Talk:2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine/Archive 1

Dublicate article
An article on this topic already exists and has been linked. Must be merged. Sakiv (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I merged the older article into here. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense, the new article should merge into the old one.--Sakiv (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It should have been to start with, but nevertheless, this new created article has more content than the other article and a better name for both referendums, so I went ahead and re-reverted the redirect back to this article . If you really believe it should be the other article’s name, I recommend doing a requested move discussion, but in my opinion, this title is better. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Baseless argument. This is your own POV and you should have waited until we reach a solution. It having more content has nothing to do with the legitimacy of keeping the new article over the older one. It has something to do with keeping people's work. The older one was already linked so it was a mistake to create an article of the same subject weeks later. I want to remind you that you are continuing in stalking my contributions days after you falsely claimed that I am involved in a conflict of interest in Israel/Palestine articles.--Sakiv (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of the stupidest disputes I've seen in Wikipedia. But who cares. The articles are merged. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I support merging the pages under one title "2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine annexation referendums" or "2022 Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast status referendums", since the referendum will be held not only in Kherson region, but also in Zaporizhzhia, and, possibly, in Kharkiv . I also admit the possibility of dividing one article into two: referendums in Kharkiv and Zaporozhye regions, but only if they are held on different days.PLATEL (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When we get more details, the article can be divided into one on the Kherson referendum and the other on Zaporizhzhia. Until then one article should be kept.--Sakiv (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, keep them under one single article. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you agree to merge your article into the July 24 article?--Sakiv (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to leave the article "2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine annexation referendums" as it is, adding the sources from the article created on July 24. so it takes less effort.PLATEL (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine annexation referendums is content fork (the more recent article should be merged back into the main article). You should have assured that there were no duplicate articles before creating it.--Sakiv (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sakiv I wrote an article about referendums in Ukraine, and not about a specific referendum in the Kherson region. Likewise with pages about the General and Presidential Elections in the Philippines.PLATEL (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So far we have little information about the planned referendums. The content is mostly predictions of what may happen. I have nothing more to say other than that the effort of Wikipedia contributors is wasted in such actions.--Sakiv (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine annexation referendums into 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine referendums.Sakiv (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose having "annexation" in the title explains what the referendums are about. Merging into a redirect is pointless as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support since the 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine referendums article was created before this one, under the name Kherson Oblast status referendum they must be merged together to preserve its history.--Sakiv (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * just request the page history be merged into this. The article itself does not have to be merged as an admin can just do it. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly stop interfering with every response I give? These alerts have become so annnoying.--Sakiv (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was (and did) request an admin merge the page histories, but since you want me to stop "interfering", I will remove the request. Does sound a little too much like WP:BURO, but I'm fine to let you try to merge this into a redirect, especially after you called it vandalism after I tried to switch the request to a page move respectfully. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: Sakiv requested a page history merge, which was declined by an admin saying "decline histmerge, does not appear to be a copy/paste pagemove involved, so no histmerge is necessary". Elijahandskip (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You requested it first, even though it was wrong. It would be more correct to merge this new article with the old one and change the title to include the word "annexation."--Sakiv (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BURO, an admin just said the history does not need to be merged, so let's just let other editors give their opinion on this topic and stop debating it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't care, I just want this stupid dispute to be over so that we can start being productive on this article and debate about something that matters. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction
As it stands right now there is conflicting reports by both Russian and Ukrainian sources on what if anything is going to happen. How can a referendum be held in Kherson for example, if there is nobody to organize it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems they might be pushing back the date. https://www.kyivpost.com/russias-war/isw-russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-10.html DinoSoupCanada (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk
There are sources saying that Russia might also annex Donetsk and Luhansk (DPR/LPR?). Although, they were after the U.S. said that Russia might annex Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. I don't know, but it seems worth looking into. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about the parts of Ukraine under Russian military occupation (from 2022 invasion). Technically DPR and LPR are de facto "independent". Mellk (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. But if concrete evidence comes out about Russia annexing Donetsk and Luhansk, would we put it here because it's de jure Ukrainian territory, or create a separate article? DinoSoupCanada (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose we will see exactly how it plays out. The current scope suggests not this article, but of course the scope can be changed. Depends what other editors think. Regards. Mellk (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And I suppose an "update": . Mellk (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If Russian occupation forces in Ukraine are planning “referendums” in six oblasts, then they should all be at least mentioned here, whether the two “republics” have larger separate articles or not. DLNR are claimed to be independent, but they certainly aren’t independent either technically‚ nor de facto, which means “in fact,” and not “according to Russia.” Certainly it’s verifiable in countless sources that Russian forces have occupied parts of DLNR’s claimed territory since February 24. —Michael Z. 17:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Independent" was in quotes, as they declared independence in 2014. Officially they "asked" for Russian troops. Of course, these are in quotes for a reason. Mellk (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By writing de facto and using scare quotes you were contradicting yourself. Glad we sorted that out. —Michael Z. 03:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose de facto state entities is what I meant. Mellk (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that has a very specific meaning in its context, and I’ve noticed it gets used and reused without much thought, even when it means the opposite of the truth. I don’t believe these are literally “de facto state entities,” which is a bit of word salad with no real meaning. Is a “state entity” a state, or what? Does “de facto state entity” mean “state entity in fact” and represent the truth? No. “In de facto control” of some territory might be accurate in some cases, but only when contrasted with Ukraine as “de jure” recognized as the owner. But this is mostly just wrong now too, because the armed forces and paramilitaries of the Russian Federation, Russian mercenary groups, Chechens, and other random “state and non-state entities” de facto control parts of Ukraine.
 * So let’s stop using the fancy Latin de facto when our dictionaries tell us it just means “in fact,” and we can use plain language to express ourselves to the readers with precision. —Michael Z. 22:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Originally I was not going to include "de facto" but it was added on in the last second without much thought in case someone was going to accuse me of repeating Kremlin propaganda. Mellk (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No matter what, Donetsk and Luhansk are de jure Ukraine. I'm not saying we shouldn't make a separate article, just that we should add them in to this one. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but often RS make a distinction between LPR/DPR and the other parts of Ukraine under Russian military occupation. Mellk (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Kharkiv Oblast - uncited sentence
Hello, at the end of this section is a statement saying that Russia 'abandoned' the oblast in early September ahead of a Ukrainian advance. This is not cited and I believe it gives the wrong idea - Ukraine suffered losses as did Russia, there were battles, Russia fled. I've not seen any source that says Russia fled "ahead" of Ukrainian advances. The battles indeed continue today. I may adjust this sentence, any thoughts? Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was following the events all these days (sometimes also nights). The impression I got was that Russian's weren't just defeated, their "defences and administrations collapsed". The resistance wasn't very strong, most of the time they were basically just fleeing. This was later confirmed by western sources, but i have trouble finding one, as my browser history is so full of UKR related stuff :XKnižnik (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * added source Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

NPOV Rule break
Regarding this edit. I don't see how writing "sham referendum", or "referendum" (in quotes), as per what sources use, is less NPOV than "referendum" without quotes, while no sources use this. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * While I do think that we can and should rewrite certain sentences to avoid MOS:SCAREQUOTES, I also think we should state that these are sham referendums as that's how they're described by sources. The article as is does not follow the manual of style, I'll give you that. But it does follow NPOV. Part of following WP:NPOV is avoiding a WP:FALSEBALANCE; sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. We don't need to entertain the idea that these referendums are actually free and fair legitimate elections, this is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint contradicted by sources and treating it as equally valid would be giving it undue weight, functionally making it more POV.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this consistent with other articles? For example 1938 Austrian Anschluss referendum. Usually in these sources "referendum" is in quotes, or "sham" is in quotes and attributed. Or "so-called", "self-styled" etc. I have only seen "sham" in quotes. I guess some examples of sources could be looked at: Mellk (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly think the Austrian Anschluss referendum article could use some work, it says almost nothing about the referendum's legitimacy or lack thereof aside from mentioning that TIME reported (at the time in 1938) that it seemed honest. These sources are interesting though, many of them as you correctly pointed out attribute the word "sham" rather than say it in their own words, though I did notice that one of the BBC articles you linked refers to it as a sham in its own words and has an entire section dedicated to what makes it a sham, which also gave an overview of why the 2014 Crimean status referendum was a sham. The Associated Press article also called it "staged." The Crimean status referendum Wikipedia article describes it as a "disputed referendum" and explains many of its irregularities, which I suppose is better than just calling it a referendum (without quotes) without differentiating it from a free and fair one, though I personally think that the Crimean status referendum article would be made better by mentioning in the lede what that BBC article you linked mentioned about it: While the Kremlin claimed 96.7% support, a leaked report from Russia's Human Rights Council said only around 30% had voted and barely half supported annexation.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding on to our list of sources, I came across this one if it's of any interest:  Vanilla  Wizard </b></b> 💙 22:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not seen sources use "disputed" to describe these referendums yet unlike for Crimean referendum. Calling them sham referendums in wikivoice I think is POV. There are plenty of sources (including current sourcing) which say "referendum" without MOS:SCAREQUOTES so probably this should be followed for now and then mentioning the descriptions of sham and rigged with attribution. Another example. It is something that should be investigated though. Maybe after the official results are given this will change. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we'll hopefully be able to make a more informed decision after the referendums are over. For now I've modified the language of the lead to not use Wikipedia's voice when mentioning the criticisms of the referendums. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 23:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I fear we can't call them "referendums" in Wikivoice, since there is no RS saying that they meet any level of criteria for a referendum. So I edited in order to call them simply "events". Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I think the wording you changed it to is perfectly good. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the criteria for a referendum? Are there RS that call them referendums? Yes. Is there RS that call them "disputed", "discredited" or "contested"? Also yes.. Mellk (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2022‎ (UTC)

Observers / monitoring organisations
Is there a list of fake observers (or fake monitoring organisations) trying to legitimise these fake referenda?-- Bancki (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

run by the authorities of the Russian-controlled
 run by the authorities of the Russian-controlled "people's republics" (Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR)), as well as the Russian-appointed occupational administrations of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast - from the lead - which sources are saying this? Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Authoritative source on this war ISW calls the four collectively “Russian occupation authorities” (and the DLNR “Russia’s proxies in Donbas”). —Michael Z. 15:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/medvedev-says-moscow-backed-separatists-must-hold-referendums-join-russia-2022-09-20/ mentions DNR only once, and not in summary paragraphs, BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63013356 uses wording "In the self-declared, unrecognised Luhansk and Donetsk "people's republics", people are being asked whether they "support their republic's accession to Russia as a federal subject" . Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As to who is running the referendums:
 * That Reuters article says “Russian-backed officials” and “the self-styled Donetsk (DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republics (LPR), which Putin recognised as independent just before the invasion, and Russian-installed officials in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions,” but only after background about how this is choreographed and aimed at Russian annexation. But it’s poorly edited, later referring to the Russian-installed “Luhansk, Donetsk and Kherson officials,” naming three cities, and ignoring the fact that the cities and the oblasts have separate sets of official officials in the Ukrainian government.
 * The BBC article doesn’t really name the overarching authorities, but gives the location as “in the self-declared, unrecognized” DLNR as you mentioned, and “in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.” It refers to various people conducting the referendum as “armed soldiers,” “Russian guardsmen” (Rosgvardia), “two local ‘collaborators’ . . . with two Russian soldiers,” and “‘armed militants.’”
 * The New York Times says “Russia is orchestrating votes in occupied regions of Urkaine” in the dek, and “Russian proxy officials began holding referendums today in four occupied regions of Ukraine.”
 * The Guardian uses frustratingly passive language, but does name “the Russia-appointed deputy governor of occupied Kherson region” and “Russia does not fully control any of the four regions,” and “parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions have been controlled by Russian proxies since 2014,” “pro-Moscow authorities.” But it does start with the areas are “occupied by Russian troops,” and the language throughout is about how “Moscow,” “Russia,” and “the Kremlin” intend to use the referendums.
 * The Associated Press calls these “Kremlin-orchestrated votes,” and refers to “Moscow-backed local authorities.”
 * The Wall Street Journal refers to “Russian officials” in regions “that Moscow at least partially controls” (I only have access to the first two paragraphs.)
 * It seems clear that media do not consider the organizations staging the sham referendums to be independent. References differentiating the DLNR from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson mainly refer to the longer history of Russian control in those regions, and don’t refer to the sham referendums there with any language that assigns them any legitimacy more so than the ones in more recently occupied oblasts. —Michael Z. 16:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * After looking at this, I think “Russian occupation authorities” (ISW), "Russia-appointed officials" or "Russian proxies" would be best. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Alternate lead?
Per MOS:REDUNDANCY, instead of the current title, we could use In 2022, the authorities of the breakaway states Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, as well as the Russian-appointed occupational administrations of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast organized annexation referendums in occupied territories of Ukraine. without a bold text. Beshogur (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I think that MOS:REDUNDANCY is clearly on your side here, so I just boldly changed the sentence. Note that I re-added "puppet states", a term which I have some doubts about, but which has stood there for some time (measured according to number of edits, not number of days). Rsk6400 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot use, because it's Russia who organizes the sham. Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You changed it back to the form that according to Beshogur and me is against MOS:REDUNDANCY without taking part in this discussion. Please take part here before reverting again. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

From the lead "authorities of the breakaway Russian puppet states"
But the article says "The preparation of referendums and the formation of a new image of Russia after the annexation of Ukrainian territories were entrusted to the first deputy head of the presidential administration, Sergey Kiriyenko". Xx236 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Referendums?
Wouldn't it be better to write it as referenda? 178.120.50.32 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * See "Page rename" above. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

List of proposed state mergers
Added this to the list. But needs rework. Also not sure if those two oblasts could be considered "states". Beshogur (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

the term `sham` violates the point of view rules for this site.
the article shouldn`t call the referendum a sham event. 174.4.117.23 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * According to WP:NPOV, we report what reliable sources say. And many reliable sources call it a "sham referendum". Rsk6400 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * +1, this is absolutely neutral and how every reliable news outlet is describing this, it doesn't look like anyone is trying to push their own POV here. I don't see any issue with this term. AlanTheScientist (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide examples that show this is how every reliable news outlet is describing this? I have already given examples above, this is usually attributed. Mellk (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For example: "The polls were denounced as a sham by Ukraine's government and its allies." Mellk (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. The IP editor should have seen the above discussion about NPOV and the use of the term sham. Sacrificing objectivity in the name of neutrality by pretending there's a prayer's chance that these were actually free and fair democratic referendums would not be compliant with NPOV, it would actually be a violation of it. False balances are misinformation. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been called as "sham" by Reuters, Euronews, DW, CNN, TIME, and The Economist.
 * It has also been called "staged" (which is in my opinion, not far from "sham") by FOX, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today.
 * I think it is quite neutral to call this referendum a "sham". In fact, failing to call this referendum as "sham" or "staged" as has been called by multiple sources are violating the neutrality of Wikipedia.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   00:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @SunDawn Did you miss the quotation marks? Mellk (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many journalistic sources use quotation marks, but many reliable ones do not. That’s because most or all experts say it is a sham, in so many words or in others. —Michael Z. 02:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These are obviously sham referendums, but current sourcing should not be misrepresented. Also I noticed attempts to change it to "sham events" which looks like OR (also sounds strange). Mellk (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the results be in their separate section
When I first added the results I added them together under a single section heading. Currently though, it seems that each region's result is under that region's heading. I think that it is more convenient to put all the results together. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Results
Does it make sense to give the results in % without specifying the number of voters? According to Nexta, only 39,000 persons voted in the Zaporizhia region. So, the results show only % of support are misleading. Aotearoa (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I would prefer we remove the charts. It's likely the Kremlin will not release vote counts because the oblasts are warzones, and we should not display 90% results in Wikipedia's voice. 213.233.108.109 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * wikipedia has like a million obvious fake elections Braganza (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Charts with no data
The bar graphs don’t belong in the article because no data exists to graph. I’m parking the wiki code here. —Michael Z. 17:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Frankly, constructing a fancy chart to present two numbers that experts say are certainly going to be faked is a lot of WP:UNDUE weight legitimizing a series of criminal acts. I suppose I should just have deleted them. —Michael Z. 17:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that these are pseudo-referendums, but legally it is all formalized as referendums, which means that templates can and should be used. The same was in the articles "2014 Donbas status referendums" and "2014 Crimean status referendum" PLATEL (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s 48 completely redundant words, four bold labels, a flag for a fake country, and Christmas-coloured bars used to draw attention to two figures that amount to statements by unreliable sources. Pure frippery with no factual basis. It should be in four sentences in the text instead of four boxes resembling banner ads. Same over there. —Michael Z. 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * and other unreliable sources PLATEL (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And the icing on the legitimization cake: Putin’s girlfriend chairs the board of the media company used to source the question text. Not acceptable for an article.
 * Reuters, NPR, BBC, and The Guardian are reliable sources according to the consensus recorded at WP:RSP. If you are not happy with them, I suspect this website is not for you. —Michael Z. 17:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was irony. Reliable sources write that referendums are going to be held in the puppet formations. PLATEL (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. Okay. Which sources use bar graphs? —Michael Z. 18:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it important for sources to use bar graphs when compiling a REFERENDUM TEMPLATE? PLATEL (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Referendum templates are for actual referendums. Russia will not hold (illegal) referendums; they only say they will. They do not control the territories they say will vote, they do not have the infrastructure to hold referendums, there is active fighting going on in parts of all of them. Russia knows it will not poll the population, only show a few videos and release some wholly fabricated numbers.
 * What these will be is war crimes in the form of media exercises intended to humiliate the survivors in Russian-occupied territories, and to generate fake facts for Russian war propagandists. —Michael Z. 23:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Timothy Snyder, “Russia’s Obscene ‘Referendums’: A media exercise in humiliation, and an element of war crimes.”
 * —Michael Z. 02:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

These referendum templates below should be added when the referendums are finalized. Regardless of their validity and recognition, the templates should be the same as the ones found on 2014 Donbas status referendums, 2014 Crimean status referendum or 2017 Catalan independence referendum. Vgaiyfi (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock


 * While the 2017 Catalan referendum was illegal, it was still organized according to some standards. On the other hand, all RS that I know of call the 2014 and the 2022 "referendums" "fake" or "sham" or something similar. No need for bar graphs.
 * Rsk6400 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the 2017 Catalan referendum was organized according to some standards and that this is not the case for these current referendums in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia is something that needs to be supported by reliable sources; otherwise the templates should be included as a matter of uniformity with other Wikipedia articles. Vgaiyfi (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * This is the talk page of this article, problems of other articles are not relevant here. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you. What I am trying to say is that this article should not be an exception. There is no reason for not adding the referendum templates. Vgaiyfi (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * These “referendums” are exceptional. They don’t even achieve the semblence of real referendums, which all of the other examples did to whatever degree. They are in a war zone where the occupation doesn’t hold all of the territories and combat is in progress. They are going door-to-door with arms for “votes,” where they bother to do so at all. They have no infrastructure, as the poll was called just a few days ahead of time. The way they are being executed a fair count is impossible to compile, and any results announced will necessarily be fake. They are not referendums, which are democratic processes, but a propaganda exercise. There are plenty of sources already cited that say these things. —Michael Z. 19:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In Catalonia there were people who voted several times in different voting points, the counting of votes was not controlled, the police closed many voting points (so it was not possible to vote in all the Catalan territory) and the results numbers were fabricated. I think these current 4 referendums were planned a long time ago. Anyway, I think that, despite the conditions in which they are being held, it should not be covered in Wikipedia differently from the other cases. Vgaiyfi (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * I’m not very familiar with Catalonia, but I know about Crimea 2014. In that case there was evidence that the published results were fake, and of course there were all kinds of other problems: illegal, unmonitored, voting irregularities, internationally condemned. Donbas 2014 was worse. Personally, I don’t think any of these articles should have legitimizing emphasis on the results via colourful graphs in boxes either.
 * But this one is the extreme, having pretty much dispensed with most pretence. It’s not a neutral POV to treat anything someone calls a referendum a referendum and present it the same way. Considering the anticipated results of this meaningful is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. —Michael Z. 22:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view. I'm from Spain and I don't see these referendums as worse than Catalonia 2017. Eitherway, Wikipedia should follow certain rules and uniformity, not our personal opinions. It would be necessary to support all your assertions with reliable sources, and to verify the differences of these current referendums in comparison with the other cases. Every referendum is different from each other, and none of the referendums we have cited has been 100% accurate (nor are many elections in some countries). But, for the moment, even the title of the article contains the word "referendums", so it is appropriate to add the referendum templates when they have been finalized. The only possible way not to do so would be to achieve a large consensus supported by a lot of people and reliable sources that would result even in the removal of the word "referendums" from the title; and I don't see that as plausible, because then many Wikipedia articles would also have to lose the word "elections" from their titles. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * Please keep it short and to the point (see WP:TALK). No need to repeat your point for the umpteenth time. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * these referendums are held In occupied cities by foreign country, is a big difference Imbirius (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In Zaporizhzhia oblast referendum are held only in occupied parts what not even include is center - Zaporizhzhia
 * DPR and LPR by few country recognized as independent, but they also not controll all parts of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts Imbirius (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Crimea was also under Russian control when the referendum was held. I see no difference. Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * difference with the referendum in Catalonia, I mean. It has similarities with the referendum in Crimea and on Donbas in 2014. Imbirius (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hard to believe you can be serious. Differences from Crimea?
 * The Kremlin is not blaming “local self-defence forces” but an open invasion is in progress, and a state of war and undeniable crime of aggression exists. Foreigners are openly imposing the sham on the local population along with months or years of violent oppression, including imposition of passports, forcible conscription, kidnapping, murder, rape, and forcible deportation. These four regions are not fully under Russian control. Active combat is taking place, including artillery, cruise, and ballistic missile attacks, air strikes, partisan warfare, and assassinations of Russian occupation authorities and collaborators. Tens of thousands have been killed, probably hundreds of thousands wounded, and millions evacuated. The sham is being conducted literally at gunpoint and by threat of force, with armed soldiers coming to residents’ homes and forcing them to openly mark ballots. —Michael Z. 20:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * +, and the threats of nuclear weapon by Russia Imbirius (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Local self-defence forces?? Come on! It's a fact that the Russian army was walking the streets of Crimea when the referendum was held. Vgaiyfi (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * Yes. But Russia in 2014 claimed that was "Local self-defence forces" Imbirius (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s a fact that Putin completely denied the invasion by Russian army and airborne, and the Russian imposition of the sham referendums in Crimea and Sevastopol at the time. Some Ukrainians who told the truth were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. The story changed several times over the next year. —Michael Z. 13:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Video: “local self-defence forces.” —Michael Z. 15:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there are no registers, they only mark the voting data, the ballot boxes are transparent as in Crimea, they can see what you vote, those with Russian passports, those with Russian military documents and those with the passport of the puppet republics are allowed to vote.
 * Since there are no registers, one could delight in voting several times, the transparent ballot boxes are an example of little secrecy of the vote, many soldiers attend and see what you vote. Door-to-door flying urns are embarrassing. Those entitled to it are only Russians, and Ukrainians could not vote (apart from not taking part in this farce).
 * I would say that it is more than enough. But the fact is that it would allow any nation to be able to militarily occupy territories of other states and have supporters vote to annex territories of other states. Not only had Russia promised to respect territorial integrity and the US and UK could intervene militarily (budapest memorandum). Furthermore, given the violation of the agreements, Ukraine could be entitled to return to a nuclear state. 151.62.214.101 (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with (Michael Z). These are not real votes. It would be undue and misleading to present them in the same way we present votes with some degree of legitimacy. This is not an article where the story is what percent one side or the other got. This is an article about how the whole thing is a sham. If there are other referendums of equal illegitimacy, then we should do the same on those. I think, in particular, we should not use a referendum infobox, which would imply an equivalence with legitimate votes. We could have a bar chart later in the article, with less emphasis. MOS:INFOBOX is very clear that articles don't need to have infoboxes. If people want an infobox, use Infobox military conflict. Bondegezou (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * When a referendum does not meet with all the internationally recognized standards and does not comply with Referendum-related international treaties, then it has no legitimacy. You talked about a certain degree of legitimacy.. Who measures that degree of legitimacy? I still don't see enough difference from other pseudo-referendums to not add the referendum templates in the article. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

, at a personal level, I am sympathetic to your view that the 2017 Catalan independence referendum was problematic. But that's a matter for that article. The general approach on Wikipedia is not to impose consistency, but rather to focus on getting individual articles right. Consistency is generally not considered a good argument in Wikipedia decision-making when compared to other issues (compared WP:WHATABOUT). You can start a discussion at Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum or not, as you see fit, but what happens on that article should not determine choices here. Choices here should be based on WP:RS, WP:DUE and other core principles. Bondegezou (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that what happens in other articles should determine this one, but it's a matter of format (rather than content). Not adding the templates to this article would be making it different from the rest (for one reason, illegitimacy, which is nothing special or new in referendums), it's like if we put all the text in italics and giant font based on a non-special reason. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * You say, I am not saying that what happens in other articles should determine this one, but then go on to say your objection is to making it different from the rest. So it appears to me that you are saying that what happens in other articles should determine this one. Bondegezou (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to read my message as a whole, not just divided parts of it. The matter is simple: Wikipedia has referendum templates for referendums articles. As far as I know, this article is about referendums, not about the Antarctic krill. What is the reason for not using these templates? illegitimacy? lack of international observers? All this should be included in the text of the article, but these are not reasons for not adding the referendum templates to the article. Vgaiyfi (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * It appears to be a valid and likely correct point of view that these are not referendums (not votes held to gauge a population’s opinion). It is for our consensus to determine whether we display the made-up numbers with colourful bar graphs, not for some pat logic about templates. —Michael Z. 02:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is described as a referendum in reliable sources, right? A quick google reveals many such usage of the term. Whether or not to use the infobox does not hinge on the "legitimacy" of the vote, but the encyclopedic notability of the vote. And if reliable sources report on the results, its notable. Masebrock (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite one RS where it is called a serious or normal referendum, i.e. a referendum that meets some minimum standards that come with the definition of "referendum" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is called a sham referendum, not referendum, by the Guardian. It also says what the “results” will be. Maybe we need to create template:sham referendum and use it to show who will win now in big bold text, because many sources 100% support this. —Michael Z. 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A sham referendum is a type of referendum. AFAIK there's no mandate that the referendum template only be used for referendums that meet some minimum standard of democratic legitimacy. Masebrock (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Sham referendum literally means “not a referendum.” Look up sham in a dictionary: “a thing which is not what it is purported to be.” —Michael Z. 16:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The usage of the word "sham" in "sham election" or "sham referendum" refers to the lack of democratic legitimacy, not to the lack of an election or referendum itself. See:Election Masebrock (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re wrong. I looked in four dictionaries. —Michael Z. 21:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you look up the word "sham", or the term "sham election"? Because compound nouns often take different or more nuanced meanings than their individual noun components. Again see:Election for how the term "sham election" is typically used. (e.g., the term "sham election" is not strictly used for elections that don't actually exist, but more typically refers to elections that happen but are fraudulent or lacking in democratic legitimacy in some other way.) Masebrock (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In what reference is sham election defined that way?
 * I don’t believe sham referendum is a term with special meaning. It is just a usage of the term sham. It means not a real referendum. —Michael Z. 23:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for a simple definition . In addition, this definition can be inferred from its abundance of use in a variety of sources. For instance, this is the usage that conforms to how the term is used in the Wikipedia "sham elections" article, which list many elections that happened, but were marred in some sort of way that made them democratically illegitimate (follow the links in the article for the non-Wikipedia sources). In contrast, under your more narrow understanding of the term many of the elections described as "sham elections" on Wikipedia would actually not be so, as they would instead merely be "fraudulent elections", "coerced elections", or elections lacking in democratic legitimacy in some other way, but not an election that didn't actually happen at all. Masebrock (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That source simply describes sham elections. It is not a formal definition and gives no academic or legal context. And is the source reliable? It has no references and I can’t find the authorship.
 * Sham is a common adjective. Dictionaries don’t give a definition of sham referendum because the meaning is precisely sham + referendum. What you’re writing is original research. —Michael Z. 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The usage of the word "sham" in "sham election" does not disagree from the dictionary definition, but typically has a more specific and nuanced meaning. We agree that the word "sham" by itself means "a thing that is not what it is purported to be". A democratic election or referendum (i.e. the process of vote gathering) purports to be representative of the democratic will of the people. This is what the "sham" in "sham election" is referring to. It is not referring to whether an election or referendum actually happened. I can point to numerous academic and legal articles using the term exactly in this way if you are legitimately curious. It is not original research to use the term "sham election" in a way that conforms to its common usage (including usage elsewhere on Wikipedia). It is original research to insist that the term "sham election" must take on your novel narrow understanding ("an election or referendum that did not happen"), and that everyone else must be wrong.Masebrock (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. —Michael Z. 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXUSE is clear that an article does not have to use any sort of infobox, and "which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If we want an infobox, we can use Infobox military conflict, because this is more a story about the war than it is about voting. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is unreasonable that the article titled "2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine" be focused more on the referendum (including the voting and the outcome) than the war in general. Masebrock (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's obvious. By example, when the Catalan referendum ended, the Spanish President (aka Prime Minister) Mariano Rajoy spoke to the nation stating that "It has not been a referendum". But that was the Spanish goverment POV, because Catalan goverment regarded it as a referendum. In the rest of the world, all UN member countries that spoke about the referendum rejected it and sided with the Spanish government. In this case, the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic, where two of the four referendums are being held, are recognized as independent countries by 3 UN member countries and other countries with limited recognition. Apart from that, even countries that consider the referendums as illegal regard them as "referendums" (by example, Kazakh ministry spokesman Aibek Smadiyarov has stated "As for the holding of referendums,"). The matter is easy to understand, the word "referendums" is in the title of this article. It would only make sense not to add the referendum templates if the word "referendums" were removed from the title because they were not considered as such. But I think that it would need common consensus, result of at least one RfC and I think that's complicating everything unnecessarily. Vgaiyfi (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * You appear to be working on the assumption that an article has to have an infobox. As per MOS:INFOBOX, there is absolutely no requirement for an article to have an infobox, and whether to have an infobox and what infobox to have is up to the editors of a particular page and what consensus they come to. This isn't about the name of the article, this isn't about the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, the question is whether a referendum infobox fails WP:NPOV/WP:RS/WP:BALANCE by giving an inappropriate impression of legitimacy and accuracy to the referendum results. Reliable, independent reporting says these numbers are basically nonsense. Ergo, we shouldn't be foregrounding them.
 * (By the way, however many UN member countries recognise Donetsk as an independent country is irrelevant. The views of national governments do not constitute secondary reliable sourcing.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)|

According to WP:NOCONSENSUS, you need consensus to change something. According to WP:ONUS you need to show that something is relevant before adding it. According to WP:UNDUE we are forbidden to present a fringe theory (i.e. that those sham referendums were real referendums) as a mainstream theory. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * When we had this discussion, the results figures had not yet been released. Eitherway, there was no majority consensus for not adding the infoboxes. After that, yesterday, I added the results figures, making use of the infoboxes. As I have said, there was never a consensus for not adding the infoboxes, and it is now when, if you consider it appropriate to remove them, a common consensus should be reached by users to remove them. Please do not remove them unilaterally without prior discussion and consensus. Vgaiyfi (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * Please read the guidelines I linked above. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * <sI know these guidelines. Let's focus on WP:NOCONSENSUS. If there is no consensus to remove the infoboxes, then they should remain. Apart from that, they were added as part of the development of the article when the results figures were released yesterday. And, most importantly, there was no majority consensus for not adding them either. So please, expose your concerns here, and if you consider that the infoboxes should be removed, reach a consensus about it. Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * There is a lot of talk about consensusing the consensus of the consensus so to save editors the hassle here of going back and forth I have gone ahead and setup one below this. (feel free to change anything within it if I have done it wrong etc.) Tweedle (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

NPOV presentation of sham results
The entire article is tainted by both-sidesism, favouring the presentation given by poor journalistic sources.

The results are objectively false, according to expert sources on this, and good journalistic sources that respect objective reality.

The lead presents the fake Russian results and one organization’s contradictory statements as equally valid opinions. The bar graphs present “results” to anyone scanning the article as if they were objectively real numbers based on polling.

This is disgraceful. I’ve tagged the article as non-NPOV until it is improved. —Michael Z. 20:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The article would be non-neutral if it were written about "Democratic referendums in the liberated territories of the historically Russian Donbass occupied by the neo-Nazi Ukrobander junta" or about "Rashist pseudo-referenda on the destruction of Ukrainian statehood, for which the entire population of Russia and the Russian nation are responsible."
 * At the moment, the article uses both international and Russian sources. Russian sources are used not even to provide a Russian position, but for legal issues: such as the question issued in a referendum (yes, this is a referendum, it was held contrary to all international laws, and is not recognized by anyone except Russia, but it is considered, albeit fictitious, but a referendum apart from Russia by other countries, including NATO members.) and the results, certainly falsified, but still recognized by the UN member state "Russian Federation".
 * There is plenty of evidence in the article that this referendum is a sham. The article presents the positions of Ukraine, Russia, and other countries of the world, which is correct.
 * The fact that bar graphs are used in the article is not an argument that referendums are democratically held without falsification and are recognized internationally.
 * You would remove the statistics in the articles "1936 German parliamentary election and referendum", "2002 Iraqi presidential referendum", "2017 Catalan independence referendum" and "2021 Hong Kong legislative election", just because in some cases these are undemocratic elections, and in the second cases is this an unsanctioned election by the central government?
 * I repeat for the billionth time that THESE REFERENDUMS ARE FICTIVE AND ILLEGAL, BUT REFERENDUMS. Otherwise, contact the governments of Germany, Israel, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Georgia, Austria, France, NATO, and so on. PLATEL (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What PLATEL said. These were sham referendums, but referendums nonetheless. This Wikipedia article does not contain anything that could plausibly push a reader to the conclusion that they had any legitimacy. If anything, the inclusion of the "results" makes it even more apparent that they're shams. Really, 99% support and 97% turnout in an active warzone in a "referendum" that was thrown together in 3 days after it was announced? Can anyone look at that and think it seems legit? I think the types of people who'd believe it to be real would probably claim (incorrectly) that this article is too biased against Russia. I ask that you consider removing the orange tag. The way the article's written is normal and in line with how we present other sham referendums. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 23:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the question of whether the adjective sham means “not what they’re purported to be” as the dictionary states, or something else. That is a separate discussion topic, above.
 * I am talking about the way the fake results numbers are presented as “results,” and the way their fakeness is just one opinion. If other referendum articles have the same problem, then someone should discuss them, but let’s discuss this one. —Michael Z. 23:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The "results" infoboxes are simply there to let the reader know what Russia claims the results were. If you'd like, we could modify the template parameters to see if there's a way to clearly communicate to the reader that these numbers are simply the results according to Russia, but I don't think we should delete them. Keeping them there highlights the patent absurdity of them. The entire article details how these results are broadly seen as shams and how the "voting process" was antidemocratic. I don't think it can reasonably said that this article is slanted towards a Russian POV. I think you could argue that we should consider saying in Wikipedia's own voice that it was a sham, and you could start an RfC to achieve a consensus to do that if you'd like, but what you're asking for is for us to remove the infoboxes. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 23:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These were sham referendums, but referendums nonetheless - by calling these events we represent only one side's point of view. Most sources specifically make difference by not calling them but <"referendums"> in quotes,, <so-called referendums> and so on. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Name change to '2022 fake referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine'?
We have articles like fake moustache, fake news website, fake orgasm, fake defection; should we do a formal RM for changing this article title to 2022 fake referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, given that there are no reliable sources arguing that these were genuine referenda? If someone else is in favour, feel free to start the RM. The fact that they were supposedly about 'annexation' is minor - the regions are already partially occupied by the invading forces. Boud (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If we do modify the name to indicate that these weren't actually referendums, the term "sham referendum" seems to be more commonly used among RS than "fake referendums" <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 06:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We should coin "fakerendums" for these kind of staged votes. 188.85.141.228 (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Referendon't. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The articles you have chose as examples are general terms, not events like this. Regardless though I do not believe it would be in a NPOV interest to rename it to the title suggested, the lead sufficiently describes it as sham (in the first sentence!) and other examples on this website of sham elections/referendums don't have 'Fake/Staged/Sham' in the title like the 1929 Italian general election, 1936 German parliamentary election and referendum or the 2019 North Korean parliamentary election to pick some at random. Tweedle (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This I agree with because it is not consistent with other articles, including the most blatantly rigged or unfair elections/referendums. Mellk (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good counterargument and counterexamples. Boud (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Returning to Status Quo regarding the info-boxes
inserted the first results of the first "referendum" in this edit, although they should have known that there was no consensus for the inclusion at Talk:2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine. They and added the results of the other "referendums" soon after. When I deleted the infoboxes, they reverted me and another editor four times and were blocked for this breach of WP:3RR, see WP:ANI/3RR. This RfC was started while the infoboxes were present, so I give this explanation for why I'm convinced that I'm correctly returning to WP:STATUSQUO although I change to a version which differs from the one when the RfC was started. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * i didn't add any results. i only added an infobox for the article. i even made it a point to exclude results. after it was reverted, i didn't put up a fight and just let it happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine&oldid=1112748892 DinoSoupCanada (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, DinoSoupCanada. So it was really only Vgaiyfi who added results. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

One that lives in Israel
Just because the Israeli government says they are against the referendum doesn't mean the people such as myself are against it. 2A02:14C:327:3200:5038:3BC6:F716:C680 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked IP. Strike. 50.111.40.251 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We're going by reactions of countries and leaders, and honestly I couldn't care less about what your opinion is. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Vgaiyfi blocked indefinitely
A lot of the discussions above have been heavily influenced by an indefinitely blocked sock advancing pro-Russian positions, Vgaiyfi. These comments by the sock are to be disregarded as far as changes to the article are concerned. Jeppiz (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement regarding the "planned" annexation of occupied territories in the Mykolaiv Oblast.
I am pretty sure that the occupied areas of the Mykolaiv Oblast were already annexed into the Kherson MCA and into Russia. Can anybody confirm this? Danielg532 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"Against international law"
Which means against American law and wishes? please give me a break. Russia has the right to do what ever it wishes to without asking the opinion of other countries. 2A02:14C:327:3200:B1B0:34F7:6D01:7D66 (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked IP. Ignore. 2603:8000:B600:4000:C15E:CCB0:146C:2944 (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A talk page is not a forum (WP:TALKOFFTOPIC), but this is a good example for the mentality of Russia's leading figures. So I didn't remove it. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the blocked IP ignores the fact that by that same "argument" Ukraine has a right to reclaim its own lands whenever it feels like it regardless of what Russian constitution says about irrevocable status of its "territories". 2603:8000:B600:4000:C15E:CCB0:146C:2944 (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Russian annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine
The content of these two articles is rather redundant, and reliable sources have widely considered the referendums to be very thinly veiled procedural maneuvers for annexation. Given the rapid pace of the annexation (within a week after voting on the referendums began), I am not sure they warrant two articles. Perathian (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. A merger would also solve the problem of the title (see preceding section). Rsk6400 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't see enough to have a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose a merge. There's plenty of content for both articles, and it makes sense to have a separate article to go more in-depth on the referendums. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose too. Panam2014 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support a merge. The referendums are part of the illegal political and coercive process that is the subject of the main article. At this point, the “main article” is just a stub. If it grows too big, then we can see what should naturally be split off. —Michael Z. 22:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: already too large article to read. Beshogur (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the articles will get far larger over time. All this barely happened less than 10 days ago. Have some patience. Super   Ψ   Dro  07:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Page rename
In academic writing, the plural of referendum is "referenda", and the word is indeed used multiple times in this article.

2022 annexation referenda in Russian-occupied Ukraine 675930s (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * See What Wikipedia is not. Beshogur (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My dictionary gives the plural as “referendums or referenda,” which signals the first is at least as common as the second variation. Is there actually evidence that academic writing prefers referenda, or is this a presumption? Referendums follows the English rule rather than the Latin one, and it does not change the meaning in any way, so I think it’s better to use it for a general audience. —Michael Z. 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Searching Google Scholar for academic sources since 2018 returns referendums 15,800 results, and referenda 16,200, giving the latter 50.6% of the total. In current academic usage, the difference looks insignificant. —Michael Z. 16:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also noteworthy that "Referendums" seems to be much more common among regular, non-academic users. Referenda sounds more technically correct, but referendums is what I'd actually think to type myself. For what it's worth, my spell-checker tells me "referendums" is correct but highlights "referenda" as a spelling error. If they're used about equally by scholarly academic sources, and "referendums" is favored by the general public, then I have to throw my support behind keeping "referendums." <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To, I noticed that you moved the page to referenda and I have since undone that. Please view the above discussion. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest we do a preliminary vote to see if there is a consensus.
 * All in favour of changing to "Referenda" say aye. All against say nay.
 * Aye Friendly Engineer (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye. Wikipedia isn't a blog, so "referendums" seems inappropriate. 675930s (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the article on the etymology of referendum, the Oxford English Dictionary says: "Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues." The title works well enough. 213.233.108.109 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to debate linguistics then I'll first ask you how you would syntactically express the name of the article in Latin. Otherwise, being a gerundive is irrelevant since the measurable conception of referral is being pluralised, and gerundive agreement is not a concept in those modern European languages – such as but not limited to: French, Danish, Polish, Dutch, Czech, and of course English – where the plural of "referendum" is "referenda" in both the nominative and accusative. The precedent for using "referenda" in English very much exists not because of Latin grammatical rules, but because of English's – referendum is indeed a word in the English language. 675930s (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Referendum is both a form of the gerund and some forms of the gerundive. The point is that referenda is always the gerundive and never the gerund. 213.233.108.109 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Referendum is a noun in English meaning a "direct popular vote on a proposed law or constitutional amendment", which in English has the plural "referenda". 675930s (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I vote in support too, referenda is more correct. Besides, English speakers don't have a problem in understanding Latin plurals anyway (e.g. algae, alumnae, etc.) There are no downsides. 178.120.50.32 (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Referendums" is perfectly suited for the Simple English Wikipedia, otherwise it ought to be "referenda". 675930s (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical text
What’s up with the text “ Cities annexed by Russia are colored red; cities controlled by Russia but not annexed are colored blue.”? Russia never annexed cities in Donbas until now, and when it did, de jure it annexed the entire oblasts, not picking and choosing cities. 82.37.67.151 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You’re right. I’ve cut the caption entirely.  The legend is enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2022
To add Singapore's reaction at the "Reactions" subsection in regards to this topic.


 * 🇸🇬 Singapore: Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that "The decision by the Russian Federation to formally annex the occupied Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson violates international law and the UN Charter, and that the the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be respected." Beckherm (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aaron Liu (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of the below infobox's for the results of the referendum
Should we include the below infobox's within the article to show the referendum results? Tweedle (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep An unprecedented situation where the published results of the vote are not shown only because the vote is illegitimate and contrary to international evidence.
 * There is the fact of holding referendums. fictitious. but the referendums. fact. The results of referendums, however fictitious, should be shown either in the form of infoboxes or tables. PLATEL (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment Please note that I reported Vgaiyfi at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring because they reverted 4 times within 24 hours. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep the infoboxes. I have used the word " keep", since they are already included in the article. I think infoboxes offer a good way to display the information to readers. Its use is common on other referendum articles. This is the case of 2014 Crimean status referendum and 2014 Donbas status referendums. Apart from that, I don't think the presence of infoboxes changes the POV of the article, since it is possible to add text lines about the illegitimacy of referendums (in the boxes, apart from the main text). This is about format, not about points of view. The illegitimacy of a referendum (or an election) is not a plausible reason not to add infoboxes. Vgaiyfi (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)  Vgaify has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep the infoboxes. The purpose of an infobox is to present information in a readily accessible and visualizable way for the reader. This is why an an infobox is better than no infobox. Discussions of "democratic legitimacy" are a red herring, as the presence or absence of an infobox suggests no inherent levels of democratic legitimacy. As pointed out, many elections and referenda that are universally agreed to have been fraudulent or democratically illegitimate also contain infoboxes (examples:1, 2, 3, and the 1927 Liberian general election, described on Wikipedia as "the most fraudulent election ever reported in history"). Simply, if the results of the referendum are notable enough to be reported on Wikipedia, then they can (and ought) to be reported in the form of an infobox. Masebrock (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep, for the same reason that Masebrock provided. Infoboxes do not suggest that Wikipedia approves of the legitimacy of the election, they merely visualize information that is already provided. There is no value in hiding this from the reader. Jacoby531 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Replace with results table: The infoboxes are a waste, the RS clearly say that the motive for these referendums is Kremlin politics, so separate infoboxes are unnecessary. 213.233.108.109 (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose  State the “results” in text, with explicit attestation, and alongside the caveat that these are objectively held to be “sham” or simply fabricated, with appropriate sourcing. Alternatively, use table, per anon, but presented with the same descriptives. If infoboxes are included, they shouldn’t have a heading stating “results” falsely implying we assert that the numbers result from the conduct of the sham referendum. “Country” flags must be omitted when one country is illegally imposing this thing in the territory of another. —Michael Z. 02:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep, but open to alternatives Helpful visualization of "the results." I've no issues with using some other form of visualization like a single table rather than four separate infoboxes, removing the flags (avoiding the need to discuss whether to use oblast flags or the symbols used by Russia and its puppets), stating in the infobox/table itself that these are just results as claimed by Russia and not the results of any sort of democratic process. etc. But even a fraudulent election or referendum has "results data" that's better off visualized in a format that's convenient for readers. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 04:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Even though it's been a few months and there's already a consensus against it, I just want to clarify that my position has changed from keep to learning towards Oppose. I've had some time to think about it more and I think the arguments from the oppose !votes are convincing. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 22:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose All reliable sources that I know of call them "sham referendums", "so-called referendums", or the like. We may not support the impression that they were real referendums in any meaningful way. Let's remember that many of our readers just take a quick look at the article, see the graphics in the infoboxes and think, "ah, another referendum". Also, please remember WP:ONUS: To include something, a reason has to be given. Other articles are not relevant here, since these "referendums" were really exceptional. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that even the UN Secretary General who is obliged by his office to be neutral, calls them "so-called 'referenda'". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I think we should have more regard for MOS:INFOBOX. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that there is no need for an infobox. What happens on other articles can be discussed on the Talk pages of other articles: MOS:INFOBOX is clear that we should make any decision on having an infobox on this article locally. An infobox gives undue weight to the results, it gives them a veneer of legitimacy and reality. An infobox should summarise the key points of an article (MOS:INFOBOX again) and the key points of this article are not that 99.23% of votes supposedly supported annexing Donetsk etc. The key points of the article are that these were sham events conducted for political reasons as part of an ongoing war. If editors really want there to be an infobox of some sort, then Infobox military conflict appears more appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I find these arguments convincing. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is basically a sneaky way to introduce POV into the article. If we had an infobox for "sham referendum" or something like that than maybe. But there's really no need to have it and it doesn't add anything to the article.  Volunteer Marek   16:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Support It simply doesn't matter whether the referenda were legitimate or not. Even elections universally considered to be fraudulent have their tallies displayed, and to not do so would be a disservice to readers. As to Marek's suggestion that "sham referendum" would somehow be less POV, I find that notion rather silly, as it would be an explicit statement of POV on an infobox which was already neutral on whether the vote is legitimate or not. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 20:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretending that something which is obviously a big pile of stinking shit and lies could be “legitimate” is indeed POV and most certainly not “neutral”.  Volunteer Marek   01:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep Agree with above, even though they are clearly 'sham' or 'illegitimate' does not mean the inboxes should not be included like any other referendum and is helpful for readers to see.Yeoutie (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Get The Table Survivor Series (1997) was obviously a big pile of stinking shit and lies, too, and it has results tables. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This page informs about the genocidal war. Please respect more than 100,000 its victims.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect everyone. This page primarily describes referenda which are to competitive democracy as pro wrestling is to legitimate sport. That's all I'm pointing out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I know some of the victims (refugees) of that war personally, I'm not sure that your comparision shows good taste. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. In hindsight, comparing these to other fake things may have gone over better, but other fake elections were already covered and I still don't know any movie, TV show or video game article that uses tables for its in-universe "results". I'm in no way implying anything at all about the war itself or its many other results, to be clear, just these exact shady figures. I've known refugees, too. They were from other wars, but I empathize enough to know it's just as real for your friends. I wish them well, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep, per the above and what's already been said by others. Tweedle (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Blatantly false statement. The first source itself, a Reuters piece, gives the results in the third paragraph: Luhansk authorities said 98.4% of people there had voted to join Russia. In Zaporizhzhia, a Russian-appointed official put the figure at 93.1%. In Kherson, the head of the voting committee put the "yes" vote at above 87%. The referendums concluded on 27 September. The discussion closer should look into the coverage by reliable sources past that date themselves so see how untrue the assertion that reliable sources are not reporting on the results are. I know I have said I will not reply further, but I can't just leave misleading comments hanging... TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Exclude. In the form presented below, they are "Disinfoboxes" (an essay): such boxes do not present any information helpful to understanding the topic. In this particular case, these infoboxes do not reflect the gist of the article, and come across as misleading. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep:The infobox accurately summarises some information, the integrity of the referendum itself has no bearing on whether the infobox should stay. Keep it. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of an infobox to summarise[] some information. It is, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, to "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". What are the "key facts" of this article? That 87.05% of votes supposedly supported annexing Kherson? I don't think so: no-one believes that figure is true, nor the vote fair. The "key facts that appear in the article" are that these are sham referendums held in the middle of a war for political purposes. If there is to be an infobox saying anything, it has to be to say that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The purported results of the referendum are indeed the key facts here. Remember, this article is about the referendums, not the annexation or it's legality. Of course we should be summarising the declared, no matter how sham it was. election rigging happens all the time in many countries, we still give the results. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The purported results of the referendums are not key facts because the actual numbers are meaningless and there was no chance they could have come up with a "no" answer. They are fictitious numbers. If there are other equally fictitious referendums with articles with infoboxes, discussions can be had on their Talk pages. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that we should decide what is best for this article, not merely copy practice from elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with WP:INFOBOXUSE—and I am saying what is best for this article is to have the results of the referendum, same as all sorts of articles about elections and referendums, rigged or not. The result of an election or a referendum are the key facts about it. it is irrelevant whether it was free and fair or not. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, no reliable source calls it a “referendum”. Instead, it is called “sham referendum”, or “so-called ‘referendum’”, or something like that. That makes the so-called “results” quite unimportant. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What kind of nonsense is that? Sham elections and referendums are still elections and referendums, and are treated as such on Wikipedia. All reliable sources report the results as it is the key fact of the whole affair. what else can even be the key fact of an election, fake or not, except the results? please try to look at the issue objectively rather than letting one's (legitimate) feelings about the unjust war get in the way. and please don't bludgeone the discussion with frivolous arguments. I won't be replying further. regards, TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Sham referendums are not referendums. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Media coverage of recent elections in Brazil, Sweden etc. has the numbers quite prominent, because the journalists consider those to be important and interesting. Media coverage of these supposed referendums barely mentions the supposed voting numbers because journalists recognise they are meaningless. We should follow RS and do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou used the expressions "quite prominent" and "barely mentions". Now, a third paragraph is surely closer to "barely mention[ing]" than to "quite prominent". I can't see how their comment should be "misleading". Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see the infobox as a sign of support, consensus, collaboration with pro-Russian separatists. It is just the usual information we provide for referendums, no matter how contested they are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Oppose. I've been persuaded by Bondegezou's arguments here below about what's the point of an infobox?; edited 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inhabitants of free world ignore perversion of totalitarian terror. Such 'infobox' is a tool of Russian war propaganda. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Include infoboxes. I agree with every word of Masebrock's arguments. Having the results in the infobox is not an endorsement of legitimacy, either of the referendums, of their results, or of Russia's claims. Let's imagine the same referendums were held, but Ukraine somehow managed to counter-rig them so Russia would lose the vote. The results would still be rigged, and the referendums themselves would still be illegitimate, but we'd put the results, no? Legitimacy isn't a criteria; the results are what they are, and we should reflect them. DFlhb (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The results are what they are and the article should, of course, include them. But what's the point of an infobox? It's to summarise the key facts in the article. The key fact in the article is not that "Yes" got a certain percentage. That's not how most reporting is covering these events. The key facts are that these referendums were a sham as part of an ongoing conflict. That's what the reader needs to know first, that's what you put up front. And then in the article text you can go into the details and provide these made-up numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose (do not include infoboxes). The referendums were illegitimate, but it is irrelevant. What matters are numbers included to the infoboxes. These numbers were fake/false/completely fabricated. They do not reflect reality whatsoever and therefore not informative and misleading. Why include meaningless numbers to infoboxes? My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Xx236, stop trying to edit with an agenda. We are here to edit an encyclopdia, not to donate to a Ukrainian charity or fight for Ukraine in the frontlines. You're trying to inject emotions instead of approaching this in a civil and professional way.
 * The referendums are a hastily organized excuse by Putin; everyone here is (supposed to be) aware of that. But Wikipedians' jobs is to collect, cite and state the relevant information, in this case about the referendums (and condemnations of them by the international community) in an informative way. A valid reason to oppose, for instance, would be if the results were so disorganized by the hasty nature that the purported results show no useful data even by Russian election standards. Not "this is a morally wrong action". That's like saying an informative site shouldn't bother showing the votes in Russian parliament for authorizing the invasion because the invasion is morally wrong. Since when does that prohibit the reporting of data? (There were genuine dissenting votes in that, by the way.) 2603:8000:B600:4000:94E2:AE76:71B3:9B06 (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Biased name of this article
Should be 'Russia’s sham referendums in occupied Ukraine' https://www.ft.com/content/87a4bd52-2d82-48ac-a842-cdca3ba742dd
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63052207
 * https://www.dw.com/en/eastern-ukraine-eyewitnesses-speak-out-on-sham-referendums/a-63272615
 * "We do not accept the sham referenda and any kind of annexation in Ukraine, and we are determined to make the Kremlin pay for this further escalation," vd Leyen https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-updates-eu-plans-new-russia-sanctions-after-sham-referendums/a-63261920

Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. A number of journalistic sources are calling these sham or fake referendums with no scare quotes or attestation. They are fake according to academic, political, and journalistic consensus. It is non-NPOV to call them “referendums.” —Michael Z. 22:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the above comment is a Russian POV pusher or was genuinely concerned about NPOV, but this is not the place for advocacy of righteous causes, Michael Z. Just like we don't say "The Clearly Bogus 2020 Belarusian presidential election" in that article title, that sort of sensationalism doesn't belong there. This was addressed multiple times above in the talk page. The fact is that Russia declared its intent to annex these four oblasts and a referendum series is the way Russia chose to formally do so (as opposed to, say, just immediately annexing them without referendum process). There's no bias about this simple description. Whether the annexations and the votes were a sham belongs to the article content and is already there. 2603:8000:B600:4000:1965:1AE9:A647:5546 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, no. There was no “referendum process.”
 * WP:TITLE: “the title indicates what the article is about. . . . Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.” To diverge from what reliable sources say and present this as a referendum when it is not is misleading and a disservice to the readers. —Michael Z. 18:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the First Day to Fifth Day sections. That's "process". Russia could've chosen to annex without bothering with referendums at all.
 * Also give me one article on Wikipedia describing a specific election or referendum that has the word "sham" in the title. 2603:8000:B600:4000:94E2:AE76:71B3:9B06 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "This IP address is currently partially blocked".Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An ad hominem attack that does not at all address the substance of the arguments. Do better than that.
 * The point is that you two are not going to get what you're asking for because it is blatantly against how Wikipedia is supposed to work: "show, not tell". See the above for explanation why.
 * (The explanation posted in the infobox RfC closure notice vindicates the reply to your comment in that discussion: there are valid reasons in favor of omitting the annexation referendum results, and yours ("Russian propaganda") is not one of them.) 2603:8000:B600:4000:510B:BA50:5D8A:DF32 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

These "referendums" have nothing to do with the free, democratic expression of the will of the people,....
These "referendums" have nothing to do with the free, democratic expression of the will of the people, as they were held under conditions of Russian terror, psychological pressure and persecution of Ukrainian citizens and Ukrainian activists, whom the occupying Russian authorities threw and continue to throw into prisons, torture chambers and filtration camps. They also violate international and Ukrainian legislation. This above excerpt must be included in the article. Wise2 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine
These "referendums" have nothing to do with the free, democratic expression of the will of the people, as they were held under conditions of Russian terror, psychological pressure and persecution of Ukrainian citizens and Ukrainian activists, whom the occupying Russian authorities threw and continue to throw into prisons, torture chambers and filtration camps. They also violate international and Ukrainian legislation. I entered this above text excerpt as the last paragraph of the preamble in the same articles of Ukrainian and Rassian Wikipedias: https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Псевдореферендуми_на_окупованих_територіях_України_(2022) , https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Референдумы_на_оккупированных_территориях_Украины_(2022) -- Wise2 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)