section 1 of art. 9). Roughly translates as "Republic of Crimea is a part of Ukraine and establishes relations with it on a basis of mutually agreed (взаимосогласованных) legislative acts and contracts (соглашений)"
 * Are any of them explicitly and unequivocally speak of "independence" or "possibility for independence"? Treaties with central government aren't nonsense for non-independent entities (at least we had that treaty concluded in the early 1990s). Seryo93 (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I found out why these sources are reporting that Choice #2 would effectively make Crimea independent. Here's why:


 * 1) Article 1 of the 1992 constitution establishes that the Republic of Crimea is (i) a state and (ii) exercises sovereign rights and all full authority in its territory.
 * 2) Article 2, Section 1 establishes that the, "Bearer of sovereignty and the only source of state power is the people[.]"
 * 3) Article 2, Section 3 establishes that, "Any unconstitutional usurpation is an affront to democracy and the sovereignty of the people."
 * 4) Article 10 establishes that, "Crimea alone may build relations [with other states] on the basis of equality, respect to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in internal affairs[.]"
 * 5) Article 62 establishes that the, "Protection of state sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity [..] is the responsibility of each of its citizens."

So, yeah, it seems the 1992 constitution is some sort of construct where Crimea is both a sovereign state but part of Crimea at the same time. It never mentions independence but it does mention sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect to internal affairs several times.

What's everyone's opinion? How should we proceed? It seems to me that simply stating what the reliable sources say by using WP:INTEXT is the fairest option we have.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's same crazy construction (sovereignty of non-sovereign entity), that was proposed in Russia during 1990-1993 constitutional process (see, for example, second paragraph of article five of the 12 Jul 93' draft) - a part of overall "march of sovereignties", that has begun in 1990 1988 and ruined USSR some years later. In my opinion, WP:INTEXT seems fine too. Seryo93 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in that constitution that it would be part of Ukraine? By those quotes, it declared sovereignty over its own internal affairs, and the ability to conduct foreign affairs with other states. That seems to be absolute independence? Or is it independence but in union with Ukraine like Poland is a sovereign state in the EU (economically)? --Львівське (говорити) 16:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Article 9 of the 1992 constitution states explicitly that:




 * which roughly translates into English as




 * It seems highly contradictory because in some articles they establish complete sovereignty over both their internal and external affairs, but then they say, "we are also part of Ukraine". If you ask me, this was done in haste in 1992 while Crimea and Ukraine were going through a difficult political moment between themselves (Crimea declared its independence but Ukraine didn't like the idea, so Crimea then included that sentence that established they are part of Ukraine). It was something done 22 years ago. Details like this would be corrected immediately in today's modern world. But this is what happens when you make haste in an unstable region.


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the parliament has said they will declare independence after the referendum regardless, I think it goes without saying which interpretation of the Constitution they hold.--Львівське (говорити) 19:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not "regardless", only if first result ("reunification" option) passes. Interpretation of the 1992 Constitution as giving de-facto independence may go INTEXT (with proper attribution, of course), but not in infobox. Seryo93 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Constitution declaring sovereignty is actually quite a weak indicator of independence. Quebec in Canada is sovereign, so as every native tribe (First Nation) in Canada, so as every other republic in Russia.
 * I think the article is missing a clear distinction between actual questions and opinions of what they may mean. Perhaps a separate section on the interpretation may do the trick? What do you think? --Truther2012 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Much of the introduction can be moved to a subsection dealing with analysis and interpretation of the referendum options. Clearly it's an issue that is complicated and confusing so it deserves its own section where the details can be fleshed out. As there is no consensus regarding the interpretation of option 2, I think it would be prudent to reduce what is said in the intro to a statement that the interpretation is/was contentious. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think the existing section on 'choices' is the appropriate place to delve into this. No need for another section. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant Interpretations subsection of the Options section...--Truther2012 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the section in its current form adequately covers the issue. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue was re-added to the introduction recently. Firstly, the claim "Many commentators argued that both choices would result in de facto independence." requires more than one citation but I doubt that will be hard to find. My main concern is that it is undue weight to include even well-sourced speculation in the lead. Perhaps if the line was "many legal scholars argued . . ." with supporting citations then it would warrant inclusion but the opinion of media commentators has no place in the lead. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I found enough citations but my concern of undue weight remains. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research
Why the article contains an original research? Are we now ignoring the principles of Wikipedia because of the Crimea situation? Where were total numbers reported? Why is that number posted? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some readers do not understand the explanatory note above the Results table, which reads: "Values in italics are calculated from the remaining sourced values." It means that values in italic are not in the source given, but all other values are. The missing values are calculated simply by summing or dividing the corresponding values from the table. Please help me to improve the note. &mdash; Petr Matas 14:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe that is really to much of original research, but let me explain myself. The section originally contained some incorrect data and also the over-precisely calculated number of registered voters. I tried to correct it, put all available information into the table and fill in the gaps while making it trivial to check it. Maybe some rows and collumns consisting mainly of calculated values should be removed. &mdash; Petr Matas 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

. We now have a reliable source through The Washington Post. From that data we can extrapolate the number of registered voters that did not participate and calculate everything else correctly. This does not constitute original research and is quite common on Wikipedia. I updated the table and it now reflects the correct data. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cmoibenlepro (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where was the information on the total number of voters taken? Is that being pre-estimated out of the percentage?? I understand to calculate a percent which is simply a ratio, but I do not understand how you get total number of voters by calculation and no provided sources. The infobox mentions Crimean Election Commission. What is that? When was such institution established? The whole article is based on the phoney and self-published information as a blog. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From The Washington Post. It is even in a reference on the article:




 * See also WP:CALC, a policy.


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The most problematic value is the total number of registered voters, which is calculated as  Total registered voters Total votes cast / Turnout = 1,274,096 / 0.831 = 1,533,208. However, this value MUST be rounded to at most four valid digits to reflect the turnout precision, i.e. 1,533,000. Furthermore, this value is disputed, as a different source says that 1,724,563 votes were cast. As the entire "Percentage of registered voters" column is based on the total number of registered voters, it has the same problem too. &mdash; Petr Matas 16:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC). Update: &mdash; Petr Matas 18:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1,533,208 × 0.831 = 1,274,096. You don't need to round up three digits. The 1,724,563 figure comes from when you count Crimea+Sevastopol. So, in Sevastopol alone there were 450,467 voters. 1,274,096 voters in Crimea + 450,467 voters in Sevastopol = 1,724,563 voters that showed for the whole referendum in both locations. HTH, &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see False precision. A calculated value is never more accurate than the inputs it was calculated from. &mdash; Petr Matas 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The input in this case came from the Crimean Electoral Commissioner who gave a precise value, not an estimate. See the reference given above. This is basic arithmetic, covered by WP:CALC. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The excerpt above says that 1,274,096 people voted (this is a precise value) and that the turnout was 83.1%, which has an implied precision of three significant digits. The result is calculated from these two values. &mdash; Petr Matas 18:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I understand your concern, but that would be original research. You are assuming that the Crimean Electoral Commissioner gave a rounded/imprecise value regarding percentage. Your concern is reasonable but not backed up by sources. The only sources we have state that he simply said, "83.1%". So, we must assume it's just that, 83.1%—not 83.149999999%, or 83.05%, or any other value in between. See my point now? Unless you have a source that provides a different percentage your argument is speculative so we can responsibly use WP:CALC in our favor. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you now. However, a fractional number with one decimal place may be either precise or rounded. Without further information, we cannot rely on the number being precise. It would not be an error to say "there were approx. 1,533,000 total registered voters" if there were 1,533,208. But it would be bad to say "there were 1,533,208 voters" if there were for example 1,533,196. Furthermore, here it is clear from context, that the cited value is actually "turnout after rounding to one decimal digit". All such percentages are always rounded to some number of digits. &mdash; Petr Matas 20:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, given that the official's statement is true,
 * statement "turnout rounded to one decimal place was 83.1%" is certainly true.
 * statement "turnout was precisely 83.1%" may be true, but very likely it is not.
 * &mdash; Petr Matas 20:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Was a consensus reached? Can we remove the OR tag now? --Truther2012 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the tag for a few days to give it a chance for more people to chime in. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol registered voters count
The total registered voters count for Sevastopol is stated directly in the source, but it has the same issue as discussed above: It seems that it has been calculated by the following formula: 274,101 / 0.895 = 306,258. It is very unlikely that the actual count is exactly this value. &mdash; Petr Matas 22:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the same for the "Join the Russian Federation" vote count: 274,101 * 0.956 = 262,041 &mdash; Petr Matas 22:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Russian but I ran the source through Google translate and it seems they do provide the number of registered voters and number of people that actually voted in this sentence:




 * Can someone translate that for us? Let me summon @Seryo93 to see if he can help us translate that.


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: It seems that the source has been cited correctly, but I am challenging the source itself. &mdash; Petr Matas 23:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This source is official site of the Sevastopol city council. I think, it's a reliable primary source (official site of the city's representative body). Rough translation:
 * . Seryo93 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that my claim is an original research. It can be confirmed or falsified by the vote counts per voting district. Are they available anywhere? &mdash; Petr Matas 09:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Gallery
Regarding this revert, my understanding is that galleries like this are discouraged. Wouldn't these images be more useful if they were integrated into the article, with captions providing context? Also, with just two images in the "hover" gallery, they appear quite large, at least on my current screen and within my current browser. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to integrating them into the article. The images could be added next to the 'procedure' section as concerns about the box's transparency and how envelopes weren't used are mentioned there. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many images?
After agreeing with Another Believer  to integrate the gallery photos into the article I realized that there really isn't any room left. I recommend that the images in the background section be reduced in size, the video of Chubarov be removed because he's a somewhat marginal figure and its in Russian, and the image of Obama and Yatsenyuk be removed as its only loosely connected to the referendum. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Results for separate municipalities
Are the results for separate municipalities available? If so, could the referendum map be made so that different shades of color indicate different percentage ranges like in File:Egyptian constitutional referendum 2011.svg (perhaps using narrower ranges if necessary)? --188.252.130.227 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reason for not dispatching OSCE monitors
I disagree with Stephen J Sharpe's removal of the reason for not dispatching OSCE monitors. It IS supported by the source, which says:

which translates to

&mdash; Petr Matas 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I thought I read through that whole article but I guess I missed that. If aktualne.cz is reliable then I don't think you need to preface it with "Aktuálně.cz claimed". I'll look for better sources as well. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. :) It's one of the newspapers frequently appearing at Google News. Is it enough? &mdash; Petr Matas 17:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. After reading so many imperfectly translated foreign news media my eyes tend to glaze over material. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Constitution of Crimea
Should the article on Constitution of Crimea be modified? MaynardClark (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that option 2 didn't succeed, they didn't adopt a new constitution but the old constitution can't really apply in every respect anymore either. Whatever the case, this shouldn't really be discussed here. Please keep discussion over at Talk:Constitution of Crimea Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Reports on legitimacy and lawfulness

 * I do not agree with 85.140.221.30 and 124.248.205.109's edit of reports on legitimacy and lawfulness, as it is not supported by the source. &mdash; Petr Matas 08:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that before you try to edit this article, you should know that the majority of the Crimeas population are Russians. I read smth about cabines for voting upper, it's false, because there was everything that should be on such events as referendum, moreover, each editor is already agree, that there no violencences or illegal actions during it. You could find smth illegal if enemy forces intruded the peninsula and made everyone recognize it as a part of Russian territory (like the US did with Mexico or Spanish colonies in the Pacific ocean), thats what we can call illegal actions and occupation. but in Crimea everything was legal, legitimate and necessary for Crimean people. Read and look reports from Crimea and opinion of the voters, and you will understand. You better study Your Own history before teach someone else how to call such main events for people (even a strange for you).
 * PS and also read the 2nd chapter of the UN regulations. You may learn smth new about politics and laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.205.109 (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the election was fair, but its legitimacy and legality is disputed. For example, the observer Stanislav Berkovec said that he cannot asses it legislatively. &mdash; Petr Matas 12:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The referendum observers are not legal scholars, their statements are relevant only insofar as they relate to voting conduct. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the section "Reports" where it says: "The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered", a recent an edit by 85.140.218.205 added that the observers found it legitimate. Since this was taken from the same source, how come the edit was reverted? After all, all it will say is these particular observers found it legitimate. I don't think that should be a problem. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just checked, seems like there is a bit of a tug of war happening with this particular line between 85.140.218.205 and Stephen J Sharpe. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 85.140.218.205 has agreed to discuss the matter on the talk page so I think we can resolve this. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And also, if you are so stubborn about it, show me according to which documents its illegal? I didnt see, but I know, that any people anyway have right for self-determination. And you cant argue that its illegal, cause this is false. As it was said before, read the UN rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.205.109 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the of those, who won't hide the truth and belittle the importance of that event for the Crimean people (though I'm not from there, but I've been there recently). And in my editing I dont lie (and other editors agreed with it, as you can see in previous talk). Nothing personal, but Nato's countries mass media are often distorting information with their subjective points of view :) (If its matter, I read american, british, deutsch and russian newpapers and magazines)
 * I added a bit from an EODE statement reporting that referendum was conducted freely and fairly. I'm opposed to including any reference of legal legitimacy because the EODE is not an authority on international or Ukrainian law. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * RA0808 reverted this edit describing it in the edit summary as 'subjective'. I don't argue it isn't 'subjective' but the edit clearly attributed the claim 'freely and fairly' to the EODE which is relevant because they were observing the referendum. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize if it seems I was complicating things, but the way the statement was written did not seem to attribute the claim to EODE but stated it as if it were objective fact. As you stated yourself: EODE is not an authority on international or Ukrainian law (in fact they are a group led by a Belgian far-right activist), so any claims that they make should carry a caveat to that respect. I think that is better addressed further down in the article where there is space to articulate the precise leanings and biases of the various bodies and nations piping in on this referendum. RA 0808  talkcontribs 22:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to say, whether the referendum was illegal - that would be original research. Next, I agree that a monitor's opinion on legality is irrelevant unless he is a legal scholar. But I'm not sure that it is ok to insist on not including such well-sourced opinion. Anyway, it is definitely not true, that ALL observers found it legal (see Berkovec above...). &mdash; Petr Matas 22:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see it wasn't directly attributed to EODE but to the 135 observers. That was an oversight. Also, I assumed that all the observers were working through the EODE mission but that might not be true. How about we phrase it:"The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered. The Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE) observer mission concluded that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly." Also I did not say 'any claims that they make should carry a caveat' but just argued that legal claims by the EODE aren't relevant because they aren't a legal authority. Concerns about observer credibility have been discussed under Bias Concerns. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I going to be BOLD and add my proposed solution but if anyone still has a problem with it please revert and discuss your concerns on the talk page. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to attribute the freedom and fairness to EODE? How about something like this? The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered, concluding that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly. &mdash; Petr Matas 04:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making the same assumption I did - that all the observers were working through the EODE mission but none of our sources explicitly say so (that I could find). Therefore, the statement has to be directly attributed to the EODE. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * RT said it was fair as well, without refering to EODE. &mdash; Petr Matas 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the passage you're referring to please? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I messed it up. I meant free in qoutes of Stadler, Baborats, and Radoychich. &mdash; Petr Matas 06:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Stadler, Baborats, and Radoychich are just individual observers. Given the statement of the EODE, concluding the referendum was free and fair, it would be undue weight to quote individual observers from the EODE declaring the same thing. If there was an observer who reported a dissenting opinion, that might be notable. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing Chubarov video
I recommend the video of Chubarov be removed primarily because it's in Russian but also because he's a somewhat marginal figure. The caption reads, "Refat Chubarov, leader of Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, commented decision of Supreme Council of Crimea" which gives no indication of what he's actually saying. If the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People were the representatives of the Tatar people then perhaps it would be warranted but they're just an unofficial political association of Crimean Tatars as the article says. All things considered, and given the already large number of images in the article, I think it should be removed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove as it's not in English. &mdash; Petr Matas 06:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nature of the Vote
I don't see the conceptual or operational distinction between simple majority vs. First-past-the-post voting, the (FPTP or FPP) voting systems. Several online explanations equate the two. That is, I appreciate subtle nuances, but I hardly think that such quibbles (unless spelled out coherently for all us simpler-minds to appreciate) warrant or justify 'an undo war' or 'a war of undoing'! Wikipedia has a number of articles on these voting systems: MaynardClark (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple majority voting. A simple majority simply means more than half the votes cast. However, since very few candidates in FPTP elections with more than two candidates achieve this, majority should be read to mean 'relative majority', rather than 'absolute majority'.
 * Plurality voting. Another name for simple majority.
 * Furthest past the post. Recognising that the candidate with the most votes almost never has more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, some people have suggested that thinking of the post as a starting point rather than a finishing point is more sensible and thus that 'Furthest past the post' is a more accurate name.
 * Winner-takes-all, because the winner does, take all.
 * Majority rule
 * First-past-the-post voting
 * proportional representation
 * plurality voting
 * Single Transferable Vote


 * Let's use simple majority, as many more readers are going to understand that. &mdash; Petr Matas 10:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-secret votes, semitransparent voting booths
(Copied from User talk:Stephen J Sharpe so that others can join discussion)

[..] I do not understand your reason for reverting my edit. What I meant was that some votes were already visible before putting the ballot into the box, since some people did not fold their ballots so that their vote was readily visible to bystanders (as shown in several of the images of the Mashable source). This has little to do with the transparent boxes, but I think it's an important fact to add that secret voting was only optional, since it (unlike the boxes) contradicts democratic standards as I know them. (Also, the voting cabins were semi-transparent, apparently, further reducing secrecy.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If voting cabins were semi-transparent that should be added, no question. If some people did not fold their ballots that is their own choice. If envelopes had been available and some voters just chose not to use them it wouldn't be notable either. It sounded like the edit was belabouring the point. On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to an edit that noted how the ballot boxes were visible to bystanders during voting if that can be sourced. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my edit wasn't clear. Semi-transparent cabins are shown in the Mashable images at two of the three polling stations shown (the third seems to have nontransparent ones). FWIW, I don't agree that "if some people did not fold their ballots that is their own choice". It can put significant societal pressure on any dissenters to "prove" they voted the "right" way; e.g. in the GDR people were "expected" not to use the voting cabins, thereby removing the secrecy of the vote. At least in Germany, it IS forbidden to show your vote to anyone; I would have thought this was common in democratic countries. (But maybe we should discuss this at the article talk page...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In Czech Republic (my country), you will not be allowed to vote if you don't use a cabin, and a ballot, which is not in the official pre-stamped envelope, is invalid. (It would be nice to move this entire discussion to the article's talk page.) &mdash; Petr Matas 20:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you guys are getting at. In Canada things are a bit more relaxed but thats probably because we have a less . . . interesting . . . political history. Even so, without a source that reports on concerns of 'societal pressure' as a result of the voting procedure/environment it is original research on our part to speculate about how Crimean voters might have felt. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand that in an "unendangered" democracy this enforcement may seem unnecessary; so showing your marked ballot is allowed/tolerated in Canada?
 * I don't want to add the "pressure" part to the article without a source, only the fact that several people voted openly, for which we have a (photographic) source. People can draw their own conclusions from this fact, which may be as different as ours here... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that voting without envelopes and with transparent boxes is the standard procedure in Ukraine, as can be seen from 2010 elections photos. 2010 elections were declared fair and an "impressive display" of democracy by OSCE. 130.132.173.148 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(End copy) Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The actions of 5-10 Crimean voters - or however many we have photographic evidence of - does not really matter next to the total 1,524,563 voters. You might say it's indicative of a greater trend (and that's probably true) but I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia making that argument on its own. That is where we need a source. That said, I'm not strongly opposed and I won't revert if the edit is made. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point; but we also use the images of a few transparent boxes as a reference for transparent boxes in general in this article... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable that other transparent boxes were used in polling stations throughout Crimea although I'll add some sources that explicitly say so. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reactions section split proposal
There is a template in the "Reactions" section of the article to split those reactions into a separate article (with discussion of the proposed move on the talk page). However, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on this subject on this talk page or in its archives. Was there a discussion, or was that template added and never discussed? RocioNadat 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It has not been discussed yet. I added the template because the section is very long and consists mainly of a list. A would prefer to keep just a summary here. &mdash; Petr Matas 02:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Only summary here is ok. I think the split proposal is good because there are many reactions to referendum. The splitted article for example can be build up by chapters "Reactions before referendum" and "Reactions after referendum".

Wrong interpretation of a poll
I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I am starting this thread to discuss how to fix an apparently wrong interpretation of the poll conducted in February 2014 by KIIS:

"A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 67% wanted to remain in Ukraine and 23% wanted unity with Russia.[39] By early February 2014, just days before the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych, support had risen to 41% in a subsequent KIIS poll.[40][41]"

The question in the IRI [39] poll was: "In your opinion, what should the status of Crimea be?" But, according to the primary source [40], the question in the KIIS poll was "Ukraine and Russia must unite into a single state". These questions are not equivalent. Clearly, only a subset of people who would want just Crimea to be united with Russia answer "yes" to the second question. Therefore, the result of the KIIS poll underestimates the support for Crimea to be united with Russia. Second, I don't see why is there [41] a link to a secondary source, which already misinterprets the poll result. Gootcha (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed., thanks for your observation and don't hesitate to change my modification if you can improve it further. &mdash; Petr Matas 14:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Image error
the "Linguistic map of Ukraine according to the 2001 census" says "Chernobyl diaster". Should say "Chernobyl disaster" Ultrabutter (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. &mdash; Petr Matas 15:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimean referendum, 2014 → Crimean status referendum, 2014 – All Wester's objections have been dissolved. &mdash; Petr Matas 07:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is in line with other similar referendums, such as Saar status referendum, 1935, Puerto Rican status referendum, 1998, Mahoran status referendum, 1976, Bonaire status referendum, 2004 and so on (there are plenty more). Number   5  7  21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no standard naming convention for similar referendums. Consider Quebec referendum, 1980 and Quebec referendum, 1995 which likewise included an option that was not outright independence but would have resulted in increased autonomy and possibly lead to succession. Also consider Kosovan independence referendum, 1991, North Kosovo referendum, 2012, Montenegrin independence referendum, 1992, Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006 and others. As there is no standard naming convention, we should consider WP:COMMONNAME which states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". It's my experience that the referendum is usually referred to simply as 'the Crimea referendum' in the media. Of course, we have to include the year. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a standard naming convention for referendums - "Demonym subject, year", which is applied to the vast majority of articles (I have 997 on my watchlist, and a quick review confirms this is the case; the main exception is where there is more than one topic or where the subject is difficult to define succinctly). The Quebec articles are examples of ones that need a rename too. Number   5  7  22:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Considering what Number   5  7  has said above, I now agree with the move. I'll make the same move request over at Quebec referendum, 1980 and Quebec referendum, 1995. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by the discontent on the two Quebec referendum talkpages, I think we should hear from others (Ukrainians and Russians) before making this move. -- Kndimov (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Improves recognizability while remaining concise. Better for readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverts
Can i remind all users to stop edit warring and reach a consensus before making any further changes or reverts. There is no excuse for slow edit warring whether or not your breaking WP:3RR, its exactly the same and not justifiable. You should also remember that the page is under Discretionary sanctions as clearly listed at the top of this page. Please take time to think about this before continuing. Blethering  Scot  21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014
An unidentified US official was claimed to have stated there was "concrete evidence" of some ballots having been pre-marked. Such claims were rejected by referendum observers who went on record to verify that the referendum followed all international standards and was legitimate.

CanadianProfessional (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC) The text that should be replaced is the following: "A senior US official stated there was "concrete evidence" of some ballots having been pre-marked. ". The text should be modified because (1) I read the reference and it states exactly that the US official source is not identified. I believe the same should be conveyed in the Wikipedia. (2) I believe the view of the observers who were present at the referendum and who are not afraid to give their name (and thus support their claims) should also be indicated. When the person states something without giving their name or source, especially if the source cannot be confirmed I am suspicious of how true the source actually is. Please consider and make the modification I requested. Thanks.

As stated above, to include info on these "observers", WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT would require that we provide detailed information on the links to far-right and neo-Nazi affiliations of many of these observers. You can't just say "there were observers and they said it was legitimate" without explaining who these guys actually were. Likewise, including prominently the opinion of one far-right politician (again, without explaining that he's WP:FRINGE) also violates Wikipedia's policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the ref does NOT say "unidentified senior official". It says "senior official". Adding "unidentified" in there because you don't know who s/he was is original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - The article is no longer protected. You can make changes yourself. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

PACE resolution
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution about Crimea crisis and referendum yesterday. I guess it must be written about it here in aricle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.76.1.22 (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.interfax.ru/world/371038 Donetsk will be the next. Funny, when I was writing this, the capthca was "aromatrue"
 * *from Yalta with love* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.28.148.60 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)