Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum/Archive 4

Timothy Snyder's claim
I think that the Timothy Snyder's claim "Moscow sent an invitation to parties of the European far right, and found politicians willing to serve as 'observers.'" should be removed. We can present it neither as a fact, because it is an opinion, nor as an attributed claim, because an opinion of a single historian is not notable. Furthermore, his article is biased: &mdash; Petr Matas 07:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Only polls showing low support for joining Russia in Crimea (33 and 23 percent) are presented.
 * The falsified allegation of a 123 percent turnout in Sevastopol is presented as a fact.
 * he's an expert and there's no reason to doubt him. he's not the only scholar who has reported on this --Львівське (говорити) 14:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the notes above demonstrating poor quality of the article? &mdash; Petr Matas 04:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your dispute is with "Moscow sent an invitation to parties of the European far right" - this is widely documented, so how is it his "opinion"? --Львівське (говорити) 04:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I dispute other claims from the article to show that it is not a reliable source for "Moscow sent...". Also note that the article is a quick reaction to an event – it has been published the same day that the official results have been announced. How much research could have been done to that time? We need a secondary source to back up such claim. &mdash; Petr Matas 05:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he's an expert, but his opinions are VERY biased and sometimes misleading. "Peaceful protesters" a-/were so peaceful... And again, 123% issue. IMO, if we won't inisist on scare quotes, we may replace direct quote with following: "According to Timothy Snyder, people invited as observers by referendum organizers were invited by the Russian government from among European far-right parties and other willing politicians[ref goes here]'." Isn't this a good compromise? Seryo93 (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is better, but still I would prefer a statement backed up by a secondary source, see my comment from 05:34 UTC above. &mdash; Petr Matas 05:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about putting it to the end like this? &mdash; Petr Matas 06:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm support that solution. Seryo93 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the 's "According to" wording. I think that "even claims" is better to suggest the dubious reliability of the source. &mdash; Petr Matas 08:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be a POV interpretation, to try to make a source look dubious by weasel words. --Львівське (говорити) 08:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:WEASEL, but rather WP:ALLEGED and WP:EDITORIALIZING. In this case, I think that it is approproiate, because the source is dubious, and therefore not POV. &mdash; Petr Matas 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * outside of you calling the source dubious, explain why its dubious. The publication itself is a reliable source, and he as a well known scholar and expert in this region is obviously a great source. What is dubious here? --Львівське (говорити) 07:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained "why" above. "Peaceful protesters". Peaceful Molotov by peaceful protesters is a really peaceful way to achieve political goals, don't you think? Seryo93 (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problems with the "rewrite" of Snyder are 1) the words "even claimed" which appear to be a way to tag his statement as something outlandish - this is definitely a type of POV weaseling, and 2) rephrasing it to "European far-right parties and other willing politicians" which misrepresents Snyder. Snyder is saying these guys were far right AND willing. The rewording tries to make it seem like the observers were a group of far right guys AND some non-far-right guys who were just "willing". Two different meanings. Stick to the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to "European far-right parties and willing politicians". "Even claimed" could be replaced by "reported". Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "even" may suggest that his opinion is outlandish, for which we don't have a source. In that case I think that only "claimed" is appropriate, not "reported", given the article dubiousness. However, without "even", the notability issue arises again. In that case I suggest to drop Snyder completely and report on the opinion of the dissenting Russian presidential council member instead. Petr Matas 08:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your logic. Putting in "even" is OR which is not supported by a source. Hence we should not include the "even" and even drop the source (Snyder) entirely. ???. How does the conclusion follow from the premise? All you need to do here is not to include the "even" and stick to what the source (Snyder) actually says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "even" suggests also low notability, so it could permit inclusion of an insufficiently notable fact. That was just to explain the logic; let's leave the Snyder's notability aside and think how to report on this notable opinion held by many people. Petr Matas 17:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Add: generally I'm against using direct quotes, since I think writing an encyclopedia involves competently paraphrasing the sources. However, in this particular case, given ... the controversy ... about how to relate what Snyder (yes, an expert in the topic area) is saying, it's probably best just to stick with the quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but the problem is, that an opinion of a single historian is not notable. We need a secondary source based on multiple primary sources. Or maybe "Some scholars and politicians including Timothy Snyder[ref], ...[ref], and ...[ref] claim ...". It would be a little bit of WP:SYNTH, but still better than Snyder alone. Petr Matas 08:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When the historian is Timothy Snyder then yes, that opinion is notable. That is a secondary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but never mind, let's make the synthesis. Petr Matas 20:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Synthesis isn't necessary. Snyder's quote as it is in article is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that I am the only one to have problems with "according to" and I agree to use it. But still, let's put the paraphrase to the end of the section, as an example of the more radical points of view. Petr Matas 05:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you concluding that Snyder's view - the view of a professional historian and expert on the region - is a "radical point of view"? The quote actually should be at beginning as it serves to introduce the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any evidence that Russia invited them yet. Yes, Russia-based EODE invited at least some of them, but that is not Russia. And then there are the disproved claims in the article. The opposition to the Russian presentation should be started with "Objectivity was questioned," continued with explanation of why, and conluded with Walker and Snyder. Petr Matas 06:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So your basis for concluding that Snyder's view is a "radical point of view" is your own personal evaluation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. One can find sources for almost anything on such a popular and controversial topic. Therefore we must choose which viewpoints we will present and how. Note that we are not going to state anything from this evaluation in the article, however it is important for decision how the information will be presented, in this case which order the objectivity objections should be presented in. I suggest: There are objections, then supporting facts, and finally opinions. Petr Matas 03:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this isn't just any source - despite the fact that you're trying to sound like it is. It's a Harvard historian and an expert in the history and politics of the region. That sort of trumps the evaluation of Wikipedia editor Petr Matas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that we won't agree on his notability, but maybe that is not necessary. Please comment also on my objectivity objection ordering proposal just above. Petr Matas 11:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that Snyder's claim can be easily disproved: Many of the observers did not belong to far-right parties, including Berkovec, Soušek and Šarapatka. Petr Matas 12:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are disproving (original research) a strawman. Snyder does not say that every single of these observers was from far-right parties, just that "Moscow sent an invitation to European parties of the far right". He is not saying "every person in the list in the Wikipedia article is from the far-right" (although actually *almost* all are).
 * In terms of your ordering I'm having a hard time seeing it. Which ones are "objections", which ones are "supporting fact" and which ones are "opinions"? For example the statement "there were XX numbers of international observers" is NOT really a fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll fix it. Objections mean "objectivity has been questioned," supporting facts are "some were from far-right," and opinions are Walker and Snyder. Petr Matas 22:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian presentation of the observers
I disagree with removal of thorough description of the observers by the Russian side, because: &mdash; Petr Matas 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It is balanced with an extensive discussion of their non-reliability, which makes up the rest of the section (4 paragraphs)
 * 2) The difference between two reports on the number of international observers (70 and 135) may suggest that it has been manipulated with
 * 3) The observers' findings need to be included, even though they are unreliable


 * Basically, we need to avoid saying the same thing twice. If you can combine these two paragraphs into one coherent whole then it can go back in. We need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to views which are not backed by reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the repeated expression "from 23 countries" is ugly. I suggest deleting its first instance. Otherwise, the Russian view already was a single paragraph and I think that it was coherent. &mdash; Petr Matas 15:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problems. Why did you remove everything again? I think that you could be more cooperative. Petr Matas 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something but I fail to see how you "fixed the problem". In your version we first have the official Russian claim, sourced to RT News. We then have Mikhail Malyshev making a similar claim (with some different details), also sourced to RT News. These are presented as fact at the top of the section. We then have "RT News informed that the observers did not report any violations.", sourced, again, of course to RT News.
 * What's going on here is that the section is introduced by trying to beat the reader over the head that there were "observers" and then all the info about who these "observers" actually were - a bunch of sketchy politicians from far-right and neo-Nazi parties - is pushed down to the end of the section as far as possible. This is POV pushing and giving UNDUE weight to FRINGE views although it's done in a bit of a sneaky manner.
 * And that's exactly why 1) the intro sentence or two, where the "observers" are mentioned should be kept succinct and 2) the "However, concerns have been raised..." part needs to follow immediately after all this trumpeting of the presence of these "observers".
 * The real story here is actually not that "observers" were present but exactly who these observers were. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you are becoming constructive. I think that we can find a common point. Lets say in one sentence that there were observers, but objectioned. Then give all the details by Russian side and after that all the objections. Ok? Petr Matas 07:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a proposed wording here on talk? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes: "Russian state-owned media informed on many international observers, whose objectivity has been questioned however."
 * But isn't it easier to edit the article immediately and then discuss what is wrong and how to fix it, instead of reverting? That is called consensus finding through editing and discussion. Petr Matas 07:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

After rethinking the inclusion of the two different numbers (70 vs. 135), its sole purpose is to suggest that there is a possible discrepancy between different Russian reports. Although it is not stated explicitly, the reader will probably perceive it as such (the goal was to make someone look deeper into it), but such statement is an original research. I would like to hear on it from and. Petr Matas 13:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for "Russian presentation" Seryo93 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Russian state-owned media and referendum organizers claimed that from 70 to 135  observers monitored referendum, claiming no violations, but objectivity of these has been questioned, because many of them had far-right ties.
 * Nice solution. Petr Matas 22:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that too, just that it should end in "many of them had ties to far-right groups". "Far-right ties" is not grammatically correct and makes it sound like they were wearing ties with the swastikas or bundles of sticks on'em. Which would be a big social faux-pas and all, but that's not what we mean here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the current intro sentence of the section is sufficiently balanced and concise to be eligible for inclusion into the lead. Petr Matas 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. I'd change "claiming" to "reporting" as that sounds more appropriate. Also I removed "mission leader Mateusz Piskorski, who is a far-right activist and antisemite" because I didn't think the source, a Czech op-ed, was sufficient sourcing for a claim of being an anti-semitic. Glad to see you guys still maintaining the article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Just to be clear I meant "claiming no violations" should be changed to "reporting no violations". Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There were actually other sources provided somewhere for Mateusz Piskorski but they may not have been included in the article. The guy's sort of notorious for this stuff and sources can be provided. If these are provided, can that go back in? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also - wasn't there domestic observers as well? That seems logical but I'll try to find sources for that. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Malyshev reporting on local observers is cited in the section. Good to see you back. Petr Matas 23:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ah, I see. If we can find a source about any reports from the local observers, I think we should include that in the lead too. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure the concerns about objectivity are sufficiently sourced to be in the lead. From WP:LEAD, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." but our sources are two op-eds, only one of which mentions far-right affiliations when talking about the EODE leader. With better sources I would support it's inclusion in the lead. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Right now there isn't anything in the lede about the observers, I think (trying to keep up with the different versions). It used to say "The OSCE election monitoring mission was not dispatched.", which was short and to the point, without going into all the EODE, far-right, related controversy, but somewhere it got removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that this alone would be quite incomplete and thus misleading, as the observer mission controversy is far more important. Petr Matas 00:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

EODE
I think that the extensive discussion of EODE is no more necessary as their non-notable report has been removed from the article. I propose keeping only the statement that some observers were from the far-right EODE. Petr Matas 23:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Their presence there is notable, and they were the major organization that "observed". Their ties to the far right are obviously notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree about their ties and I do not suggest to leave them out completely. It is only useless to document them, because reader can find that info in the corresponding article.
 * Concerning "the major organization that observed", we do not have a source for that. Petr Matas 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Leave them out completely ... I hope you mean out of the lede, which we can discuss (I have to think about that a bit). If you mean leave them out completely out of the article, then obviously, no.
 * "Major organization" as in the only organization that is discussed by reliable sources. Maybe the only organization.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Republican Institute of Sociological Research
what the hey is it? Is it the same as International Republican Institute? Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. They're the regional opinion polling agency (compare with VTSIOM or Levada Center) Seryo93 (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Presidential council report
Hello! English isn't my native language, so I can't edit articles. Official Russian Council for Civil Society and Human Rights stated that voter turnout in the referendum was only 30–50 percent. Direct link - http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php Citation - подавляющее большинство жителей Севастополя проголосовали на референдуме за присоединение к России (явка 50-80 %), в Крыму по разным данным за присоединение к России проголосовали 50-60 % избирателей при общей явке в 30-50 %. Please add this info to the article and make an archive copy. Name13$_0ne (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a very strange document. It says two people went to Crimea for a couple of days and prepared the report. It says the estimations are based solely on the opinions of some unnamed "specialists" and common people (on the street?), so these are basically rumours. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that a Russian government commission (!) disputes the official figures is notable enough to be included in the article IMO. It's also reported internationally, e.g. in the German weekly newspaper Zeit. Just because they don't name the specialists in the short report doesn't reduce their estimates to rumours. However, the 30-50% turnout seems to refer only to Crimea proper, i.e. excluding Sevastopol, which has 50-80% turnout according to the source. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it on several Ukrainian outlets as well --Львівське (говорити) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you prove that it is from an official governmental commision? &mdash; Petr Matas 05:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can go to official Kremlin website (http://state.kremlin.ru/council) and click on the fourth link (named Совет по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека) (screenshot - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MD3naVi_R6YlpPUDNVLWZmOVU/edit?usp=sharing). It will redirect you to domain. Name13$_0ne (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't from a governmental commission. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's from a dissenting member of the governmental commission. Petr Matas 20:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * forbes now has info on it --Львівське (говорити) 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This articles journalists is disgusting criminal. I wish every person they will meet in their dirty life will lie to them in the same way (if they were not forced to do it). No one link from sources prove that silly info/ Cathry (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Львівське (говорити) 03:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Many people do not like many crimes Cathry (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What crimes? What are you talking about now? --Львівське (говорити) 03:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Very interesting article. I'm keen on seeing whether anyone is able to disprove it plausibly. &mdash; Petr Matas 05:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, they don't revealed how representative this poll was (unlike GFK and UNDP, for example, where both posted their sample sizes - 600 and 1200 respectievly). Seryo93 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And moreover, some other points:
 * a) Forbes article again repeats biased 'referendum under Kalashnikov' point, implying that voters were pressured - but this contradicts earlier independent report that "majority of Russian-speakers in Crimea really wanted, and there was little need for Kalashnikovs in the streets". The only Russian military action during referendum was "maintaining order" (i.e. just guarding), but not 'forcing voters' out from their homes under gun to go to a voting box.
 * b) Gannushkina is from opposition camp and vocal opponent of president (signed Putin must go open letter). Add this to "unknown sample sizes" point (whom these three people asked? Dzhemilev and company maybe? Kiev Patriarchate?) - and this returns strong suspection, that these 'Presidential council reporters' were probably "produced" (i.e *fabricated* with intent to discredit referendum, also consider Gannushkina remarks on Ukr. 24 TV channel). Had report been true information (not fabrication), it would have some backing data (such as "sample sizes"), to defend itself against falsification accusations - especially considered how quickly such controversies arise when related to Crimean referendum. Don't have any backing? No plausibility, sorry.
 * c) even when assuming, that report was representative and correct, we get another issue: big gap between turnout. 50-80 turnout in Sevastopol? 30% (!) gap without reporting on which districts turnout was 50%. One small city under jurisdiction of Sevastopol may had low turnout and it was written as low estimate of entire Sevastopol voting. Nice job, "opinion pollers"!
 * d) report is controversial in other details. It complains about persecution of Hizb ut-Tahrir - but well, isn't this organization banned in Russia? This is law enforcement - and this is like complaining, that "thieves are persecuted by police"
 * e) "жители Крыма голосовали не столько за присоединение к России, сколько за прекращение, по их словам, «коррупционного беспредела и воровского засилья донецких ставленников»". Really, Crimea opposed Yanukovich? But broke out of Ukraine only after VY was overthrown? Without much resistance? Nice, nice...
 * f) only one of reporters was from the Council itself, neither he was tasked by the Council to gather report on behalf of Council. So, we arrived to a conclusion: It wasn't report of a Council, it was report of one of its members and his two associates. Council often posts dissenting opinions, but that doesn't made them official commentaries of the Council.
 * In the end, it makes result not more plausible or reliable than Dzhemilev remarks. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work! Petr Matas 11:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * cmt to my sentence above ("it makes result not more..."): by result I meant those "presidential council reports about fraud". Seryo93 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Highly recommended: Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * :-D This entire section is about that. Petr Matas 21:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "with a turnout of 30-50%," suggesting that only 15-30% of Crimeans " That's absolute nonsense. Every election is like that, we always give percentage from those who voted and people who didn't vote aren't included.You can likewise state that in 2012 Obama didn't receive over 50% of votes, because only a part of people eligible to vote casted their votes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It probably is true that "every election is like that" but it's precisely that every election is like that, yet in this election the official claim was something like 80% turnout that illustrates the point. 80% turnouts are basically nonsense, wherever these are claimed. And that's all that the source is saying. In other words, you're basically agreeing with the assessment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Both UK and USA had several elections where turnout was higher than 80%:

  Last Presidential elections in France in 2012 had higher turnout than 80% as well--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This "report" was already addressed (see my lengthy post above). In short: it's neither commission report nor more reliable than Dzhemilev claims. Nothing new :). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Voter turnout is always based on registered voters, your math is wrong, the article is correct. --Львівське (говорити) 06:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear colleague, please read report text:

По мнению практически всех опрошенных специалистов и граждан:

- подавляющее большинство жителей Севастополя проголосовали на референдуме за присоединение к России (явка 50-80 %), в Крыму по разным данным за присоединение к России проголосовали 50-60 % избирателей при общей явке в 30-50 %; Seryo93 (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 50-80 means "from 50 to 80". Somewhere turnout was (according to 'report') 50, somewhere 80. It won't prevents *hypotethical* situation, when low turnout was reached in rare instances but still written to report.
 * We don't know how representative polling was (note word "опрошенных") and which specialists they asked. Formula "с должностными лицами органов государственной власти, духовенства, журналистами, общественными деятелями, адвокатами, правозащитниками и гражданами" is very vague (both sides claim such, but how about sample sizes and/or "имена, пароли, явки" (c). Whom they asked?)
 * "обзор подготовлен членом Совета Бобровым Е.А., руководителем сети «Миграция и право» ПЦ «Мемориал» С.А. Ганнушкиной и адвокатом Сети Цейтлиной О.П". It was not report of the Council, but report of one of its members, assisted by two Memorial members.
 * They complain about persecution of banned organization. Can we complain that US persecutes al-Quaeda, for example? Law enforcement is law enforcement.
 * Referendum at gunpoint? BBC won't agree with you (see above). And same gunpoint argument can be applied to 2014 presidential elections (elections in state of emergency and without turnout threshold, very nice and democratic way) and to all elections in US-occupied Iraq (2003-2011 period).
 * "жители Крыма голосовали не столько за присоединение к России, сколько за прекращение, по их словам, «коррупционного беспредела и воровского засилья донецких ставленников». Жители же Севастополя голосовали именно за присоединение к России. Опасения перед незаконными вооруженными формированиями в Севастополе были больше, чем в других районах Крыма. ". O, really... Why Crimea won't supported revolution then? Why secession from post-Yanukovich Ukraine wasn't meet with much resistance (or attempts of) from majority of population? Maybe they broke from centralized unitary Ukraine in general, not just from Yanukovich regime?

Guys, quit it with the original research. Stick to what the source says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Although in my eyes, the article conclusions are nonsenses, I suggest that we make a clear attribution to the dissenting council member. I think that his opinion is quite notable. Petr Matas 08:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

By your last edit you claim that the English version of the report is still in its place. Where is it then? Petr Matas 17:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There was never an English version, this is a made up misinterpretation of a blog post. Shii (tock) 18:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, AFAIK Russians usually publish in Russian only. Petr Matas 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear colleague, don't you think, that English sources misrepresent (either by an accident or deliberately - I don't care about that) the original source? I can read Russian text and I can confirm: it was report by Council member (namely by Evgeny Aleksandrovich Bobrov), not by the Council itself. And council itself has confirmed, that "В связи с многочисленными ссылками СМИ на обзор "Проблемы жителей Крыма" как на официальный документ Совета при Президенте РФ по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека, выражающий оценку Советом крымского референдума, разъясняем, что он таковым не является.". Pretty what I said in thread above. I'm not opposed to it's inclusion, but we must attribute this document correctly, to avoid misleading our readers. Likewise, I'm not opposed to Snyder inclusion ("according to" is pretty correct attribution, IMO). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Copied from by Petr Matas 05:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove the attribution to Bobrov, unless you convince other editors that your version is right. Also, you did not respond to 's comment above. Petr Matas 16:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that it's being attributed, the problem is that a secondary source is being removed and replaced by somebody's OR based on a primary source. Which is what I said to Seryo93 when I replied to him on my talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Which statement is OR based on primary source? Petr Matas 17:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The primary source being used is
 * The statement being inserted based on an interpretation of that source is "One member of the council, Yevgeny Bobrov, reported the opinion that..."
 * The secondary source being removed is
 * The statement properly sourced to the secondary source is: "suggesting that only 15-30% of Crimeans actually voted for annexation."
 * The relevant background here is that the report appeared, then was taken down.
 * Text based on primary sources is considered original research. We use secondary sources.
 * Please self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:OR:
 * In my eyes the attribution to Bobrov can be easily verified and does not violate the policy. Also note that the Council stated that the report was not an official position of the Council. Maybe the attribution wording can be improved, you're welcome to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with that and others will review it.
 * The same applies to the report being taken down, it is easy to verify that it is not true.
 * It is not customary (at least not in this article) to refer on support as a percentage of all registered voters. See also WP:Verifiability. Petr Matas 01:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if all that were true, why is a secondary source being removed? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the claim it supports is being removed. Maybe we could keep the source just after the council report itself. Petr Matas 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Ok then. Why is the claim it supports being removed??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The expression "only 15-30% of Crimeans actually voted" reports on a percentage of all registered voters. Our Wikipedia article does not discuss the results as a percentage of all registered voters (except the editor-calculated columns in the results tables), so there is no reason to do so here. Petr Matas 05:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC). Update: Petr Matas 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. In fact it makes so little sense that I don't even know how to respond.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? Petr Matas 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All sources about the presidential council report

 * http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php
 * Google translate English version of the official page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-05/ukraine-putin-wahlfaelschung?google_editors_picks=true
 * I've seen it on several Ukrainian outlets as well --Львівське (говорити) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * forbes now has info on it --Львівське (говорити) 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/06/russian-government-agency-reveals-fraudulent-nature-of-the-crimean-referendum-results/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.87.25 (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of these sources the Zeit report is the only reliable secondary source, but it doesn't explain context very well. The report itself now has an update (in bold) that explains more clearly where the information came from. Shii (tock) 18:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Both Forbes and Washington Post are also reliable secondary sources and do go into some detail.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Look closer, both the Forbes and WaPo sources are not reliable newspaper sources but questionable blogs (WP:NEWSBLOG) Shii (tock) 20:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Newsblogs they may be, but "questionable" they are not. WP:NEWSBLOG does allow use of newsblogs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That policy says that blog-sourced information must be attributed to the writer. Petr Matas 06:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence normally I would say 'so attribute it' but it's not the only source for the info we have. Here's one more .Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Mateusz Piskorski
Sources:



(use google translate, but key words are self explanatory. Below more or less same thing in English)



Also     (not sure if this last one meets RS) Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, now it's sourced. Seryo93 (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's been removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering the fact that his criticism of events in Ukraine include statement "Today we accept Bandera tomorrow Hitler will be accepted" I have my doubts that he actually supports/praised Hitler as was claimed. — Added by 22:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC). Moved from a new section by Petr Matas 02:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's just him adjusting his rhetoric to that of the Kremlin. Putin says jump so he's jumping. Hitler used to be good but now that the propaganda line is that Ukraine was taken over by "fascists", Hitler is bad. Nothing really surprising there, Stalin also had some trouble making his mind up about Hitler.
 * It's not that hard to find info on the guy. I'm not about to link to neo-Nazi sites here but first-hand info, including some interviews where he rants about "NATO as a tool of Jewish imperialism" or where he talks about Neo-Nazi skinhead zines he published.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just him adjusting his rhetoric to that of the Kremlin. Putin says jump so he's jumping. If you would look at the linki, you would see that this is statement from 2009...So he was saying that long time before the conflict started.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just means he started jumping earlier, around the time of the Russian-Georgian war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As you have raised the concerns about inclusion of the Piskorski's neo-Nazi and antisemite views, I'd like to ask you to review these new sources. Petr Matas 04:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's also a reprint from Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's largest daily about Piskorski:

Some choice quotes (my translations):

"Piskorski wrote to the editor of the Polish nazi-skinhead bulletin "Salute" in which he expressed his disappointed over the arrest of the activists of the Polish version of the international neo-Nazi movement, Blood and Honor, who had been arrested for propagating fascist ideas"

"[Piskorski] bragged about his own achievements in the area of spreading "certain ideas": "The publisher Folk (of which Piskorski is one of the chiefs) is always expanding, and we've been able to build a certain reputation...." The letter is signed with a swastika"

""Wadera" is one of several publications issued by Piskorski's group since the mid 90's. It's cover is illustrated with an emblem of the Ku-Klux-Klan. The whole publication is filled with articles propagating neo-nazism, racism and antisemitism.". The rest of the paragraph is about Piskorski complaining, in an article entitled "Judeo-justice" about the sentencing of some nazi skinheads for their attack on an American (black) basketball player Martin Eggelson. The quote from Piskorski there is a bit too much to repeat here - it is extremely racist and contains encouragement to commit racist violence and hate crimes. And it's not an isolated quote, there's more like it.

"Odala (Piskorski's publication - VM) is illustrated with numerous, bold text font quotations from Adolf Hitler"

"Odala engages in Holocaust denial (in the article "There was no gas chambers")."

Anyway, there's plenty more. This isn't just some guy who once said something stupid or something. It's someone who has been at the fore front of neo-Nazis in Poland for two decades.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gazeta Wyborcza is hardly an authoritive source on this, considering the fact that it unquestionably supports Euromaidan movement and publishes news from Euromaidan twitter as facts. Based on the above the only thing that can sourced is that he published in Odela, but saying he engaged in Holocaust denial because somebody in Odala engaged in it is a long stretch. I already posted a link to his comments in 2009 where he speaks negatively about Hitler. Now, if he is supportive of Hitler and Nazism, where are his quotes and articles about it? I don't exclude the possibility that he is, but so far I only see very thin accusations from politically engaged sources.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you would look the link, you would see that that article is from 2006, long before Euromaidan so it's not GW hating on him because of his participation in the Crimean referendum. Also, I don't think GW publishes Euromaidan twitter as facts, just occasionally posts something like "Euromaidan Twitter reports that...".
 * As to Odala, well, I don't see any issues online. But given Poland's super strict libel laws I'm sure that if anything in the GW report was not true, there would've been a case. And saying he engaged in Holocaust denial because somebody in Odala engaged in it is not stretch, seeing as he was in charge of that publication. Sorry there's too much there to just dismiss.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gazeta Wyborcza has money he hasn't, probably useless to sue them. And where did you get the idea that Polish laws are "super strict". So the the bottom line is that we have no evidence of him ever supporting Hitler or Nazism, but Wyborcza claims so based on publications you can't check(but even they don't show any quotes supporting Hitler or Nazism). On the other hand we have clear, visible online criticism of Nazism and Hitler from 2006, which is disregarded because "I bet Putin told him to think that". Right...

Anyway even Wyborcza acknwoledged that any activity in newspapers connected to skinhead movement date back to early 90s and were "mistakes of the youth", he is basically a neopogan panslavist nowMyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, what we have here is a reliable secondary source laying out his associations with neo Nazi skinhead (he is basically "a neopagan panslavist neo Nazi "), AND his support for Hitler and Nazism (signing letters with swastikas, publishing Holocaust denial, adorning his publications with quotes from Hitler about racial purity, etc. etc. etc.) That actually is the bottom line, not whatever original research you're trying to spin around some quote of his.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * GW is hardly reliable when it comes to covering Ukrainian conflict, as it is clearly an interested and engaged party to it. As to your claims, even GW doesn't support them, so I suggest you find some serious sources supporting your private views.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * GW is of course reliable, that's hardly controversial. And of course they support the text - not "my private views" - right in the article I linked to and quoted from above. And they have a few more. These ARE serious sources. If you really want to object to GW then we can go ask at WP:RSN but we both know that's gonna be a waste of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pew center poll
Why it was removed? Seryo93 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By accident. Reverted. Petr Matas 17:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)