Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 7

Same ol' crap
Toby, you know very well that the issue of the inclusion of the poll has been discussed a dozen times by now. With consensus against you. Please stop trying to reinsert it, please stop making nonsensical claim that inclusion of this poll is "stable version", please stop doing the things that you've been warned against doing repeatedly on admin noticeboard.

Additionally, please stop changing the % numbers from "15% to 30% of Crimeans" to "50-60%". The Forbes sources clearly states the former, so there's no excuse for this edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I'd also appreciate it if you didn't "mimic" my edit summaries as that kind of behavior appears to be a passive-aggressive form of a personal attack. I don't "parody" your edit summaries, please have the courtesy to do the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Can we please remember civility, Marek? Seeing titles along the lines of "Same ol' crap" discredits Wikipedia as a serious and reliable source of information. Thanks, --Remote Helper (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but dealing with the same issue for the twentieth time qualifies it as "same ol' crap". And for outside observers, please note that the above account "Remote Helper" is a single purpose account which has been created to stalk my edits, stir up pointless trouble and engage in other forms of harassment. And oh yeah, per admin's comments at a sock puppet investigation, the user is hiding their IP location. So after this reply, I'm just going to follow DFTT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No admin said I am hiding anything, that is a whopper lie, but who cares, say whatever you want: you act tough because you think you are anonymous. Nonetheless, what you say is your opinion, and you are entitled to have one, but that reading your swear words discredits Wikipedia is a fact. Sooner or later an admin will block you. Who knows, maybe it has already happened in a not too distant past. Cheers, --Remote Helper (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Remote Helper (talk · contribs · count) is probably Unrelated, possibly  Inconclusive as they are hiding their true location." . And are you making threats? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking and misleading, Marek, your specialty... :-) Let's see what was actually said: Remote Helper (talk · contribs · count) is probably Unrelated, possibly  Inconclusive as they are hiding their true location. Remote Helper should be warned about editing without logging in. Otherwise, I recommend no action against the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * About the location: I am not hiding anything. Nobody ever asked me what my location is. Why do you want to know my location, Marek, you want to come and stalk me even in person? That might get you in trouble, you know. :-) Are you threatening me? Cheers, --Remote Helper (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC) PS Let's see if you can resist the temptation to have the last word... :-D I personally doubt it. :-)

Rewording
I undid this edit because grammatically, the inclusion of the word "while" makes it seem like the two clauses are in opposition to each other or contradiction, where in fact that is not the case. The referendum can be regarded as illegal AND the official results inflated. It's not an OR thing.
 * I disagree, Volunteer Marek. For example, "While I was watching television, a man rang my door bell." 'While' is used to indicate that the second thing happened at the same time as the first thing was already happening. The change I was trying to make was to point out that at that same time as there was a dispute over the legality of the referendum, there was also a dispute over the accuracy of the official referendum results. But not a major issue. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do want to string those two clauses together then you need a better word because "while" does make it sound like the two of them are in opposition. "While" has two meanings; "at the same time" and "whereas". The context here makes it seem like it's being used in the second sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In regard to this edit - I know this is mentioned in several sources though I'm not sure if it's exactly inlined. It could be the one at the end of the para.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Volunteer Marek. I read the sources and could find absolutely no reference to what is stated. If you want the claim kept (which it should be if it can be supported by suitable references) then please add a source. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. For now how about we just add a cn tag to it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed - it's not what I like or dislike
To be clear, I remove claims that are not supported by sources. Any editor who objects to the removal of any material that is deleted for this reason has an easy solution: re-add the information along with a reliable source. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you're right above - I did see that claim in sources but it is not specifically in the sources which are currently provided, so yes, it's up to me to find the actual sources. I think you're doing a good job here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is not a BLP, therefore there is no urgency in removing apparently unsourced information. Bear in mind that this article has been at the centre of hefty edit warring, and every word has been scrutinised to the nth degree by multiple editors throughout its development. Editors need to use their judgement carefully per article, and simply removing information without any notice is, in my opinion, not a good strategy for improving an article. If in doubt, add a 'cn' and allow a little time for editors to find sources or the content will be compromised by being lost and forgotten about in the article's history during this resurgence of activity. As it stands, another editor has found one such source (and I've found the full archived version), and there are definitely other RS out there. While you may be editing in good faith, you're rushing through this demanding that everyone jump when you say so.


 * Regular editors who've been working on this article since its inception are not always immediately available to join in the editing process. Best practice for articles such as this (that is, a highly controversial subject which falls under discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe) is to use the talk page for discussion before simply jumping in and taking it on as your own editing project. Yes, you have the prerogative to remove unsourced content, but coming in from nowhere and not bothering to communicate with anyone else until they start reverting you is bad practice.


 * It would also be appreciated if you were to examine previous edits carefully before 'tidying' them. What has become apparent is the fact that you haven't read the archives properly. I'm taking your misjudgement as being good faith at this stage, and am anticipating a good, collaborative relationship from here on in. Thanks for hearing me out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to note your what you have to say, and I will take it on board. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Much appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While we are being collaborative, you will notice that I posted a question on talk about the 'legal obstacles' section and no one has replied. Considering that you were the editor who has reverted my deletion of information that appears to me to be irrelevant, I would have hoped that you could have explained why information about a proposed Bill that was never voted into law and then withdrawn, is significant enough to merit inclusion. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be included as, despite having no practical effect, the bill is a representation of the discourse that was occurring in Russia at the time. More importantly, it should be clearly noted that the bill did not pass. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Again, due to the fact that you're making substantial successive changes, I haven't actually had the time to catch up with the talk page (or the article). Like most Wikipedians, I work on hundreds of articles, have thousands on my watchlist, and get bogged down in other areas (which is why it's imperative to allow editors a little time to interact). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Status Not Free
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/crimea Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

part of Russia ?
Should be part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the observation, Xx236. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What a balanced, well-written, and NPOV opening section looks like
Those visiting Wikipedia should know that there are many neutral editors who would like to create an NPOV, balanced, and well-written entry on the annexation/accession. For the sake of hope that there may again be a real Wikipedia, such visitors should also know that NPOV, balanced, and well-written versions exist. For example, here is such an opening section (links removed), |which I recently introduced (it was immediately and without discussion removed):

Crimea was annexed by or acceded into the Russian Federation on March 21, 2014, after its parliament declared independence from Ukraine on March 11 and then on March 16 conducted a controversial referendum in which voters overwhelmingly backed accession. Russia now administers the territory -- internationally recognized as part of Ukraine and consisting of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol -- as two federal subjects within the Crimean Federal District: the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol.[1]

The accession into Russia took place in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution or coup d' etat, and was part of wider separatist and pro-autonomy unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine.[2][3] Russian troops without insignia or former Ukrainian troops who had removed their insignia took over the Supreme Council of Crimea and other strategic sites across Crimea.[4][5][6] The parliament then approved the installation of the pro-annexation Aksyonov government and declared Crimea's independence. A few days later the controversial referendum was held.[7][8]

The post-revolution or post-coup Ukraine government and most world leaders considered Crimea's annexation by or accession into the Russian Federation a violation of international law and of international agreements signed by Russia.[9] In contrast, Russia stated that it had acceded to a request by an independent Crimean government backed by the overwhelming sentiment of its voters, and that the post-Maidan Ukraine government was an illegitimate product of Western intervention and therefore had no legal authority over Crimea.[10] 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 recognised borders."[13][14] The UN resolution also stated that the Crimean referendum, “having no validity,” could not form the basis for altering its legal status.[14] After the annexation, Russia was suspended from the G8 and sanctions were applied against it.[12]

The Russian Federation opposed the "annexation" label,[15] Russian President Vladimir Putin likening Crimea to Kosovo and stating that its referendum on joining Russia had complied with international law on self-determination.[16] In July 2015, Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev said that Crimea had been fully integrated into Russia.[17]Haberstr (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia article talk pages are not places to post your own little WP:POVFORK versions of the article, after failing to convince others of your proposed changes. Your POVmeter is off and the magnetic poles on it may be reversed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention that I welcome civilized, consensus-oriented, fact-based and non-contentious discussion on my suggested changes. I will therefore respond minimally to the honorable Volunteer Marek's well-intended contribution, which is factually wrong about the meaning of WP:POVFORK.Haberstr (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I considered just removing your... "alternative version of the article", that you posted above since it's a pretty flagrant abuse of the talk page, but then I anticipated that there'd be all kinds of complaining and crying about supposed "censorship" so I'll just leave it up there. Suffice it to say that contrary to your assertion above, this WAS discussed extensively, you failed to persuade and drove people nuts with obstinacy and it took some admin warnings to get you to ... well, not drop it, since here you are again, but at least put it aside for awhile.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have factual, non-abusive, non-censorship ideas on how we can improve the actual Wikipedia entry? In other words, how can we make the article balanced and factual (if you allege "flagrant abuse" by one of your fellow editors, then you should cite facts, policies and evidence for such a contention; if you allege a very serious charge, "admin warnings," then Wikipedia demands that you substantiate that too), rather than how it is now, more or less exclusively representing and (excessive size matters) belaboring one side's allegations and arguments? I'm enthusiastically curious to hear from neutral editors!Haberstr (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is more or less factual and neutral right now. What you want to do is to POV it to suit your own point of view. Your POV-meter is off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , you're at it again. Drop it, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this article is NOT neutral. Crimean public opinion is largely ignored. - diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed over and over and over and over and over and over... ad infinitum. The issue at stake here is that multiple RS have clearly expressed doubt (to put it mildly) as to the transparency of the polling methodology. In less subtle terms, the polling techniques are rigged to misrepresent genuine dissenting opinions in favour of presenting the RF's preferred outcomes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why not include the polls but also include the claim that the polling methodology is rigged? I assume you have sources to back up that claim? By excluding information you don't like, it looks as though you are trying to push a point of view. 81.152.128.151 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's WP:UNDUE. In both instances, where it's being POV-pushed to demonstrate that the citizens of Crimea are really, really happy to have joined the RF, or it's a method for POV-pushing the RF as an 'Evil Empire'. Either way it's WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

pre-planned
pre-planned means sometimes that Putin decided to act weeks before the referendum. In fact the annexation had a long history: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0311/Russia-s-plans-for-Crimea-were-long-in-the-making-video Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. But that has been actually planned many years in advance. See what Andrei Illarionov said about this : "With regard to Ukraine, we see several stages of Putin’s plan to seize and to establish control of Ukraine" and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of Russia for 171 years....controversial?
I was amazed that an edit I made to add that Crimea remained part of Russia for 171 years was deleted on the basis that it was 'not very truthful detail'. I have therefore just added a reliable source stating that Crimea remained part of Russia until 1954 - leaving readers to do the Maths for themselves that this amounts to 171 years. But really, is this controversial? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is untruthful. Like the rest of Ukraine, it became part of the Russian Empire.  After the Tsar was murdered by the communists, most of the former Russian Empire became part of the USSR.  During this time it was transferred from from one administrative area to another - Novorossiya, Taurida, Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR.


 * What would be truthful to say, would be that the Crimea was part of the Russian SFSR from 1921 to 1954.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting that the Russian SFSR was not Russia? If you are, your opinion disagrees with reliable sources, like the BBC, that says that Crimea remained as part of Russia until 1954. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but are you trying to tell us that a brief summary/synth of the history of Crimea by the BBC usurps multitudes of academic sources who place the Russian Empire as being 'other' to the SFSR? It's oversimplified WP:SYNTH. I'm always wary of these sorts of quick overviews by the Western World. They are, after all, the same nation-states and agencies that used to conflate the USSR with Russia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource, ergo we don't conflate premises and present them as if they were facts. What you appear to think is WP:COMMONSENSE is not actually common sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, also, that I've reverted your most recent 'improvements' to the article. Please read the archived talk pages before going WP:BOLD... most specifically here in the previous archive. The polls have been discussed ad nauseam both here and on related articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Aside from question "is RSFSR Russia or isnt't" I'd like to note, that there was a Russian Civil War, during which Crimea changed hands many times (and this is noted in our Background section). So, blanket "1954-1783=171 years in Russia" calculation simply won't work. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though by that logic Crimea also changed hands during the Second World War when the Germans took control, so I suppose that should also be added into the background history. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that Toddy's observation stands scrutiny. In his refutation of Crimea as part of "Russia" for 171 years, he lists four administrative transfers of Crimea, sc., (1) the Novorossiyan Governorate and (2) the Tauridan Governorate--but both of these were constitutive parts of the Russian Empire. So these two can be scratched. (4) the Ukrainian SSR, which is outside the 171 range (1954-1783=171); that too can be scratched.  That leaves only (3) Russia SFSR and whether Russia SFSR counts as Russia.  Admitting this, and phrased another way, Crimea has been Russian from the time of President George Washington to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Puts a different perspective on it. Tachypaidia (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is not something we apply WP:CALC to, therefore what is this obsession with 'proving' Russian 'ownership'? As it stands, it was the equivalent of other Empires 'owning' their colonies. Any good arguments for claiming that Crimean Tartars are 'Russian'? The sum total of all of this WP:CALC is effectively to demonstrate to the reader that the Russian Federation was entitled to it. That's both bad form and POV pushing no matter how you look at it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:SYNTH since it is not a synthesis of sources to imply a conclusion, but basic arithmetic;  Of course, it is a WP:CALC, i.e., a routine calculation.  But, nb.: "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources."  More specifically, this is a "real time calculation", which is acceptable. My issue with Spiritofstgeorge's calculation is that it is so routine as to boarder on the mundane. As to the argument on colonies (and, properly too, territories), what State would not guarantee the protection of its territories and colonies (e.g., American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Falkland Islands (UK))? But this is not even a colonial argument, since these colonies/territories became federated states of the sovereign state.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 12:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is WP:SYNTH when you're WP:CALC is dependent on consecutive rule by a sovereign state. Take a look at the examples of breaks given above. In fact, such 'basic arithmetic' completely ignores the fact that the Russian Empire was overthrown. There is no generic form of concepts now known as Russia, Ukraine or Belarus. The reality is that these nation-states did not come into being until the beginning of the 1990s... and that was the result of a very, very badly handled and messy dissolution. Trying to oversimplify history is not edifying for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument you make requires the disavowal of any continuity of "Russia"; it maneuvers conveniently between ethnicity and nationality as needed in order to disallow any accrediting of Russian sovereignty. Since the 1783 annexation of Crimea until 1917 (134 years), it was under imperial sovereignty of Russia, and then, discrediting the few years of the turmoil of war where transient governments were being created and falling (such as, the Russian Democratic Federative Republic (lasted 1 day) or under WWII Nazi governance), Crimea had been under was under the federative sovereignty of Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic until 1954, an additional 34 years. Indeed, it was from this Russian federative republic that Crimea was transferred to another federatively-sovereign republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Everyone recognizes that Crimea was de jure part of the Russia, although admittedly the Russian SFSR was de facto a puppet government subject to the vagaries of the Communist Party. But, to the point, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union the Russian Federation was internationally recognized as its successor. The obsession with denying any continuity of Crimea as part of Russia--even in the most obvious and accepted instances--is more of the POV glosses that continue to impede a fair treatment.Tachypaidia (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Tachypaidia (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Read Solzhenitsyn about the discontinuity.
 * Russia was the Soviet Union for the majority of English speakers, not the RFSSR.
 * Big part of Poland belonged to the Russian Empire during about 100 years. Do you mean that Russians are allowed to annect Eastern Poland? What about Alaska?
 * Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances defined some aspects of the succession. What is the value of any Russian signature now?
 * Russia de facto controlled Crimea and de facto controlled Ukraine. Unfortunately the Russian supervision didn't work so Ukraine decolonialised itself. Please remeber that France wasn't able to preserve parts of Algeria dominated by French population. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're going to argue on behalf of the Crimean Khanate, you're on the wrong annexation, go to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire.Tachypaidia (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Deportation of the Crimean Tatars.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research
Why is Evgeny Bobrov's opinion more important than poll conducted by the German market research institute GfK? — diff. I'll cite WP:UNDUE, because I think we're giving undue weight to Bobrov. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * because Bobrov's opinion undermines what was reported in the official referendum results whereas the GfK research suggests that the official results could be truly reflective of Crimean opinion. At least that's the only reason I can think of. 81.152.128.151 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We've been over this. Just because you didn't get your way in one aspect (the GfK poll) does not mean you get to make arbitrary edits in another aspect. That's disruptive and violates WP:POINT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you please answer here? Why is Bobrov's opinion more important than poll conducted by Germany's largest market research institute? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * See Iryna's comment above in the section on neutrality. And you are engaging in WP:POINTy behavior - "you won't let me put what I want in the article, then I will remove other stuff just to make you mad". That has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. And that's all I'm going to say here. You are NOT making me discuss this for the 20th time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, Volunteer Marek, removing the public-opinion poll, and leaving just one guy's opinion, is blatantly obvious POV-pushing. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed a million times before. Always because of your disruptive behavior. Drop the stick and back away from the deceased horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop your disruptive editing. This isn't just about re-adding some (undue) text. You are also trying to remove some content while you do that. — diff. I will ask you one last time. Stop being disruptive.


 * What the Washington Post (Bobrov's report) says: "The vast majority of the citizens of Sevastopol voted in favor of unification with Russia in the referendum (50-80%); in Crimea, various data show that 50-60% voted for unification with Russia, with a turnout of 30-50%." -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and the other sources says something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and the very next sentence which you are for some reason omitting: "50 to 60% of a 30-50% turnout suggests that only about 15 to 30% of eligible voters actually voted for annexation." Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One person's opinion is just that - one person's opinion. The Crimeans polled by GfK and Gallup say something else: One Year After Russia Annexed Crimea, Locals Prefer Moscow To Kiev. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the GfK poll (again!) we are talking about the sources in the article right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One has to prove that people in Crimea a free to talk, to quote pool results.
 * Does anyone ask people in Norther Caucasus about their opinions?
 * There are plenty of newcomers in Crimea, mostly retired Russian navy, army, security men. Such people were expelled from Algeria.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * — "GfK Ukraine's poll wasn't based on actual field work, which is understandable, since a Ukraine-based organization would have a tough time operating in today's Crimea. ... Instead, it conducted a telephone poll of 800 people in Crimea." — One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia


 * "Does anyone ask people in Norther Caucasus about their opinions?"
 * — Actually, Yes. "Almost four out of five people living in Chechnya believe that the disputed republic should remain part of Russia, according to the first professional opinion poll to be conducted in the war-torn region. ... the overriding argument "for Russia" was bad experience of Chechnya's previous brush with independence." — Most Chechens 'want to remain part of Russia'


 * "There are plenty of newcomers in Crimea ... Such people were expelled from Algeria." — Lessons from history? Or are you perhaps proposing ethnic cleansing? Crimea free of ethnic Russians? I'm sure Stepan Bandera and his followers would have appreciated this idea. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A professional poll interviewing a whole 1,000 people (many of whom have practical reasons for wanting Russian governance: something that has nothing to do with allegiances if they felt there were a choice)... Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend you to read WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification about 'Pre-planned'
In the lead it says that the annexation was pre-planned and not as a response to events. I find this a little ambiguous, several clarifications about this would be appreciated (some that I would add to the lead):
 * Firstly do we have a source?

The body of the article has 'reported documents' from Novaya Gazeta (if there are more sources they weren't in the body), IMO 'reported documents' are not strong enough evidence for such a bold claim. I also noticed that in one of the links in the body it says the document was created 1-2 weeks before Yanukovych fled, which does make me question the 'not as a response to events' bit.
 * Secondly, do we know for how long it was pre-planned? From the same citation it says 1-2 weeks before Yanukovych left Ukraine (going by report creation). I'd rather have a date like this than 'not a response to events' -The current phrasing seems a little POV / OR to me (after all, at what point is it no longer a response to events?).
 * Lastly, was the pre-planning for solely the annexation of Crimea? If not to what was it for?

The current phrasing makes it difficult to tell if it was. Some aspects make me think it is, others make me think it is not. Hollth (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I too think that an earlier version (just before this revert) was more precise and suggest the phrase be restored. See a couple of sources about it just above . The publications in Novaya Gazeta are just a tip of the iceberg; there are many more. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire lead was redacted far to much by an overenthusiastic editor about a month ago. Rather than making the lead easier to read, the redaction produced a crush of information with dates and sources eliminated. I've restored the opening paragraph to the previous consensus version as it illustrates the sequence of events for the reader, as well as recovers RS backing up the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Hollth (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150725201451/http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140304p2g00m0in014000c.html to http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140304p2g00m0in014000c.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150207152258/http://news.liga.net/articles/politics/1066761-blizhniy_krug_putina_kto_popal_v_novyy_spisok_sanktsiy_ssha.htm to https://news.liga.net/articles/politics/1066761-blizhniy_krug_putina_kto_popal_v_novyy_spisok_sanktsiy_ssha.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Correct x 1 + 404 captures only for x 1 ref, so removed and added 'cbignore'. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Critique of the Thesis of an Annexation
Two German Scholars of International Law Reinhard Merkel and Gregor Schirmer disagree with the Thesis of an Annexation.--Jonathan van Arsendom (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Another brand new account. Same old crap. Would that be the Gregor Schirmer who was one of the top dogs in the East German communist party before the fall of the Berlin Wall? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do we refer to any scholars/articles when more than 90% of the population of Crimea do not consider the Rejoin with Russia as an annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.207.74 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And you know this for a fact because... you live elsewhere and follow RT(?). This is why comments from an anonymous IP completely undermine any pretensions to speaking from authority. You've given away where you are, and it certainly isn't Crimea... and that's why we follow reliable sources instead of WP:POV opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

2014 Russian take down of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea
, the article is not a duplicate. The take down of Verkhovna Rada was an important operation which is an anchor of many other events surrounding the further annexation. It also was not simply an administrative action, but rather involved quite a number of military personnel. I believe the article is more important than the 2014 Simferopol incident (the article name so ambiguous) and it needs to be expanded. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's content is already contained here (including all the content about the "military action"), and anything that isn't here can be incorporated. There is no need for a separate duplicate article, which will simply confused the reader. That's not to mention that the title of that article is a nonsense. We don't need evermore content forks in the Ukrainian crisis topic space. This has been a real problem. I have never liked the "Simferopol incident" article, but that's not what we're discussing here. This new content fork needs to be merged. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I noticed that you removed the content and merged the article. There was no real discussion on the matter. I still insist that the article is important. I know you had a real bad time to fight "content forking". But first of all the article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is quite big and really needs to be split into series, second of all there will be more and more information available as the time passes on and jamming it all into one article just wont do it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When that happens, it can be dealt with. For now, we have this article and Timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. These two articles include all the content that was at that fork, which was also at a title that was incomprehensible in English. There is no need to create duplicate articles, just like I said below that there is no reason to duplicate poll data in multiple articles. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinion study
I have restored the sentence about the opinion study. I think it is relevant and sourced as well as confirms the widespread opinion that while the Crimean referendum was falsified the majority of the population supports the annexation. If there is a criticism of the study or other contradicting sources on the population opinion I would rather include them then exclude the study.

I have also exclude Trolls from Olgino from "see also" section as I do not see the direct relevance. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The polls have been discussed ad infinitum if you care to check the archives here and on multiple other articles that deal with the annexation. For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming. Much as I hate to have to trawl through the multiple NPOVN, RSN and other talk pages in order to find the diffs, it looks as if I'm going to have to do so. Enough is enough is ENOUGH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No consensus to delete. This has been discussed many times in past, see diff or Long-term pattern of tag-teaming ... -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of restoring the sentence. The poll is much more relevant than much of the article, for example, the sentence starting with the words "Another report by Evgeny Bobrov". Cause this is an actual poll, and the sentence I've mentioned as an example is just random calculations based on hearsay and speculations by some random people the author met. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This indeed was discussed a lot. One should simply check talk page archives. There are many different opinions and no consensus for inclusion. I do not think any polls should be included here at all. The opinion polls are only informative if conducted in countries were public was informed about the subject of the poll, with the freedom of information and discussion. This is not the case in Crimea. There is no any freedom of information out there, people disappear or arbitrary arrested and convicted. And it does not really matter which organization conducted the poll. For example, the opinion polls during Scottish independence referendum, 2014 would be informative and deserve inclusion, but the polls in North Korea would not. Here is more like the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The opinion of the local population is a crucial point, whether you think they are well informed or not. Sourced information about this point should not be excluded from WP. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Crucial point" for what? For annexation? No one asked them when special forces were sent to Crimea. Yes, the opinion should be briefly noted, and it is already noted on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not where it's been POV-pushed (read as WP:COATRACK) to somehow 'prove' that it's what the people of Crimea wanted. Firstly, it wasn't a populist revolution but a military invasion which brought about the accession. If it were a populist uprising, there would be be something worth discussing... in fact, there wouldn't have been objections to the use of the poll but, rather, how to be present it. The RF instigated 'poll' was spurious enough as it stood (per My Very Best Wishes' observation). There was nothing transparent about the poll, and certainly no way of being able to vouch for its veracity. An honest, random selection of denizens feeling no pressure to respond in anything other than an honest manner to a clearly well presented series on questions immediately after the takeover? I'm sorry, but I keep having visions of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue flashing before my eyes... much like the assorted RT footage of Russian patriots assembled in the centre of Sevastopol being reused by media around the globe.


 * Furthermore, such content would have to be parsed in light of the German poll a year later, along with RS evaluations of the circumstances. An elaborate section dealing with this aspect alone would be WP:UNDUE. The subject of this article is about the military takeover, not post-annexation justification (which had been thoroughly evaluated by the RF well before the annexation, and orchestrated during the Sochi games as a matter of opportunism). Again, this has been discussed on various articles surrounding the subject over the last couple of years with the same contributors reintroducing the poll every few months. The attempts to reintroduce the content are pure WP:BLUDGEON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If (as you say, Iryna) it was an "invasion", that makes the response of local people irrelevant? Why?
 * "Furthermore, such content would have to be parsed in light of the German poll a year later" Isn't that "German poll a year later" the very thing we're discussing here now? Isn't it the one you deleted information about from the article a few days ago (on March 15)?
 * You complain that the "same contributors" keep returning to this topic, and that it amounts to WP:BLUDGEON. Well, I don't remember saying anything on this topic before, myself. And looking at a past discussion, I can't see that Alex Bakharev or Moscow Connection said anything either. So who are these "same contributors" who keep returning to this topic? Do you mean yourself and My very best wishes? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, the detailed results of several polls are already included where they belong, that is on the appropriate pages. As about this page, mentioning that majority of the population supported the annexation would be enough, but it is already said on this page. Placing a lot of different polls on this page is obviously undue and a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At present, the page says vastly more about the views of politicians in other countries (including the EU, USA, China, India and Venezuela) than about what people in Crimea thought about the annexation. Why is adding sourced info about public opinion in Crimea "obviously undue"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is already a very large page, and we have a public opinion section. Can it be expanded? Yes, maybe, but not by simply including more polls, given that we already have other pages describing the same polls (link above). Now, speaking about International responses section, yes, I think they should be significantly reduced. Obviously, things like UN resolution should stay, however the opinions by an Indian politician, Assad, Polish Prime Minister and some other politicians are not only "undue", but simply do not tell anything of substance on the subject. They should be removed. Some opinions are made by political experts and present historical analogies. Those could arguably remain. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree.—Pietadè (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:My very best wishes How would you suggest that the public opinion section can be expanded, other than by including more polls? Is it necessarily a bad thing for the same information to appear in two articles? Have you read  Abundance and redundancy? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * please pay attention to what other editors are telling you, and what you can easily establish from the archived talk pages (as you've evidently done already): the stockpiling of polls here is regarded as redundant for good reason. Please read WP:BALASPS and WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:COATRACK is about distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information. Are you saying that public opinion in Crimea is irrelevant to this topic? Do you want to entirely delete the current very short public opinion section? WP:BALASPS is about balancing different aspects of a topic. This is exactly the point we're talking about — whether the article strike the right balance by saying vastly more about views of politicians in faraway countries than about opinion in Crimea? I don't think so, myself, and User: My very best wishes has agreed the article may lack balance in this respect. Perhaps, Iryna, you yourself might pay just a bit more attention to what's been said right here by other editors, including User:Alex Bakharev, and User:Tobby72 and User:Moscow Connection... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply bringing more additional polls does not help to improve this page. I do not see any reason for this discussion. There is a lot of other things and pages to improve if someone has time. I do not. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * An endless collection of polls is meaningless. The few that are in are satisfactory. There is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to an endless number of opinion polls, some of questionable provenance. Furthermore, forking content is both unnecessary and a waste of time. We've already been through this. I can't think of any reason why this has been brought up again. There is no reason to include more polls that add nothing new to the article. Why should a new poll of less quality than the existing ones be added, given that the result was roughly the same? There can be no reason, unless certain editors are trying to set up a coat rack. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A COATRACK is where it is evident that there are editors trying to introduce content to offset the brunt of the WP:TITLE of the article in order to create a WP:POINTy piece of WP:ADVOCACY: namely that 'but the majority wants to be attached to the RF'. That is POV pushing being brought back to the table over and over again... and using WP:CRUSH tactics to overrule consensus is a big no-no. There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing. Perhaps, you should pay attention to the fact that I've been working on this, and surrounding articles, for the last couple of years and know exactly what Tobby72 and Haberstr and, to an extent, Moscow Connection have been pushing over the years (although I don't consider Moscow Connection to be in their league of disruptive editing by any measure of the stick) . Speaking of sticks, it's time for you to drop it. [EDIT] Striking through my comment regarding Moscow Connection with my sincerest apologies for suggesting that he is anything less than a good faith editor. We do disagree on a lot of issues regarding content, but by no means is he a tendentious editor or involved in any bad faith editing practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think if there are polls for 2014, there also should be polls for the years before and maybe later. Otherwise it looks as a manipulation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Iryna: Your accusations against me need to be withdrawn. Do you understand that there are many good faith editors, and I am one, who do not believe there is any consensus regarding much of this article? We simply disagree, in good faith, with other editors, who I assume are also editing in good faith and non-disruptively. So, specifically, apologize and withdraw your accusation that I am disruptive or lacking in good faith. And please please learn not to psychologize those editors whom you happen to disagree with. We humans are not capable of seeing into others' minds and therefore we can't know their motivations. Haberstr (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are behaving disruptively and editing in bad faith precisely because you are well aware that there is no consensus for inclusion of this material yet you are trying to cram it in there nonetheless. You are aware that your changes have been rejected (because they're pretty over-the-top POV pushing) yet you try and make them anyway. That *is* disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Marek, there is OBVIOUSLY no consensus (as we can see in this very discussion) to keep or exclude all RS opinion polls on what the Crimean people think. Therefore neither those who want them included and those who want to censor them have consensus. Let's all assume good faith, in part because it is fundamental Wikipedia policy that we do so, which means we should also assume that neither side in this disagreement is "POV-pushing."Haberstr (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These are not accusations, Haberstr, but observable and demonstrable facts about your editing behaviour. Looks as though I'm going to have to go through the unhappy task of accumulating a long, long list of diffs on virtually every article surrounding the crisis over the last couple of years. Would you care to explain why you have recurrently disappeared for protracted periods of time, then reappeared for another spate of bad faith behaviour after pushing the envelope too far? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Iryna, so this is another ugly accusation put in the form of a question, designed to make this 'about me' and not about the quality of the 'Annexation' of Crimea article? You simply display once again, as you have currently on the Administrators' notice board, that you don't know what assumption of good faith means. If you simply disagree with my perspective on these articles, fine. I respect that. Say you disagree and provide evidence and on-point argument, as I and Kalidasa currently are doing. But why do you instead feel the need to pretend you 'know' what other editors' motivations are? Why do you assume others are "POV-pushing" but you "NPOV-pushing," or that others are "disruptive" but you are "anti-disruptive"? Do you understand that that is the essence of "assumption of bad faith"? (By the way, if you have evidence for those 'demonstrable facts' that you don't demonstrate, then provide that on my personal talk page, where such accusations belong.)Haberstr (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox question
Current version of infobox includes "Results" section, which looks to me as "Timeline of the events". This is a correct and informative timeline, but should it remain in the infobox or be made a separate subsection "Timeline of the events" in the body of article? My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need another timeline, as we've already got one at Timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK then. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This article reads like propaganda
The mention of the referendum as "disputed" and "unconstitutional", buried deep within the opening paragraph, makes the article look silly. You might consider balancing it by mentioning that the coup d'etat in Ukraine which provoked the secession of Crimea was also "disputed" and "unconstitutional". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Bisson (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was indeed unconstitutional and declared invalid by United Nations General Assembly resolution, but I agree that it reads biased. Unfortunately, highly controversial subjects, such as that one, are difficult to fix in intro that must be very brief. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The main issue here is the military invasion and occupation of a part of Ukraine by Putin-Russia, universally condemned and "having no validity" in the words of a UN resolution. A faux and completely undemocratic "referendum" not recognised by the government of the country in question (Ukraine), or anyone else save the Putin regime, is not the main issue, and belongs somewhere below in the introduction, as is currently the case. --Tataral (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly this page is the target of paid Russian trolls from a Russian troll factory working for Moscow and Putin's government 162.213.136.97 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Scholars of international law who reject the Thesis of Annexation?
There are Scholars of international law who reject and critize the Termn Annexation.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IP 141.19.228.15, could you please qualify what "the Thesis of Annexation" is, and who these scholars who 'reject and criticise the term annexation" are? If you have reliable sources attesting to such criticism, please bring them to the table demonstrating this to be the case.


 * I am, however, working on the assumption that you are referring to the use of the term 'annexation' - as applied to the RF's annexation of Crimea - as automatically implying illegality of process.


 * Firstly, please read through the archived talk pages as this has been discussed thoroughly. Terms that are not neutral, such as 'accession', have been proposed and rejected. Annexation was arrived at as being the WP:NPOV descriptor because, in legal terms, annexation of territory can take place as legal contracts mutually arrived at between territories and not necessarily solely by illegal means. The use of 'annexation' carries no moral weight in the international legal lexicon. Hopefully, this has answered your concerns. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PEW Poll of Crimeans on annexation referendum must be in annexation referendum subsection
Much of the referendum section consists of repetitive reminders that it was 'illegal' (but with no counterargument allowed in, which is a violation of NPOV) and piling-on attacks by outsiders on the referendum's conduct and accuracy. And yet the opinion of Crimean people on conduct/accuracy is not allowed into that section by Iryna/wishes/volunteer/gloucester etc. NPOV requires the Crimean's people's opinion to be placed immediately before or after the criticisms, especially since the non-expert and know-nothing Bobrov, who is very sketchily/poorly sourced, is allowed in!Haberstr (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The opinion of population is already noted and does not deserve a lot of space on this page. No one asked the population while sending special forces to Crimea to annex the territory. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not noted in the subsection I am discussing. For NPOV balance, it needs to be directly before or after the anti-referendum (and non-RS) opinion by non-expert non-eyewitness Bobrov.Haberstr (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is your edit. It does not tell about opinion of people on annexation (subject of this page). It tells opinion about referendum ("it was fair"). This belongs to page about referendum. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wishes, it tells about the opinion of people on the quality and conduct of the annexation referendum, which is exactly what Bobrov's opinion is about, and is exactly what the Ukrainian media's criticism is about. Can you please answer the following simple question: why are those two anti-referendum accusations allowed in, but the opinion of the Crimean people is censored out? Haberstr (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is actual source currently used on the the page, and this info is sufficiently important to be mentioned. But I do feel some validity in your concerns and am uncomfortable discussing these issues... My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wishes, that source is an opinion piece by Ilya Somin, reprinted from the very conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy, and therefore not an RS source. Nonetheless, I'm not asking it be deleted, only that its reporting of a dubiously conducted 'survey of opinion' (Somin: The report states that it is based on interviews with numerous Crimean officials, experts, civil society leaders, and ordinary citizens.) by an anti-Putin group be balanced by a poll by a well-known and professional RS polling firm, which reports opinions that directly contradict that 'survey'.Haberstr (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Pew poll is not about the referendum itself. It is not "left out", as it has been in the article for ages and ages. It is simply in the public opinion section, where it belongs. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Pew poll is not about the referendum itself. The Pew poll asked citizens DIRECTLY about the conduct and results of the referendum. How can that not be about the referendum? Again, Bobrov and the Ukraine media make direct criticisms of the conduct and results of the referendum. The Pew poll is RS, while Bobrov and 'Ukraine media' are not. And yet the RS poll is excluded and the two non-RS sources are included in this subsection.Haberstr (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which makes it an opinion poll about what was thoroughly criticised as being a spurious referendum in the first instance. That makes it a reliable source for people's opinions as to whether the referendum was good... it doesn't mean that they have any idea of how a referendum should be laid out, how questions should be posed, or anything other than the fact that they thought it was good. Talk about wrapping a paradigm into an enigma, then stuffing it in a won-ton wrapper and asking someone their opinion on whether the weather is 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent' compared to nothing other than what kind of weather they like. WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence I added did not say "the referendum was good." I'd appreciate more accuracy (and much greater civility). Here's what it said: "91% of Crimeans, according to an April 2014 survey conducted by Pew Research Center, said they believed the referendum had been free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukraine government should recognize the results." The proposed next THREE sentences involve non-experts attacking the 'fairness' and conduct of the referendum: "The election results were rejected in a report by Evgeny Bobrov, a member of the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights. Bobrov said a survey of local citizens and officials indicated the official results were inflated and that only 15% to 30% of Crimeans eligible to vote voted for accession. (New Paragraph) How the referendum was carried out was criticised in the Ukrainian press, which reported that anyone holding a Russian passport regardless of residency in Crimea was allowed to vote." That is three sentences of criticisms from non-RS sources and non-experts indicating the referendum was 'spurious'. And there is one RS sentence on the other side, where 91% of the population say the referendum was 'not spurious', i.e., free and fair. That seems more NPOV to me than leaving the criticisms in but censoring out the fact that 91% of Crimeans believed the referendum was free and fair.Haberstr (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Iryna, I will add your insulting prose to the massive list at the current Administrators Noticeboard .Haberstr (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... what exactly is "insulting" about what Iryna wrote? One gets the impression that you just don't actually understand what she wrote so you because you don't know what it means you *assume* it must've been an insult.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a "referendum" with alleged 96.7% of "yes". This is already written on the page. These results are highly questionable, as noted in numerous publications like here. This is also already written on the page. This is not Bobrov, but multiple RS. Please stop repeating the same baseless arguments over and over again. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but the basic question here seems to be whether or not the section about the referendum should mention an opinion poll in which Crimeans were asked what they thought of the validity of said referendum. Wishes, you mention numerous publications including the Washington Post who consider the referendum result highly questionable. You are saying that Washington Post's view is something WP readers ought to know about, but the view of the Crimean public is not? Why? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The PEW poll is already included in this section. Why should we repeat the same second time in another section? My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, My Very Best Wishes, it appears that there are two issues that are not understood: A) That the poll is already represented in the article; B) That unanalysed primary sources cannot be assigned undue WP:WEIGHT as some form of counterbalance (that is, WP:GEVAL) against what secondary RS have to say about absolutely anything... even if it's obvious that Kalidasa doesn't like what the Washington Post and other RS say. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of liking or not liking what the Washington Post says. A statement in the Washington Post about the validity of a referendum is necessarily someone's opinion — either the opinion of a quoted person or organisation, or (if it's a signed article) the opinion of a particular journalist, or (if it is an editorial) the opinion of the newspapers editors. Is an editorial or signed commentary a "secondary source", or is a primary source about somebody's view? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentially, we are constrained by WP:NOR and base our article content on what reliable secondary sources say on the subject matter over and above the reproduction of primary sources. The poll is a primary source unless there is substantial discussion of what it actually represents and what it means by a secondary source. Using such content must always be undertaken with care. Without secondary source context, the stats are quite meaningless unless we breach NOR and try to ascribe meaning to them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The PEW Organization is reporting its own poll results and is a very solid RS secondary source, and therefore there is no need for "substantial discussion of what [the poll] actually represents and what it means" by another secondary source. Have you ever seen an RS poll reported anywhere on Wikipedia that was A) considered problematic original research or B) the subject of "substantial discussion" about what the poll represented? (Review the polls here, for example). In conclusion, there is no WP:NOR constraint at all. We are of course ascribing no meaning to the poll results and simply stating them.Haberstr (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See my response to My Very Best Wishes directly above. It is a breach of NOR when it is used out of context as WP:GEVAL in a summary section describing the referendum in terms of secondary source commentary on the circumstances... particularly where the comprehensive main article examining all of the nuances surrounding the referendum is hatnoted right a the top of that section. What is the function of the use of the poll in this context? "Interestingly, however, a Pew poll demonstrated that the citizens of Crimea (who are, incidentally, constituted of a large Russian majority) thought that the poll was really good and fairly run."? It doesn't fit the content unless it's forced in using OR descriptions to rationalise its existence in the section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is WP:GEVAL applicable here? WP:GEVAL talks about matters like conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and the claim that the Earth is flat. But we're talking about the results of an opinion poll regarding an international dispute. More relevant, I'd suggest, are WP: ENEMY which talks about presenting both sides of an international dispute, and WP:NOTOR. "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research..." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The guide on GEVAL merely presents the most extreme examples. Had I intended to invoke WP:FRINGE, then that's what I would have invoked. In essence, GEVAL speaks to trying to balance points of view that are not prevalent (or even particularly relevant) against the larger view. And, incidentally, I think that My Very Best Wishes has made a valid point below: this article is not about the referendum or other peripheral information, so why is all of this poll business here in the first place? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Right now this page includes two essentially duplicate sections. First one is about referendum. It requires only minor editing and should definitely stay. But another one describes public opinion about ... the same referendum. This is obviously a duplicate and insignificant information, at least on this page. I think this second subsection should be simply removed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The two sections are certainly not duplicates — each contains different items of information — but I'd agree they have similar themes. Merging into a single section, without loss of information, may be an option worth considering. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The opinion polls should be integrated into the main chronological history of the declaration of independence and then accession into Russia. Then there would not be a need for for a separate 'opinion poll' section. This is how this is done in pretty much all other recent history articles in Wikipedia, in part because that is what is recommended by Wikipedia. It doesn't look fondly on creating separate sections for no apparent reason.Haberstr (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I merged two sections. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The merger is absolutely unacceptable, and I've reverted it. First of all, you cannot use "some reports" to WP:WEASEL around who the reports are actually from (Bobrov). Furthermore, the Pew poll took place long after the referendum. If you put it in the referendum section, it is out of chronology with the rest of the article, which continues onto the "breakaway republic" section. The poll was taken after in April, after the fact, which is why it must be in the "response" section. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hmmm... Do you think everything in the article should be strict chronological order, RGloucester? I mean, in the section Legal Obstacles to Crimea Annexation there's a paragraph which mentions Mironov's bill proposed in the Russia Duma on 28 February, then the next sentence is about an opinion adopted by the Venice Commission on March 21-22, Next we're told about something that happened on March 11... Then about two paragraphs later, it is mentioned that Mironov and his associates withdrew their proposal on March 20. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally, yes. It is much more readable that way. The present article is structured in a chronological fashion, more or less. The "history" section covers the actual annexation in chronological order. There are a few random outliers, which could do with fixing. However, including events (or polls) that took place after the annexation in a section that is dealing with the chronology of the events doesn't make sense. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC with a title like "Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection be moved into the subsection ?" Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This question of whether to include info about opinion polls in the referendum subsection, seems to be one about which there are very strong views on both sides. Perhaps an RfC would help to resolve this long-running debate? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you proposing this when RGloucester has just explained that the chronology of events should supersede parsing bits and pieces of information willy-nilly? I happen to agree that following a chronological narrative as closely as possible is the best way in which to present the content of this article. Do you have an alternative proposal for the entire structure? If so, what is your proposal? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This thread is not about "the entire structure", it's about the referendum section. It's the latest chapter in a long running debate, which is not going to go away simply because you agree with a point made by RGloucester. Editors including Alex Bakharev, Tobby 72, Moscow Connection, Haberstr and myself have supported the idea of including information about the opinion polls in the referendum subsection. Others, including you, Marek and RGloucester have strongly disagreed. A week ago, I suggested an RFC as a possible way to resolve this long-running debate. If anyone has a better idea, or another suggestion about the wording of an RFC, let's hear it now.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need an RfC, because the discussion is finished. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the discussion was really finished, you wouldn't be discussing it with me.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Kalidasa 777, this is not a 'discussion', it's WP:BLUDGEON. You've suggested a title for an RfC. Humour me and present the rationale for the move. Such an RfC would have to address the substance of why this content should be moved out of its current positioning in the article. How would it serve the article better? I might see justification for moving it up even higher in the article if the poll was held about whether the Russian citizens of Crimea felt themselves to be genuinely under threat of harm from the underwhelming minority (being Ukrainians, Crimean Tartars and other miniscule minority groups living there), but that's not what the poll was about, hence why is it WP:ITSIMPORTANT to move it? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON is about one or two editors trying to dominate a discussion by weight of comments. The RFC is about inviting in more views from more editors — the exact opposite of WP:BLUDGEON... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

HRW - pervasive climate of fear and repression
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/18/ukraine-fear-repression-crimea Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Does this article describe the Annexation exclusively? What about the results?

Additions to the "Commentary" section
I do not understand why the quotations by Gerhard Schröder, Jacques Attali, Matthias Platzeck, and Jack F. Matlock, Jr. have been removed. Like I earlier said, I would understand if the section included only commentary from the acting Heads of State, but I don't see how Brzezinski and Kasparov are better than these four. --Buzz105 (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can take out Brzezinski and Kasparov. None of these opinions really belong here. Indeed, if I were to have my way, the "commentary" section would be removed per WP:SOAP and WP:NEWSORG. None of this really belongs in an encylopaedia, and the same applies to your addition. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems we've been through this before on other articles: there's a distinct difference between what constitutes an on the record international reaction and tacking on a list of what is essentially a selection of 'my favourite quotes' from individuals on the subject. These people may be notables, but their opinion is no more or less significant than that of hundreds of other notable individuals unless they are speaking in the capacity of a spokesperson for an internationally recognised body relevant to the subject. It reads like the op-ed you introduce as Wikipedia's proxy op-ed voice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with RGloucester that removing the whole section would be a good compromise actually. A lot of notable people made a lot of polar opposite statements on this subject, and including them would probably mean indulging in WP:Recentism: for example, the "Putin=Hitler" thing was very trendy in 2014-early 2015, but now it seems to be going out of fashion (I believe that Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis suffers from exactly the same problem). --Buzz105 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * the former Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder drew - Mr Schröder is currently the chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG, which makes him not neutral.Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD in removing the section, which I think solves the problem here. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)