Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 4

Here is what NPOV looks like in the lead section; please discuss
Note how an NPOV lead section balances between the two sides in the New Cold War, offering each a chance to state their perspective, and doesn't side with either. NPOV also seeks out RS that is not aligned with either side in that 'war'. Note also that an NPOV edit treats allegations and unknowns as allegations and unknowns, and doesn't OR interpret them as facts favoring the perspective of 'my side' in the new Cold War. If you have not taken sides and are in fact an editor who is NPOV-oriented, please discuss so we can agree that my lead is more or less (tweaking graciously accepted) NPOV. If you have enlisted with one side or the other in the new Cold War, please be self aware and don't get involved in the NPOV discussion:

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was the 2014 incorporation of most of the Crimean Peninsula, internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, into Russia. Following the annexation in March 2014, Russia effectively administers Crimea as two federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. After a Western-oriented revolution or coup d'etat in Ukraine's capital, Crimeans, who are mostly Russian speaking and of Russian ethnicity, rebelled against the new central government. Russian military personnel at already existing Russian naval bases in Crimea then assisted Crimean security personnel and defecting Ukrainian military personnel in peacefully securing the region for the Crimean regional government. According to officials in the new Ukraine government and Crimean politicians loyal to it, Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine was the result of a "carefully orchestrated campaign" by Russia's government. BBC journalist John Simpson summarized the Western perspective, that the takeover of Crimea was a "remarkable, quick and mostly bloodless coup d'etat".

On March 6, the Supreme Council of Crimea, the regional parliament, decided by a vote of 78-0 to hold a referendum on independence and union with Russia. Council member Sergei Shuvainikov stated: "This is our response to the disorder and lawlessness in Kiev. We will decide our future ourselves.” The Council declared Crimea's independence on March 11 and held the referendum, whose validity was widely disputed, on March 16. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of union with Russia. Three days later Crimea signed an accession treaty with Russia and became part of the Russian Federation.

The annexation or accession process caused much controversy and was condemned by many world and especially Western leaders, as well as by NATO, as an illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. Russia, however, strongly opposed the "annexation" label as offensive towards Crimea's inhabitants, and has described the process as an accession of the independent Republic of Crimea, briefly extant after Crimea and Sevastopol joined together and requested union with Russia in accordance with a public vote that appeared to reflect the people's desire to join the larger country. Ukraine disputes this characterization, as it does not recognize the independence of the Republic of Crimea or the accession itself as legitimate. The United Nations General Assembly also rejected the vote and annexation, adopting a non-binding resolution affirming the "territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders". China, which abstained on the resolution, stated that it only had made the situation in Crimea "more complex."

But the version above is not a neutral POV. Its version of what happened on the ground is the viewpoint put forward at the time by the Russian government (and their operatives), and then says that the NATO pact countries disapproved of it (though they would, wouldn't they).-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure my version can be made even more NPOV, but I greatly advanced it by providing a balance between the two opposing perspectives, one which think Russia's actions are illegal and a coup d' etat, and the other which thinks Russia basically just assisted local militia and authorities to do what they wanted to do. We shouldn't tell readers which perspective is correct, but that's what present POV intro section does. Haberstr (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is utter and pure propaganda. Repeatedly emphasizing the "peaceful" takeover of Crimea? Tell it to the Ukrainian servicemen who were held at gunpoint. "Appeared to reflect the people's desire"? Multiple accounts had Russian soldiers voting in that referendum, and the office of the Russian president itself accidentally revealed that the official vote totals were wildly inflated even so. As it stands, the intro is NPOV. Making these changes would be catering to a POV that has willfully ignored and distorted facts throughout this post-revolutionary phase in Ukraine in favor of enriching and enlarging Putin's empire. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the part about the "Western oriented coup d'etat". Basically what Haberstr wants is a free license to POV the article. In other words to *make it* POV. If he doesn't get that he claims the article as it exists is POV.

That's not policy. And in reference to the placement and removal of POV tags. The template documentation says:

''This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.''

 Volunteer Marek  18:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Here is interesting discussion of this by Illarionov. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to prove the article is not neutral:
 * 1) Only a small part of the sources used are pro-Russian. It's impossible to write a neutral article without sources that represent one side of a conflict.
 * 2) A neutral opening of the article would only state simple facts. Like, it is a simple fact that Crimea is administered by Russia, is part of Russia according to Russian law, but internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. But the lead section continues to ramble on about how the referendum was illegitimate, "disputed, majorly unconstitutional" according to "multiple worldwide sources", how there was a "Russian military intervention" and how everything that happened was a "coup d'etat" staged by Russia. The expressions like "green men", "mostly bloodless", "dodged obligation", "in disrespect to", "condemned", "majorly" are either non-neutral of violate WP:WEASEL. The whole article reads like the author takes the events very personally and can't shut up and goes on and on and tries to present every imaginable fact in the light of wanting to persuade the reader that Russia is an evil country. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All decisions by Supreme Council of Crimea, including "elections" of Aksyonov and "referendum", were illegitimate from the moment when the building of the Council was occupied by Russian special forces. That was a bloodless occupation, but no more legitimate than other similar operations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The referendum was free and its results were consistent with the will of people of Crimea. They wanted to join Russia and they are happy. Even more now when Ukraine is sliding into nationalist terror. I'm not saying this is what the opening sentence should say, but I am personally rather concerned about people denying / preferring to ignore this. Cause it's too obvious that it's true. And since it's true, this particular article should at least sound neutral and let the readers decide which party to side with emotionally. As of now, it is very emotional against Russia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The referendum was free". No, this is not what majority of sources tell. "They are happy"??? Everything we know tells about economic and human rights catastrophe in Crimea, just as it was in Abkhazia and other similar territories. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You just don't read the right sources. (As far as I can see/hear/overhear, the people are happy as clams on high tide. But this talk page is probably not the right place to talk about it. I'm just replying to your comment, I don't want to get blocked for misuse of a talk page or anything.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Re #1 - that's irrelevant. Neutrality requires that text represents sources proportionally, not that all sides, including crazy sides, are given equal due.
 * Re #2 - the thing about "simple facts" is that they're never simple. I mean, if we're going for simplicity here, then why not just say "Crimea is a part of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia". You can't get anymore simple than that. But somehow I get the feeling that that's not the kind of simplicity that you're looking for.  Volunteer Marek   04:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Crimea is a part of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia". Yes, this is official view by international community. Something to emphasize here.My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point of view is offensive towards Russia and a person expressing it should be very cautious when editing this article that already reads like someone took the events too personally. (And there is no such thing as "international community".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see a specific and very simple problem in the lead as it is now. I will point it to you and could you please try to correct it? This part: It sounds like Crimea voluntarily took some obligation upon itself. But it was practically independent when in 1994 Ukrainian president Kuchma issued a decree putting Crimea under direct presidential rule. And then Crimea lived through almost a year of political turmoil before Kiev succeeded in unilaterally abolishing the Crimean Constitution and ousting Crimean President Meshkov (his post also was abolished). Here, for example:. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "including the dodged obligation of Crimea to request such restitution from Ukraine itself first"

And the lead should mention that Kiev unilaterally forbid Crimea from ever holding a referendum on independence. The Crimean people had the right until it was unilaterally revoked. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean this, I have finally found it in English: The Constitution of Ukraine was adopted in 1996 and this part was added specifically to outlaw any attempts to hold a referendum on independence in Crimea. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Article 73 of the Ukrainian Constitution is unequivocal: "Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum.".

Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh taken out of list of states recognizing Crimean referendum because none of the three are recognised as independent states by any but a tiny number of UN members. Hence their official statements are of no more significance than those of Piedmont or Moravia.PussBroad (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposed text by Haberstr is an improvement over the current one. As it is, the usual current practice in Wikipedia (as can be seen from some of the comments below) seems to be to discount most Russian media as biased and marginalize the mainstream Russian viewpoint, citing WP:UNDUE. In my view, in any article about a conflict or war between two sides both perspectives should be given equal weight, even if one of them is a minority view internationally. Otherwise, the encyclopedia becomes little more than propaganda for the dominant viewpoint, and the reader is no closer to reaching an understanding of the conflict's causes. How can a conflict be understood if mostly only the viewpoint of one side is presented? I don't think anything will change here, because there are far more editors interested in keeping the Russian perspective out than there are editors interested in keeping it in. This may be because the mainstream Russian opinion is a minority one internationally, so there are just fewer editors willing to fight for its inclusion. Or it may be because one side is directing more resources to editing Wikipedia pages than the other. Who knows. In any case, I thank Haberstr and others like him for working on this hopeless cause. Esn (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy on this says that we should "ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view". It explicitly forbids the "According to Simon Wiesenthal..., but David Irving disputes this analysis" approach that you favour.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is inconsistent in enforcing that policy. For example, most people worldwide do not believe in the theory of evolution, or in Christianity, or in Hinduism, or in quantum physics. All are minority viewpoints. Nevertheless, Wikipedia explains those subjects as they are understood by those who are experts/direct participants in them, even though most of the world's population disagrees. Can you imagine what Wikipedia's articles about science and mathematics would be like if that policy was actually, rather than selectively, enforced? The general rule is to cover a topic according to its understanding by those who are closest to it. In the case of an issue like this, those would be the Crimean authorities (including "governments in exile", if one existed), the two countries directly involved - Ukraine and Russia - as well as (to a lesser degree) any international bodies which they belong to. The opinions of other third parties are less relevant, even if they are important parties in whatever location Wikipedia editors are located. Esn (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Esn, thanks very much for your kind response. I agree it is impossible big-picture-wise to do much about the dominance of the NATO/Western/US/UK perspective and ostracization of the Russia/China/BRICS perspective here at English-language Wikipedia. For now it may be best just to recognize reality periodically here on the talk page. When Cold War II is over, we can go back through the disgraceful and sometimes fascist silliness and re-enshrine NPOV. I don't think that time is very far off in the future.Haberstr (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you supporters of another POV constantly come up with terms like "perspective" and "dominance"? How much longer does one have to explain that the NPOV is the one given by the majority of the sources? While there are sources defending the Russian POV, there also those strongly opposed to it, such as Ukraine calling separatists "terrorists", etc. Is one dominating over another? Absolutely not. So when you use the word "perspective", think to what befenit would it amount on WP to push through some POV that you may not recognize as NPOV, but that the majority of the sources agree upon. To none. But the Russian POV cannot be prioritized over the Ukrainian one, for example (and vice versa) only because someone thinks the contrary. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood what I wrote, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass. Neither me nor Haberstr were talking about prioritizing one view over another, but about a full and balanced portrayal of the worldviews of each side that is most involved in this conflict. As for "majority of sources", it's not unlikely that most of the words that have been written about the topic are from the mainstream Russian perspective, simply because this issue is most interesting to readers/viewers in Russia and Ukraine (it's on the news every night there, as opposed to a few times a month in the Western countries), and Russia has a bigger population and media scene than Ukraine. The trick is that Wikipedia has a gatekeeping system for which sources are considered reliable, and it has often been determined by editors that Russian-language sources are unsuitable to be cited because of being biased - editors have pointed to false rumours and stories that sometimes sweep through Russian media, ignoring the similar rumours that also sweep through the mainstream Western media, whether it's the blind war cheer-leading and made-up "outrage" stories that appear every time the West wants to bomb another country, or news reports written verbatim by the Western intelligence agencies and published under journalists' names, as revealed last year in Germany by Udo Ulfkotte. Both "sides" have credibility problems, but the problems of the Western media are somehow no obstacle to them being considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, while those of the Russian media ARE (unfortunately, there is no objective metric to determine how accurate a given news source is over a period of time, so editors decide based on their own subjective opinions). And that's how "NPOV" is created. Esn (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. When that happens, a consensus takes place between multiple editors relating to the topic, and it usually serves to resolve such issues. Many Russian sources are written are written as being against WP guidelines and thus, are not RS. Many Western sources are RS because they are composed of several sides to the same story, but on both sides, there are biased sources and unbiased ones. Does that mean that WP agrees with Russia annexing Crimea and invading Eastern Ukraine? No, it does not. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If There Was Ukranian Revolution in February
The presence of a social revolution in the Ukraine is not denied by anyone. But the central Ukrainian government on the one hand rejects the constitutional and legal continuity with the previous regime, which is inevitable in the course of any revolution, but, on the other hand it constantly refers to the constitutional and legal framework of the Ukrainian state with reference to the old constitutional order that is contrary to any revolution. This is, of course, a nonsense. If the constitutional and legal process is interrupted due to the revolution, then interrupted are all of its more local elements, including a ban on the withdrawal from the Ukraine, and so on. How in such a situation can operate the old constitution and the old authorities? So, the old regime has lost its legitimacy as a result of a social revolution. But the new government has yet to make its recognition by restarting the constitutional and legal process from scratch. It was at this point territories liberated from the old constitutional and legal framework laid by the revolutionary government begin to solve Hamlet's question: to be in a new state or self-determination? What kind of separatism may be involved if the old social contract has been destroyed by the revolutionary events? What does the new government in such a situation? It seeks to convince people and territories to conclude a new social contract and legally restart the state. It may be done by force or through political dialogue and compromise. And for obvious reasons, the second way is always better than the first one.

Earlier, for example, the Russian October revolution of 1917 also did not mean an automatic incorporation of the entire Russian Empire under Bolshevik rule and The Union Treaty of 1922 was required for creation of the Soviet Union. But no unification efforts of Kiev came into being. Instead they have introduced forceful ukranization everywhere even in the predominantly Russian provinces, denied any federalization and more equal distribution of all revenues. Ultra rightist gangs started to terrorize the non-consent territories.

Such a solution of the problem of two Ukraines has proved legally and constitutionally insignificant and unproductive. And finally it has resulted in the loss of Crimea and the Civil War in Donbass. If incorporated into the Article this analysis will help understand what has realy happened.

If There Was Coup d'etat
If the constitutional and legal process is not interrupted, the Ukraine has undergone a coup d'etat with all the ensuing criminal consequences. In this situation the new government will never be able to prove its own legitimacy. And not only revolutions in Donbass and the Crimea, but offensives of Crimean and Donbass minutemen at Kiev become justigied.

The Crimea May Be Either Russian Or Turkish
Under two Turko-Russian Treaties of 1774 and 1783, Russia was denied a right to give the Crimea to any third party. In this case soverenity of Turkey there should be restored. See WPTreaty of Küçük Kaynarca. Въ 176.195.200.228 (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of 'incorporation' in lead
While there's been general consensus for dropping 'forced acquisition', there's been no discussion pertaining to 's use of incorporation as a substitute. Incorporation is not a neutral term in the context of RS for annexation, accession or any similes that might be acceptable. Rather, it reads as being contrary to RS. The truest example of its use I could find was here, pointing to its use as a natural or legally viable form of amalgamation. The accession of Crimea can hardly be characterised as being a smooth, legally moderate expression of 'incorporating' the region.

For the moment, I've restored 'acquisition' and the pre-existing link to 2014 in Ukraine. Again, neutrality and rejecting tabloid-style language is not designed for opportunistic WP:GEVAL grabs at the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All that from 'incorporation' vs 'acquisition'? 'Being bold' I made the change I thought was best. That's called being a normal Wikipedia editor. In any case, you have a lot to learn about basic Wikipedia manners. I.e., don't assume evil motives based on ostensibly innocuous word choices. In normal Wikipedia world, I would expect an apology after you woke up from your paranoid fever dream. But this is not the Wikipedia of two years ago.
 * On the issue at hand, incorporation is an accurate and standard word for what resulted from the accession process, and 'acquisition' is inaccurate for the accession process. Acquire means to "buy or obtain (an object or asset) for oneself." It doesn't fit the process of accession -- which, whether you like it or not, feel it was legitimate or not, is what happened legally and diplomatically -- in which two entities are joined or merged, neither 'acquiring' the other. Just as in the Hewlett-Packard, Compaq merger it is inaccurate to say HP 'acquired' Compaq, and accurate to say the two companies merged.
 * I also need to correct your extremely odd understanding of the word "incorporate," which means "to unite or work into something already existent so as to form an indistinguishable whole." Doesn't that sound exactly like what happened, whether you agree with it or not, when Crimea became part of Russia? There is no implication of "a smooth, legally moderate" process. That's apparently something you saw that wasn't there in any known definition.Haberstr (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, please don't insult a WP editor who clearly has more skill than you. Iryna is definitely aware of multiple WP policies at stake here, and definitely knows what she is talking about. Adopting such behavior toward her might get you blocked, keep that in mind. In case you desire to "flame" your personal opinion at Iryna, there is another place I'd take it you are aware of, where you can do that. This page is strictly for discussing the article's improvement. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second, I advise you to read all of the above. Bring up the same wording problem again after it has been discussed a countless number of times is not OK. In fact, it means that some users clearly don't understand NPOV. Please lecture yourself because this is getting rather tedious. Also, there was never any consensus reached on removing "forcible" (not "forced") so far as I know, so I'm putting it back. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine that all of the problems here could be solved by eliminating the bold titling per WP:BOLDTITLE, and replacing it with something like "Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014", or whatever. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd consider that to be a simple and elegant solution. It's unnecessarily convoluted "The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was the March 2014 forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula, internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, by the Russian Federation." I can't see the reader as being clear on whether 'internationally recognized as part of Ukraine' also includes the RF. The bulk of the lead clarifies the circumstances (and could do with a bit of a copyedit in general).


 * Would other editors be satisfied with this solution? By 'other editors', I am certainly including you, . It would be deeply appreciated if you would stop being so defensive as to be offensive. Let's stick to the content and not read in attacks where there weren't intended to be any. Your change to the content was understood to be WP:BRD, and precisely why I brought it to the talk page before this escalated into yet another edit war. I think we've seen more than enough bad faith over the last year. Please, let's try to be constructive and put any bad feelings behind us. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, "internationally recognized" refers to the UN's recognition of Crimea being part of Ukraine (notably, via the 1994 Budapest memorandum). Maybe someone knows how to better phrase that part? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was being a little on the flippant side of serious. There's one too many "by the Russian Federation"'s squished in there for my liking. As noted, the entire lead could do with a clean up, but it's the 'forced acquisition' that's still in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on using "forced" instead of "forcible"? As per my discussion above with Toddy1, we both clearly agreed that Russia has used force (rather military, but most likely also political) to annex Crimea. To me, "forced" would mean that the Crimean people had to vote against their will, and that Ukrainian government had no other choice but to accept the outcome. There is a difference in both words, don't you think? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd simply redacted it to 'forced' for the purposes of discussion. Can I take it, then, that it is agreed that "forcible acquisition" stays as being a reasonable and WP:NPOV introduction to the article in the lead? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but I'm really not a fan of this "forcible acquisition" business. It strikes me as odd. As I said above, WP:BOLDTITLE recommends that we remove the bolding, and simply write it out, i.e. "Crimea was annexed &c." There is no reason to try and define annexation in queer ways, as has been done here. "Acquisition" is simply inappropriate. I'm not so foolish as to be bold and write it out myself. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The spanner is accepted with gratitude. I'm going to stop trying to be diplomatic here and say that 'forced' and 'forcible' is playing at semantics, and that 'forcible acquisition' = a strained attempt at WP:EUPHEMISM. For the purposes of the lead, which is already comprehensive enough, any such value judgement is extraneous when the body of the article carries all of the relevant details. I'm going to bide my time a little longer to allow for other users to comment, but am prepared to rewrite the lead in a couple of days (per BRD) should discussion peter out as it is already doing. I'd rather hammer it out here on the talk page, but you can't always have your cake and eat it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Reunification of Crimea with Russia" VS "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"
Why is the box on the top right called "Reunification of Crimea with Russia" while the article is called "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"?

I think both should have the same name since they refere to the same thing. Any counter-arguments?

--87.174.220.253 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"Forcible" acquisition?
I am aware of the same wording used to define Annexation in the English Wikipedia. However, although the term is the best suitable one to this event per se, "forcible" does not work well with most NPOV sources provided. Here is what we have so far:

1) The Russian soldiers did invade and occupy Crimea

2) The Ukrainian officials were prevented from accessing their respective government and military positions by the said soldiers

3) The Crimean people did not revolt or oppose the occupation, save for a couple of exceptional cases in Sevastopol, as well as the Tatar community, which did not go to vote

4) There was an unconstitutional referendum, held by the established pro-Russian authorities, with votes having most likely been rigged to represent particular voters

5) The aftermath resulted in pro-Russian Crimean authorities signing a Restitution treaty for Crimea to become part of the Russian Federation

The question to ask here is as follows: what exactly can be described as "forcible" in the above process? Were the people forced to vote? Were the officials forced to leave? The neutrality of the annexation remains in the fact that Crimeans are not against the Russian regime, and they are not necessarily looking for re-establishing Ukrainian borders. They have the right to speak out, and notwithstanding whether it has been legitimately used or not, they are not speaking out against the current regime. So, can we really call it "forcible"?

- Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of force made it forcible.


 * You get the same issue with rape. For it to be forcible, the man does not have to kill her or stab her; he just has to use force - and the implicit use of force by holding a knife at her throat is still a use of force even though the man does not cut or penetrate her skin with a knife.--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are talking about coercion, or maybe threat-making (which is basically the same). And rape is quite a wrongly-chosen example to compare to politics, seriously. While I agree that a maniac can forcibly impose the process of involuntary intercourse over their victim, I doubt that same can be imposed for voting, or keeping the silence. The weakness of Ukrainian authorities put against the Russian militiamen is one thing, holding them at gunpoint at the time when the country was weak is fully understandable for the said authorities to react the way they did. But when we're talking about the people, who didn't mind, and who were surely not made to vote by threats or coercion, I get the impression of using the term "forcible acquisition" by Ukraine only to hide their own fear of Russians, whether it is justified or not. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We're moving into WP:SOAP territory here, everyone. The fact is that, as a legal term describing the acquisition of territory, annexation is the most apt according to WP:NATURALNESS. Annexation can be understood to be by legal, illegal, neutral or by coercive means. The fact stands that, for the purposes of the WP:TITLE of this article, it is both recognisable and neutral according to international standards. Any disputes as to the circumstances and perspectives as to how it was accomplished belong in the body. Until there are serious academic/scholarly reliable sources consistently using any other descriptors, "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" fits the bill as being succinct enough for encyclopaedic purposes.


 * , while I also disagree with 's interpretation of rape not being a legal parallel (coercion is a WP:EUPHEMISM which, to my knowledge, is not used as a legal term as an equivalent for forcible unless it's by the defence when they're playing with WP:WORDS). Nevertheless, the lack of any consistent descriptors invoking stronger terms in RS suggests that annexation should stand for the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna, I think you misunderstood. I am in favor of "annexation" in this case, I just don't find enough firm proof of it being a "forcible acquisition" via the stated RS. For force to be applied, there must be resistance, and, like I said, no source ever stated rebellion formation, or even a simplest discontent from the Crimean people. In this case, the annexation of Crimea was more like an "illegal acquisition, disguised to appear on legal/constitutional terms", which doesn't contradict the fact of one country appropriating the land de jure belonging to their immediate neighbor. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of force by Russia made it "forcible". The point of the analogy was that the successful use of force may deter resistance.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, from what both sides have reported, there was no direct "force" applied to coerce individuals against their will. Or do you mean "forces", as in military ones? This is different. Ukraine may consider it a "forcible acquisition" since Ukraine was against the move, but Crimea surely wasn't taken "by force", but rather by ruse. If the conflict ever resolves in favor of Ukraine, I'm sure Crimeans won't be much happier to go back to that country either. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with changing "forcible acquisition" into something more NPOV. --Leftcry (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is "forcible acquisition" used in the article?
 * Cheers, and not a problem. I understood what you meant. The problem is that this thread has drifted into the realms of WP:OFFTOPIC as we're now obsessing over semantics (for which I am equally guilty). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Acquisition" is fine by me, as long as "forcible" is not openly used. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "forcible acquisition" is merely a definition of what word "annexation" means, nothing more. My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but considering the above content, and the way I see this event, it would be wiser to say "unforcible annexation", because in this case, there was no direct force applied. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. Just to clarify, the "force" in that last sentence referred to military forces, just as I thought. And I think we can agree on it being the only support behind "forcible". Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was no direct force applied, forcible should not be used in the lead in. Any argument that "well annexation means forcible" is circular and could be argued is based on a prior possible previous POV error.  I have no issue with the article name, I think overall the article is fairly neutral, but forcible is not what happened.  The landslide vote, the lack of uprisings against the vote and the fact that people are openly taking part in a civil war against their former countrymen are all signs of a total lack of applied force from Russia. Lipsquid (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's the case. "Forcible" simply means "against someone's will", that "someone" here being the Ukrainian state (a sovereign), and pretty much the entire international community. Implied force is still force. If I point a gun at your head and say "gimme all your money", I am still "annexing" your money "forcibly", regardless of whether I actually shoot you or not. And let's leave jokes about "landslide vote" and "lack of uprisings" out of this. They're sort of in bad taste.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. The article is already fixed so there is no need to banter with a person who makes personal attacks.  Your logic and biased PoV is the joke.  Lipsquid (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're coming dangerously close to a WP:NPA violation, User:Lipsquid. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1 Please, I made a response regarding my commentary being "a joke".  If you read my previous commentary it was totally civil,  Volunteer Marek's response was NPA so go send a message to him.  All of this is offtopic anyway.  Plus I have no dog in the fight, the article reads better now.  Best.... Lipsquid (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Using 'Annexation' in the article's title is POV - a neutral title is required
There are two sides to this controversy: the Russians say that Crimea joined Russia by a process of accession but the Ukrainians say it was annexation. That being the case, using either one of these terms in the title is taking sides. I tried having both terms in the title but that was reverted. Perhaps the solution is to find a neutral word instead? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia does not regard the "according to Simon Wiesenthal... but David Irving disputes this analysis" approach as acceptable. See Neutral point of view.  Mainstream reliable sources tell us that Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014.--  Toddy1 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem is Mainstream sources are NOT reliable... Mainstream sources claimed there was no 'Ukraine' option on a referendum ballot. Only western sources are agreed to be reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan the Formidable (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read EB's legal definition. Annexation is not only a neutral, but an apt word/definition. It doesn't actually necessarily mean forcible, and can also assume the character of being widely accepted (by the majority of the population of Crimea, for example - assuming the referendum really did meet reasonable standards and was understood by uninvolved bodies to be a fair one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan the Formidable (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On the point of whether there was any force involved: read all of the articles and RS surrounding the event. Was the RF military involved? Yes. Were Ukrainian bases taken over and the Ukrainian military forced to leave? Yes. Were there independent bodies overseeing the process who declared that it was really fair, terrific, and they had no doubt that it was just and aboveboard? No. Explain, then, how the use of "annexed" is Ukrainian WP:BIASed. It seems that there are a lot of sources from around the globe who think the RF were being a bit naughty. Please read WP:NPOV carefully. I think you are misunderstanding what "neutral" means. Neutral ≠ WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna, the Ukrainian military were never "forced to leave", they were simply prevented from entering their bases. This is different, because forcing someone to do something is direct coercion, whereas keeping someone from reaching a goal is akin to tampering, i.e. "rigging" the process (sorry, I'm not strong on the legal terms here). It is the same with the referendum, which was not held at gunpoint, but was rather rigged and disguised as illustrating free will of the people who, for the most part, simply didn't care with what country they will be next. Russia has used neutral opinion in its favor in order to protect the Black Sea Fleet from conflicting with the soon-to-be NATO territory, nothing more. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Most Russian sources are not RS. Russia Today is not RS. Lenta, Vesti and the rest are not RS. That is why those sources that are RS are considered NPOV on Wikipedia, which is stating that Russia has annexed Crimea against the constitution of another sovereign country. You will find the same stance in articles pertaining to the current Russia - Ukraine conflict, such as the shootdown of MH17 (which was, according to RS, shot down by a "Buk" missle from the separatists' location), the pro-Russian unrest in Donbass (which is called a "war" according to same RS, although Russia doesn't use the same term), etc. Why are the Russian sources non-RS for the most part eludes me, TBH I've never read the consensus on that. But this is just how it is here. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is very peculiar words. All sources of one coutry declared as untermensch-sourse. There are many country, which have interest in Crimea situation. I think it is wrong to say, that one country which have interest in Crimea situation have right source and second country, which sourced say different position is not right source. Wikipedia is international project and not project for POV one coutry or group of coutnries. --Рулин (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether a source is reliable or not has nothing to do with its "nationality". It's determined by criteria laid out in WP:RS - namely, a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is the case however that outlets like RT, Lenta and Vesti do not satisfy criteria. To emphasize; these are not reliable sources not because they're Russian but because they do not meet the criteria for reliability. There are Russian sources out there which are reliable. Likewise, there are American, Ukrainian, etc. sources which are not.
 * And reliable sources refer to this as an annexation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can only comment that it's very hard to believe that it's the reason why some people remove Russian sources from articles while leaving unprofessionally looking Ukrainian ones in. It looks more like some people for whatever reasons target Russian sources specifically. -Moscow Connection (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Russian sources only state individuals pertaining to the majorly-Russian POV in the event, for example: Putin, Lavrov, Medvedev, etc. None of them allude to EU officials at the same time, which breaks their neutrality for being "sock puppet" outlets of government-based propaganda. Ukrainian sources, no matter the structure, depict both POVs, and even though some of them take a stance against Russia, they still reflect a little bit more than just EU or NATO's opinion. Russian sources must provide content from opposition in order to be deemed RS. Hope that is clearer. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of them — Just not true, Russian media depict both positions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this, and then at this. Both sources are RS, however, the first one talks about "Matviyenko vowing", while the other openly advocates that the "Russian Bill Seeks To Nullify". There is a striking difference in titles. The consensus on the matter was reached the same way, with most (not all) Russian sources backing a position unsuitable for NPOV illustration. Any suitable source would state the worldwide-acknowledged position of Russia annexing Crimea, and invading Eastern Ukraine because of NPOV. Most (not all) Russian sources deny almost every word of it, and you can't argue that Matviyenko's position in the above isn't the one coming from Putin in first place. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian newspaper is a very reliable source and had an article entitled "Red Square rally hails Vladimir Putin after Crimea accession" It does not use the word annexation anywhere in the article, but instead uses accession. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , all from The Guardian. On the other hand, the one link you provide is the only instance I can find where the word "accession" is used (perhaps there are a few more, but they're not as easy to find as one with "annexation").Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To further illustrate the point, the Russian Kommersant newspaper is a RS for the most part since it contains and values opinions of all political actors, rather than those of Russia alone. Most of articles taken from there are good RS for WP. Plus, most of them don't require translation from Russian (keeping in mind that translating direct quotations in an RS might garble its reliability). My opinion: if you don't agree with said NPOV, don't edit the "hot topic" articles. I tried once, and decided to keep it to a bare minimum. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The mere fact that this discussion is taking place shows that there are divided opinions on this matter. Wikipedia editors are expected to seek consensus but what I am witnessing is not in the spirit of wikipedia. We should always actively seek out neutral wording when faced with an allegation of POV wording - that is not happening in this case. The two extreme positions are, perhaps, annexation and accession. Is it not possible to find some term between those two extremes? To seek out a new, consensus phrase that is clearly not POV is the true spirit of Wikipedia. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Annexation is not "an extreme". It is the word reported by reliable sources, and what happened is the dictionary definition of the word. It isn't "POV". It is pure reality. When one country enters another country's sovereign territory, and takes control, that's "annexation". What the Crimeans wanted is irrelevant, because they were not sovereign. Ukraine was. Ukraine considered this intervention a violation of sovereignty, and forcible. Therefore, it was an annexation. There simply is no question here that it was an "annexation". We don't use euphemisms. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course you have just explained the Western interpretation of events. The alternative view would be that the people of Crimea declared independence from Ukraine by means of a referendum and then, in accordance with the mandate expressed in the vote, the leadership of Crimea requested that Crimea be admitted to the Russian Federation which was agreed by Russia and Crimea signing a Treaty of Accession. Wikipedia can't just promote the Western interpretation of events - our job is to seek to be neutral. I'm not asking for a euphemism - just a neutral term that can accommodate both interpretation of the events. For example, why could we not say 'take over' rather than either annexation or accession - it accurately describes what happened without making a judgement as to whether the actions were justified or not. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I too didn't understand it some time back, but I do understand it now. The above description is not a "Western interpretation", it's NPOV because it relates to what worldwide sources are stating. We are talking about news agencies located not just within the NATO, but also in Africa, Asia, the Arab world, etc. This is what prevails. The neutrality is impossible to determine from the sources alone, and WP is not an inter-government organization charged with determining which POV is correct, and which isn't (because otherwise, we would end up with 3 to 5 different POVs and will be obligated to create articles for each, which contradicts the rule simplicity for the sake of encyclopedic content). Therefore, a consensus is reached to determine the NPOV, and in this case, it is what RGloucester has written exactly. We understand that the Russian version may have a different consensus (which, once again, only proves that WP is not "the judge"), but here, this is what the NPOV is and it must be respected with or against one's personal beliefs, even if they are ready to provide rare RS supporting another POV. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't the "western interpretation". It is international law. The "people of Crimea" cannot declare independence from Ukraine, because the Ukrainian constitution does not give them that right. It is sovereign Ukrainian territory, under international law, and under Ukrainian law. This has been affirmed by various documents, such as the Budapest Memorandum, which Russia signed. The word "annexation" has nothing to do with whether said annexation was "justified" or not. All it means is that one state took control of another state's territory without that state's permission. Like I said before, the vast majority of Austrians supported the annexation to the German Reich. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an annexation of a sovereign state's territory, against that sovereign state's will. Again, the only sovereign entity in international law in Crimea is Ukraine. If Ukraine did not consent to the referendum, to the Russian intervention and take-over, then it is an annexation. This is what RS say. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please accept that I am not trying to create problems here - I just feel we are confusing the terms NPOV, consensus and majority opinion. I personally have no view as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute over crimea: I just have a concern about the wikipedia project and what we are trying to do here. Quoting 'international law' is a particularly weak as an argument as international law both provides for the right to self-determination and also for the territorial integrity of states. Then we get situations like Kosovo where a majority Albanian speaking population is granted the right to secede from Serbia without Serbia's permission, but somehow that same principle in Crimea does not not apply? Somehow wikipedia must set higher standards than that which prevails in international politics. Finally a thought - there is no doubt that the clear majority of the states in the world are on one side in this debate, but Russia is not alone on the other side. Perhaps most editors want wikipedia to take the side of the majority, but I prefer to take no side...that, to me, is what NPOV means. (By the way, best wishes for Christmas!) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not taking any "side". We follow RS. That's all. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's where we disagree - RS requires 'neutral point of view' but this article is adopting majority point of view which is not the same thing. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If one person yield the right of way to another person, somebody must end up accepting it, right? Otherwise they would be saying "after you, please" to each other until the end of their lives. On WP, a certain POV must be adopted as NPOV, and most of the time, it's the one majorly accepted. It's common logic. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that - an admission of sorts, I think. I have no doubt that most editors (myself included) believe that what has happened in Crimea is an annexation, but there is an alternative, radically different view that argues what has happened is an accession to Russia of a country that had just declared independence following a referendum. Since there are two opposing views, both supported by reliable sources, wikipedia should actively seek a neutral wording. It should not go for whatever of the two alternative positions has more support, but should aim for a compromise/neutral position. That has not been done in this case and I'm hoping that editors will accept that it should be done here - whatever our person views on this matter happen to be. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This has become too bizarre for comprehension. Please read WP:NPOV carefully. There are not two mainstream 'schools of thought' on this in reliable sources. Have you bothered to take a look at the number of sovereign states who have happily accepted Crimea as being a member of the RF? What do you think the majority of RS are saying about this other than that it was a duplicitous move on behalf of the RF, and that they do not recognise the method or outcome as being valid (only in far stronger language). On a second note, for those of us who are native English speakers, the notion of 'acquisition' of a region is preposterous. Acquisition pertains predominantly to purchases, and this particular piece of real estate was not purchased via some form of good faith vendor-purchaser contract upheld by the laws of the land. The other form 'acquisition' can be understood to be an acceptable term would be as a polite way of saying 'looted', 'pillaged', claimed as 'booty'. In fact, you're arguing for a far less neutral qualifier than 'annexation'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna, I suggest we stop replying to that user. They are constantly coming up with the same topic over and over, even after I tried my best to explain everything to them. If they want to believe in something different, it's their choice. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Iryna, I appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to engage in discussion. Personally I prefer 'Take over' of Crimea rather than 'annexation' of Crimea. Take over is a statement of fact (leaves aside the question of whether it was annexation or accession.) Cheers Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that, by now, it would be self-evident that you won't find consensus for blatantly WP:OR and WP:POV titles by any stretch of the imagination. This is Wikipedia, not journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Iryna - I have been accused of my suggestions being POV but not WP:OR before. Could I just point out that suggestion 'takeover' would not be OR since that was used in sources (eg, the Washington Post . It is clear that any suggestion other than the disputed 'annexation' word will be rejected. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "annexation" is not disputed, and "takeover" is both an absolutely unacceptable euphemism, and also a colloquialism. I hope you realise that the piece you cited is an opinion piece by a commentator, and hence not RS per WP:SOAP. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the word 'annexation is disputed - that's why I started this discussion. Since the word is disputed, I am suggesting that it would be better to use a term that is accurate and clear but not loaded with additional meaning. I am open to a range of suggestions as to what a suitable alternative word or phrase may be - take over was just a suggestion to illustrate the possibility of an alternative. Perhaps a better suggestion would be 'Acquisition' rather than 'Annexation'. Acquisition is used in reliable sources such as the [Wall Street Journal|http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304732804579425110479303926] Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That newspaper headline is satire. You don't see the irony in "Crimea Could Prove Expensive Acquisition for Russia"? Didn't you read what Iryna said above? Notice that the first sentence of the article says "annexing the breakaway region". There is no suitable word, other than "annexation". "Annexation" is not disputed. No additional meaning exists. Please find something better to do with your time. No one is interested in engaging in WP:OR. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Two options. Either if the term "annexation" is neutral, we should remove the paragraph, where it's said that Russian government denies annexation (since if it's a legal term for any unilateral territorial acquirements, Russian government just denies the meaning of the word, and it's absurd), or if the term means "illegal acquisition" (according to the international law) or "acquisition by force", then, of course, it's not neutral, because there has to be a reliable source to constatate an annexation, and such a source can be only an international legal organization (like the UN or the UN International court). Also if "annexation" is a neutral term, we have to remove the words like "forcible" from the definition in this article: Annexation. SkipTheRules (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV properly, as well as the discussion on this page,. We use reliable sources for article titles and content. This is not the same as writing neutrally on any given topic. The mildest term used by reliable sources is "annexed": Wikipedia does not refactor the sources to make them neutral in the manner you seem to have understood. If the majority of RS were calling it a state-sponsored terrorist invasion, that would be the correct form to present as both title and within the content. It's interesting that you should pop in to comment at this stage when you evidently haven't read the article. The word 'forcible' was removed quite some time ago. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

POV Bias 1: Non-sourced conjecture in paragraph 2 of lead removed and then restored.
Volunteer Marek, aside from mischaracterizing and assuming bad faith in my edit (his edit summary was "please refrain from using what appear to be purposefully misleading edit summaries"), also reverted my edit, which was summarized as follows: "Removed un-evidenced conjecture at beginning of paragraph 2." Well, the fact is that the material was un-sourced, and so I removed it. I hope all will agree that that my NPOV edit should be restored and the un-evidenced conjecture removed.

Here is the sentence before I edited it, and note there is no source at its end: The annexation took place in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution, and was part of a wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine, which was also marked by Russian military intervention.

Here is the sentence after I edited it: The annexation took place at the end of a process sparked by the February 2014 overthrow of the Ukrainian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is this? Also, I don't agree with your "NPOV edit", which removes crucial context and negatively characterizes the Ukrainian parliament's deposition of Viktor Yanukovych. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Haberstr, firstly a reminder to sign your comments. Secondly, you have refactored an NPOV rendering of events according to RS to a POV 'overthrow of the Ukrainian government'... and that is most definitely not according RS. Stop playing at WP:JUNTA JUNTA introductions of WP:TROJANs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Russian military intervention in Crimea was eventually confirmed officially, by the Russian President Putin himself. Aside from 17 April 2014 "Direct Line" confirmation (which is already present in the body of article) I would like to present another confirmation that "I will be frank; we used our Armed Forces to block Ukrainian units stationed in Crimea, but not to force anyone to take part in the elections". Does such blocking of foreign military units qualify as intervention? Certainly. Therefore, remark that "..., which was also marked by Russian military intervention" should be restored. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit was blatant POV pushing. Your edit summary made it sound like you were removing some minor "un-evidenced conjecture". Don't do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This was about Haberstr's edit? Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for the confusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we be serious? POV pushing
Ok. Changing "Crimea was annexed" to "Crimea rejoined Russia" is pretty bad POV. Changing "Crimea was annexed" to "Crimea was annexed after declaring independence" is just the WP:BADFAITH WP:WEASEL version of the same thing. Crimea is a piece of land next to the Black Sea. Crimea didn't decide crap. Even the people in Crimea didn't decide anything. This is a thinly veiled attempt at portraying the "referendum" that was held as legit and widely recognized. It wasn't, at least that's not how reliable sources describe it.

Please stop it. It's tiresome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Even the people in Crimea didn't decide anything". - that's a bold claim to make. Everything we heard about Crimeans says they support reunification with Russia, there's only a minor disagreement on whether this support is overwhelming or not. What are your sources? 93.81.101.46 (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey
Source is being misrepresented because only the part which is favorable to a particular POV is being cherry picked from it. The source also discusses the fact that Crimean Tatars were most likely under or non-represented in the poll and that a possible reason for the responses is simply that people were afraid to openly tell some strangers on the phone what they really think. If I was living in Crimea and somebody I didn't know called me up asking what I thought of the new situation, *I* would also say "oh it's just awesome! Never better!".

This is again, cherry picking to push POV. And it's not just cherry picking from within a source, but also cherry picking from the set of sources that are available. There are dozens of articles out there about the deteriorating political, personal and economic situation in Crimea (particularly for the Tatars) as well as worsening level of oppression - but somehow someone went out there and found just this one particular article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. --Seryo93 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked this above and I ask this again here. You think that this survey is cherry picked? Then add some other surveys to counterbalance it, not articles, not opinions, not subjective estimations, but other statistical surveys. And btw, what *YOU*, or any professional pole think about whether or not Russians are free to express their opinion on the phone is the last thing the wikipedia needs. 93.81.101.46 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * dear colleague, please refrain from making personal attacks. It will "help" as much as "bear service". --Seryo93 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, remarks about "Orwellian atmosphere" were made by Taras Berezovets of "Free Crimea" (organisation, which asked GfK to conduct that survey), but not by GfK themselves. I think, we may add both a survey and Berezovets comment, both attributed, to present "both sides of a story". Would that be a good solution? --Seryo93 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

 * Here is (English) report by Igor Sutyagin with Tables of Russian military units operating at the Ukrainian territory and other related info. Here is his interview in Russian. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of my changes to Novaya Gazeta paragraph in introduction
This is the earlier paragraph:
 * In February 2015, the leading independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents which showed that Russia's government developed a strategy for invading and breaking up Ukraine even before Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power. The documents outline plans for annexation of Crimea and the southeastern portions of the country, very closely describing the events that actually followed after Yanukovych's fall. The documents also describe plans for a public relations campaign which would seek to justify Russian aggression.

This is how it looks after I changed it (changed sections in bold):
 * In February 2015, the leading independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents, allegedly written by oligarch Konstantin Malofayev and others, which provided the Russian government with a strategy in the event of Viktor Yanukovych's removal from power and the break-up of Ukraine, which were considered likely. The documents outline plans for annexation of Crimea and the eastern portions of the country, closely describing the events that actually followed after Yanukovych's fall. The documents also describe plans for a public relations campaign which would seek to justify Russian actions.

I have carefully read the sources (in particular McClatchy DC and the original Novaya Gazeta article), and the sources do not allege that the Russian government authored the plan; this is a clear example of WP:SYNTH, so I removed it. It says that the plan was "presented" to the government and that a well-known oligarch is likely among the authors (that particular oligarch has since started a court case against the newspaper).

Neither does it speak of plans to justify Russian "aggression" - this term is never used.

Most importantly, the report does not say that Russia planned to initiate the invasion and break up of Ukraine before Yanukovitch's downfall (which the earlier wording suggested), but that it was considered likely that Yanukovitch would be overthrown and that this would cause "centrifugal forces" within the country to increase, and that Russia should then intervene and try to create a situation that would lead to "political and moral legitimacy" for those forces in Crimea and southeastern Ukraine seeking integration with Russia. The particular methods (military, political, economic) are not specified.

This is an encyclopedia and we must stick strictly to what is published in the sources, without adding any of our own interpretation.

I have changed "southeastern" to "eastern" and "very closely" to "closely" because Kharkov was discussed as the region to be joined to Russia along with Crimea, which did not happen.

Here is a translation of one segment of the alleged document:
 * ''Текущие события в Киеве убедительно показывают, что время пребывания Януковича у власти может закончиться в любую минуту. Таким образом, времени на адекватную реакцию у России становится все меньше. Количество погибших в беспорядках в столице Украины прямо свидетельствует о неотвратимости гражданской войны и невозможности консенсуса, с сохранением за Януковичем поста президента. В этих условиях представляется правильным сыграть на центробежных устремлениях различных регионов страны, с целью, в той или иной форме, инициировать присоединение ее восточных областей к России. Доминантными регионами для приложения усилий должны стать Крым и Харьковская область, в которых уже существуют достаточно сильные группы поддержки идеи максимальной интеграции с РФ. Разумеется, Россия, взяв на себя поддержку Крыма и нескольких восточных территорий, будет вынуждена принять на себя весьма обременительные в ее теперешнем положении — бюджетные расходы.
 * ''The ongoing events in Kiev convincingly show that Yanukovitch's time in power can end at any minute. In this way, there is less and less time for an adequate reaction by Russia. The number of dead in the chaos engulfing Ukraine's capital is direct evidence of the unavoidability of civil war and impossibility of consensus, or of the presidential post surviving Yanukovitch. In these circumstances, it would be proper to make a play on the centrifugal tendencies of various regions of the country, with the goal of (in one way or another) initiating the incorporation of its eastern regions into Russia. The primary regions for directing [our] energies ought to be Crimea and the Kharkov region, in which there already exist strong groups supporting the idea of a maximal integration with the Russian Federation. Of course, once Russia accepts the duty of supporting Crimea and several eastern territories, it will be required to take upon itself budgetary expenditures that are rather serious from its current standpoint.

Esn (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I also wish to add a further comment. In the original Novaya Gazeta article, nowhere is it mentioned that Crimea and the Eastern regions should break away through war or violence - instead, it is stated that they should hold referendums, demand federalization, etc. and that this should be accompanied by a PR campaign supporting their actions. Esn (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this brings us back to the question of whether the document belongs in the lead. Yes, there were RS reporting that it had been found by Novaya Gazeta, but there's been no follow up since the initial reports as to the veracity of the documents. Considering that the existence of such documents would have been considered a revelation the media would have wanted to follow, any noises about it have disappeared. Given the lack of reportage, confirmation that the documents are authentic, etc., I'd suggest that this content doesn't belong in the lead. I have no problems with a mention in the body, but feel that it's WP:UNDUE as it currently stands. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Iryna Harpy on this and support Esn's changes to the language. I think it's notable, but it doesn't need to be in the intro, and I find the report much less interesting than the new state TV documentary in which Putin admits his immediate goal after Yanukovych's fall was snatching up Crimea and claiming it for Russia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to include Putin's statements from the film in the lead if they are given in their full context without hyperbole or WP:SYNTH. I don't have any further comments yet as I haven't seen the film (supposedly, the Russians are working on subtitled versions in various languages). Esn (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iryna. It does not belong in the lead. Find it a home in the body. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "back to the question", Iryna Harpy? Since Volunteer Marek added it 5 days ago, I don't think this passage has been discussed or modified by anyone until I made the attempt today. Was there a discussion I missed? In any case, where do you propose to place this? I think the most natural alternative placement could be between the first and second paragraphs of the current "history" section (to place the alleged events in their chronological order). Esn (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see why I need to qualify this, . The various articles on events in Ukraine become a bit of a blur when it comes to questions of use and reuse of sources. You'll find that it was the subject of dispute here for the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article (where I believe the question of its being in the lead needs to be revisited)... and, yes, I'd agree that the most logical place would be to make it the second paragraph in the history section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up! I've gone ahead and modified it in the other article as well. Esn (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Undoing multiple edits from anon IP (who needs to do better), with very poor language and disruption of perfectly OK links (with a couple of my own edits as collateral damage)
I am answering here to this entry on my talk page, since it (only) concerns this article: 

This article is rated high-importance (in the context of Russia and of Ukraine). So the edits have to be held to a higher-than-normal standard, and they can certainly not be barely intelligible. Secondly and especially because this is a high-importance article, editors need to be aware of the basic mechanics of Wikipedia, so that existing links are not disrupted. So to the anonymous editor: Please undo your revert, do the effort of understanding Wikipedia's referencing and then make sure to contribute in passable English. You could also consider contributing in your own language, and then appeal for translators to help with the English version. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most of that might be included if properly written. In addition to the language, the problem is POV-pushing. For example, simply telling that majority of police officers and Ukrainian military decided to stay in Crimea implies that they supported annexation (no, this is something debatable). Quoting an admiral in the way he was quoted makes an impression (although this is not explicitly said) that the military forces he is talking about were the only Russian forces employed in Crimea. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, once a reader actually parses the text, I can believe there is POV-pushing in there. As for the quoted retired admiral, I made that edit and I was careful to use the verb 'included', specifically to avoid the impression that Russia's deployment of troops in Crimea was limited to the quoted landings. And I still think some actual numbers are useful - not to mention that three landings of long distance air transporters like IL-76 weren't just moving personnel from the Sevastopol naval base around in Crimea. But these are small details in the big scheme of things. (PS. While in active duty, Admiral Igor Kasatonov appears to have participated in joint Russian/NATO excercises. I think it will be a while until the next time the Russian admiralty will do that). Lklundin (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But after looking at their next edits, such as this, it becomes clear: the user is simply WP:NOTHERE. Not only they introduce intentionally broken English and poor sourcing, but referring to the 1954 transfer of Crimea (when Crimea was officially transferred to Ukraine) is an argument in favor of an opposite position (that it belonged to the Ukraine). My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and reintroduced my quote of Igor Kasatonov. If someone can make it even clearer that those troop deployments did not constitute the entirety of the invasion force, then go boldly ahead. Lklundin (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What about "takeover"?
One reason to be leery of using the term "annexation" is that it makes a factual claim that is disputed. Annexation is a legal step. The United States takes the position that Russia's "attempted" annexation was illegal and the current situation amounts to a military "occupation." Of course, "occupation" is also a disputed term. "Incorporation," as suggested below, is simply awkward. So why not "takeover"? NPguy (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's less precise, so I don't think it's preferable to "annexation". And, only speaking for myself here, I see zero need to compromise on this issue. The title is fine as it is; I'd probably prefer 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea or Annexation of Crimea by Russia, but so it goes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that pretty much speaks for me as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)