Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 8

Inaccuracy with Russian version link
Hello, when u press on russian version, it takes you to a page called "the crimean crisis". That page is more about the events that led to the referendum. Now there is a page called in russian "joining of crimea and russia", which supposed to be the russian version of this page. How can it be fixed?Andriy Shevchenko777 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I should think the best way would to be to add a page about the Annexation of Crimea, but I have a feeling that it will be very hard to make a NPOV page about that in Russian. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Russian name Crimean crisis is false, the page doesn't describe any crisis but the annexation.Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An article of the same name has been linked to correspond with this article in Ukrainian Wikipedia: i.e., Ukrainian Wikipedia link is Кримська криза; Russian Wikipedia link is Крымский кризис.


 * There is a Ukrainian version of Анексія Криму Росією (2014) [trans. Annexation of Crimea by Russia (2014)] and a version in Russian Присоединение Крыма к Российской Федерации [trans. Annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation]. In fact, it appears that, by looking down the left hand language menu, the majority of trans-linked articles have become the parallel to 'Crimean Crisis', with only 12 languages linking to the 'Annexation' variant. Judging by the content, these are WP:POV splits as they handle the same information.


 * I'd like to invite and  to assist in clarifying how this has evolved as they've worked on a couple of versions.


 * The other notable aspect about the various versions in wikis (like Greek, German, French, etc.) is that they've barely been updated since 2014 when the 'crisis' began and was using the term 'crisis' was still being used by RS in multiple languages, while 'annexation' was the full elaboration within the body of sourced articles. That's more of a time-warp issue as so many other wikis are barely maintained or simply copy across info from the active wikis. Others, like the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian Wikipedia are contrived choices for nomenclature for transwiki. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't make head or tail of it. Анексія Криму Росією (2014) actually is a kind of doubling this, lets say it, main article. I was working hard on it (1 - nominated for merging (no one cares) and 2 - nominated for deletion after merging, deletion failed yes 2:7 no. Mr. Green Zero recomended to solve these issues "somewhere else"). On my own opinion this split only exists as a monumental example of bureaucracy, propaganda (?) and sick democracy/сommunication in ukrainian wikipedia. There is also the third article named "Russian intervention in Crimea", by the way (aviable in srpskohrvatski and belarusian). We should keep calm and carry on. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think there's any point to my trying to change the transwiki articles to the 'annexation' versions? As I say, the point at which it was being called a 'crisis' in any language was at the time that the events were unfolding. It's well past being a 'crisis', so the WP:TITLE is outdated in itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * well, lets try --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no crisis in Crimea in 2014 but an invasion. There was a political and social crisis in Donbas. uk:Кримська криза - strange.
 * There was international Crimean crisis caused by the annexation, but it's a totally different subject.Xx236 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Currently, the ruwiki articles on "crisis" and annexation have slightly different timeframes (one starts on either 20 or 21 Feb., whilst another starts on 23 Feb, when "Russia started work on returning Crimea"), which makes merger somewhat problematic (unlike enwiki, where, in March 2015, both crisis and annexation articles started from 23 Feb., which allowed me to propose merger), although personally I'm also in support of undergoing similar "crisis-annexation merger" on ruwiki. As for title, the Russian "присоединение Крыма" stands for "incorporation of Crimea", which encompasses both "annexation of Crimea" and "accession/reunification of C. to Russia" meanings. Unlike English, in Russian annexation (аннексия, which is in fact somehow narrower in meaning than English word — Russian аннексия means only forcible acquisition of other state territory, while English annexation isn't limited to that and may, for example, mean "incorporation of unclaimed land into a state's sovereignty, which is in most cases legitimate") isn't proved (at least now) to be the most recognizable name for Russian-speaking reader (that is, analog of WP:COMMONNAME), which would allow it to "bypass *asserted* non-neutrality" in a manner similar to WP:POVNAME. There was an attempt to rename article into the "аннексия Крыма Российской Федерации", but the sources provided were dictionaries released well-before Crimean events. In the end, it was decided, that the article should be called "присоединение" (for NPOV reasons), which, as I pointed earlier, stands not for "Crimea joining Russia" (at least, not only for), as the topic initiator claims, but, rather, for "incorporation", which encompasses both aggression-related connotations (аннексия, оккупация, захват, etc.) and "self-determination" connotations ("воссоединение", "вхождение", etc.). Currently, Russian article on "incorporation" has more detailed preamble and Russian article on "crisis" has more detailed body. So, as a temporary solution (until "annexation-crisis merger" takes place on ruwiki), I'd like to suggest, that annexation article should be interwikilinked with ru. "incorporation" (as it is now) and timeline of the annexation be interwikilinked with ru:Крымский кризис. It's not an ideal solution, obviously, but still a viable one — since the latter Russian article contains (but not limited for) a similar detailed timeline. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone tempered with the content of my text and i don't like it. The russian version clearly is deceiving and serves the russian propaganda effort. 1. the ruwiki version is full of trivial and unimportant details and russian military intervention is hardly mentioned. And when it is mentioned it is presented as a trivial and unimportant factor. When in fact the peninsula was actually occupied by russian troops, and it is the key factor for all the events that evolved afterwards. 2. therefor the russian article has to mention that Crimea was actually occupied by russian troops, and the declaration of independence and the referendum were conducted in military occupation environment.

The ruwiki page fails to mention many important facts and clearly misleads the readers. Why? Because it is used for propaganda services by Kremlin. The only way to describe the Crimea events is as "aggression" and "annexation". Andriy Shevchenko777 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that simple — "Турчинов напомнил, что главной проблемой на полуострове, которой воспользовались оккупанты, была высокая поддержка действий России жителями Крыма. «Без поддержки местного населения эта провокация никогда бы не прошла», - заметил он" (emphasis added). And yes, the Russian article mentions, that "Российскими военнослужащими совместно с отрядами добровольцев были блокированы все объекты и воинские части ВС Украины на территории полуострова, командование которых отказалось подчиниться правительству Крыма[17].". It is also noted, that referendum was called "В обход украинской Конституции[18],", and if you would look into a referendum article, you will clearly see, that "Референдум проводился в обход конституций Украины[5][6] и Автономной Республики Крым[7] и при поддержке российских войск[8][9]". Did you actually read articles which you criticize? --Seryo93 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I will repeat myself: 1.the ruwiki article on Crimea is quite long, but it's written in such way to mislead the reader to think that it was an a domestic inner Crimean thing, and it's hard to conclude from the text that the key factor to the whole event was the russian military. It's like to write an article about WW2 in Soviet Union: "many people were shot, many building were destroyed, many planes were shot down, also some witnesses claiming to have seen apparently german speaking people in uniform while carrying firearms... There were also people of romanian, ukranian and kazazh nationalities involved in the conflict.". Will the reader be able to understand this? I don't think so. 2.This is exactly what u did with ur russian Crimea article. U made it very long, describing all kind of irrelevant details, like for example that russian community were prepared to defend itself from ukranian neonazis that were about to invade Crimea, which is complete nonsense. And in this very long article u made a few remarks of russian troops assisting the so called local population. And it's an obvious misrepresentation. It's like to say "the vishi government in france came to power with the assistance of friendly german troops". 3.Now I want to ask you one more time. Crimea was a sovereign Ukranian territory, recognized by the whole world INCLUDING Russia. Now if Russia invades the peninsula, blocks the ukranian bases, blocks the ukranian battleship, seizes all the administrative buildings... don't u think that qualifies as "aggression" and military "occupation"? Don't u think it's the key factor for all the upcoming events, "declaration of independence" and referendum? Also every time u mention russian troops u mix it with the locals: "the russian troops with help of crimean volunteers blocked the ukranian units". Really? So the volunteers helped,ah? In case Russian machine guns won't work, the volunteers would use their bats and throw some stones, right? 4.So my point is as follow: u made the article very long to represent the events as local related, and the mentioning of Russian military was too rare in order for a reader to grasp the true involvement of russian federation in this events. And not once the article didn't mention that Crimea was invaded and occupied by Russian Army. It was presented as "there were some russian units involved together with local volunteers", or " some building were blocked by russian troops and local volunteers". 5. Also the article was very long with irrelevant data, in order to hide the forest behind the trees. 6.My claim is that Kremlin uses this great site for its anti-ukranian propaganda purposes, it damages the credibility of this site. I was trying to approach the russian miderators and discuss it, by they blocked me. Something is needed to be done with this issue. Andriy Shevchenko777 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "think that it was an a domestic inner Crimean thing, and it's hard to conclude from the text that the key factor to the whole event was the russian military" - 1) nowhere the article claims crisis is a "pure domestic thing": and 2) you just didn't noticed the big fact, which you (again) "miss". OK, let's remind. Even Ukrainian government admitted "local support" as a "main trouble", exploited by the Russian command, a trouble, without which "such provocation" (annexation of Crimea) would never happened. In case you (again) put that into doubt, I'd like to suggest you reading RNBO transcript, in which Avakov admits that "большинство населения Крыма занимает пророссийскую, антиукраинскую позицию. Это риск, который нам нужно учесть ". As for "legalist approach" ("internationally recognized territory", violated sovereignty, etc.) - it is equally applicable to overthrow of Yanukovych, which (yes, yes) was in contravention of impeachment proceedings set forth in the Constitution (see here for details). "I was trying to approach the russian miderators and discuss it, by they blocked me" - personal attacks and ungrounded accusations (such as "вы используете википедию ради русской пропагнды" or "дает мне сомневаться в непредвзятости и профессионализму админов ответственных за эту страничку") certainly won't help the case, neither does the edit-warring with BRD violations (as you did previously on ru:Переходный период в Крыму). As for volunteers: " У результаті штурму, за попередніми даними, постраждалих немає. У приміщеннях і на територію штабу знаходяться сили так званої “самооборони Севастополя”.". Not "Russian troops", but "so-called "self-defence of Sevastopol"". And also note RNBO transcript: "Перехід фактично на бік ворога і вчинення військових злочинів військовослужбовцями, спецпризначенцями "Беркут" та іншими равоохоронцями України, які служать або служили в Криму є дуже масштабним і небезпечним елементом, оскільки вони перейшли повністю в координацію військового вторгнення, яке намагається здійснити політичне і військове керівництво Росії". Not just "people with bats", but also law enforcement units, "Berkut" and some defected military units. With firearms, obviously, not just "bats". And also this. --Seryo93 (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to comment on "по мнению более сто стран считается аннексированым" and "аннексией, а не присоединением". First one apparently relates to UNGA resolution, but 1) it was supported by 100 (and not 100+) UN countries, 2) nowhere the resolution calls these events annexation. Second one misses the point, that аннексия doesn't exclude присоединение - in fact, аннексия is one of types of присоединение (namely, "Анне́ксия (лат. annexio, от лат. annexus — «присоединённый»)[1] — насильственное[2] присоединение государством всего или части территории другого государства в одностороннем порядке"). --Seryo93 (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, to make a good case that "annexation" titling should prevail over "incorporation", you should have started with providing proof that it is a a COMMONNAME for Russian-speaking readers. --Seryo93 (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

ok... i see the game you play. you took some few fuzzy quotes out of thousands that matched the most for ur/Kremlin needs, and you use them. Also u took the authority to interpret those quotes (without which "such provocation" (annexation of Crimea) would never happened--- who said "provocation"= "annexation"? you?). how about this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzXmUyI8u0A where turchinov addresses putin directly to pull out the russian troops and reminds him the budapest memarandum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmbn9uGURQ here turchinov says that russia uses the fake referendum to cover its aggression, a referendum that will never be recognized. Why didn't you use those quotes, that directly blame russia as an aggressor? Why not? Because u want to deceive the reader, so u picked the fuzzy ones that mention local involvement in order to mislead the reader. 1.I see the game you are playing.Cherry picking quotes ripped out of context in order to fit into your mosaic. You abused this site, and you have put in a big effort to distort the Crimean events and trying to make it look legit with cherry picked and out of context quotes. You won't fool me. 2. I don't know how in the world do u connect the crimean events to the overthrow of Yanukovich? How those two are connected? Is it written somewhere "if the president is overthrown then a russian military can enter the peninsula and annex it"? How do you connect the two? AH? Or maybe this are your orders from Kremlin to connect it? 3.I ASK YOU A THIRD TIME: if Russian troops move into another country's sovereign territory, block all the military bases and seize all the administrative buildings,with or without local assistance, does it qualify as "aggression" and "occupation"? Can u finally answer me please? 4. Listen. I know what u are doing. U are a manipulator,a professional one. But you don't fool me. I will put in an effort to attract someone with authority here at wiki, in order to bust ur little Kremlin scheme. U won't pull off another "Crimea" at this website. Andriy Shevchenko777 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA detected. But, if you care so much about "annexation", "occupation" and other stuff - well, it IS in article. "Украина[27][28][29] и западное сообщество («Большая семёрка», государства-члены НАТО, Евросоюза) расценили действия России как агрессию, оккупацию и аннексию части украинской территории, нарушение территориальной целостности Украины[Комм. 3]". " I don't know how in the world do u connect the crimean events to the overthrow of Yanukovich? How those two are connected?" - read the sources. --Seryo93 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

And, by the way, this article is no longer iwiki-tied with ru:Присоединение Крыма к Российской Федерации, but with ru:Крымский кризис. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In any event, you fellows need to remember that discussion about how the Russian articles should be titled, &c., should be had on the Russian Wikipedia, i.e. not here. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal obstacles to Crimea annexation
I moved this subsection out of the History section as it does not fit there. The legal obstacles against the annexation were no more valid in 2014 than now so why are they being classified as historical? The history section should discuss historical events but the arguments surrounding the legality or otherwise of the annexation of Crimea by Russia are not 'an event'. I believe the legal obstacles to Crimean annexation should stand as a separate section. Thanks for considering my point. Qaz1984 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that this is not the case. Whilst the section is titled "legal obstacles", it deals with actions by the Russian government and parliament to enable the annexation in law at the time. It is not merely about "legal obstacles" in the sense you describe, but the historical process that took place during Feby and Mar 2014. Perhaps a better section title could be found, but clearly does belong in the history section. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Whether to move information about opinion polls into referendum subsection?
Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection be moved into the subsection ? Reopened by Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC), originally opened by Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reason for relisting: As WP:RFC explains "RfC may be extended beyond 30 days or re-listed by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date." Relisting seems appropriate here as the suggestion raised late in the discussion by S McCandish for a template has been welcomed by 2 others (including me), and I thought other participants might also wish to comment on it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support The referendum was held in Crimea on March 16, 2014. It was opposed by many governments. A few weeks later, in April and early May, two opinion polls were conducted by American non-government polling companies, to check whether Crimeans themselves thought the referendum result expressed their own views. The results of the opinion polls belong with the other information about the referendum and the arguments about it, not in a separate subsection. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This makes no sense. The article goes in a roughly chronological order. The poll was taken the in the aftermath of the crisis, not whilst the referendum was being held, and hence it belongs in the aftermath section. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As you say, RGloucester, the article is "roughly chronological". Which is more important, strict chronological order, or readability? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Chronological order and readability align. Putting the poll in at that point misrepresents the poll's origins. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support There is simply no valid reason to withhold this information from our readers. This one's a no-brainer. Athenean (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose On second thought, I think it is better to have the poll info in the "Public opinion" section, after all that is what it's for, and it is indeed a bit POVy to have them in the referendum section. However, I also strongly oppose any suggestion to remove this info, as suggested by some people below. Athenean (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is in favour of "withholding" the information. In fact, I was the one that put these god damned polls in the article in the first place. It is simply a matter of sense. It doesn't make any sense to stick a poll that took place after the events in the middle of a description of the events. That only reason one might want to do that would be to convey a WP:GEVAL, by immediately "countering" the fact that the referendum was illegal with the poll. That's not how we do things here, as it doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is being withheld, ? The content is already in the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not withheld, just marginalised... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither. I suggest to remove the opinion section, because in present state this is POV fork of Crimean status referendum, 2014. In present state, this section tells about public opinion on referendum, not on annexation which is the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Why? Malformed RfC per WP:RFCQ. What is the objective of moving the information, and how is it going to improve the content? I have no idea of what editors are actually voting in favour of or against. Any uninvolved editors responding to this RfC will be equally befuddled. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Iryna, others seem to understand the question well enough to support or oppose, and to offer arguments for and against... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because, so far, the only editors to respond here were already involved in the protracted WP:CRUSH before you initiated the RfC. This RfC will be open for 30 days and will bring in multiple other uninvolved editors, yet you've provided no policies or guidelines as a rationale for moving the content from the current section, nor even attempted to qualify why WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Note, also, that you are seriously overstepping the WP:CANVASSING mark by extending invitations to everyone and their disruptive IP involved. This IP you 'invited to comment' hasn't even been involved in the editing of the article, only the same barely intelligible complaint/comment(?), having made the same comment (I think) taking 5 edits to try to get it right back in November of 2015 (the contributions can be found here). That's really, really bad form indeed, Kalidasa 777. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been notifying people (including IP users) who have recently taken part in discussion on this talk page, regardless of what position they took in the discussion. Please have another look at WP:CANVASS. I would have notified you as well, Iryna, except that you previously asked me not to contact you via your talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with opinion. Also, the article is getting way too big and I think a lot of information needs to be split into separate articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving the content. As has already been noted, the article follows the chronological sequence of events. Introducing it at the suggested juncture would only serve as a deliberate 'narrative' ploy in order to create a halo effect. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously a section which heavily attacks the legitimacy and conduct of the referendum should include the citizens' opinions on those very questions, elicited through an independent, legitimate and professional polling organization. Otherwise, simply report the referendum and its results without attaching the non-stop negative characterizations. If you're going to allow negative characterizations and attacks in, then you also need to allow in the poll results, in which the citizens' of Crimea clearly express their support for the poll and its result. Also, for those very concerned about chronological order, let's be clear that 'the entry currently does NOT proceed in roughly chronological order. The non-professional 'survey' conducted by non-professional pollster Evgeny Bobrov was conducted months after the referendum. Why is that non-professional, with no RS credibility, allowed in, and the professional poll excluded? The subsection continues, allowing non-RS source Kyiv Post to speculate that "anyone with a Russian passport" could vote.Haberstr (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Russia has a long tradition of referendums, compare the Polish people's referendum, 1946, which started 45 years of Soviet rules in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When did Kyiv Post become non-RS? Unlike RT and Sputnik, it is not a mouthpiece for the government, nor is it affiliated with the government... in fact, it is known for being critical of the government. Have you taken this to the RSN? The Russian news outlets have been discussed ad nauseam there, and at the NPOVN. It certainly meets with RS criteria, so telling other uninvolved and impartial editors coming to participate here that it isn't RS is a bit of a fib. That it isn't an RS according to your WP:PPOV is self-evident. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Haberstr's point about Bobrov and chronological order seems reasonable. The sources cited for Bobrov's report are both dated May. If chronological order is so important, shouldn't Bobrov's report, too, be moved down into the aftermath section of the article? Would like to comment on this? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no argument for the change, whilst policy backed arguments against the move have been presented. Hollth (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the only "policy backed argument against the move" that has been made refers to WP:GEVAL, a section of WP:NPOV. WP:GEVAL talks about not giving undue prominence to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Right now we're talking about the results of opinions polls conducted by recognised independent polling companies — hardly in the category of pseudoscience or conspiracy theory. Am I missing something here, Holith?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yup, it just doesn't make sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move as per User:RGloucester, better to follow chronological order unless there are convincing reasons and consensus to do it another way (not the case here). I am also oppose to exclude the polls altogether from the article, the opinion polls might be needed to balance the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - Keep chronological order. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. The chronological order makes sense here. If it's important to cross-reference between sections, then just do so (e.g. with ). Oppose removal; cf. saying about baby and bathwater.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * !Vote appropriately deleted by Iryna H., because it appeared to come from block evader. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with last two contributor s  that using the template is a reasonable way to link the opinion polls section to the referendum section without moving it. Would others like to comment on this particular suggestion? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

German Scholar of International law reject the Thesis of an Annexation
The German Scholar of International law Gregor Schirmer reject the Thesis of an Annexation of Crimea. Please could someone translate this article.--Washington Connection (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why and for whom? Are you asking that someone do you a personal favour and translate it for your own interest and use? If you think that it is important for this article, did you bother to check through this talk page and the article itself before making this request? Editors working on this article have rejected the use of partisan commentary from any individuals as commentators unto themselves. The only content of such calibre being used is that of positions taken by governments as to the legality, economic ramifications, etc. Why would the opinion of a single individual suddenly become notable over and above the complex and comprehensive content already presented in this article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * de:Gregor Schirmer was a GDR scholar, like an electric chair. Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This page deal with very recent history. As time goes on, and more commentary by scholars becomes available, is it not worth considering whether the article can be improved by incorporating some of that? To say that our content is already "comprehensive" seems as close-minded as refusing to consider the statements of a scholar simply because he used to live in the GDR. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Very funny because he used to live in the GDR. Gregor Schirmer was an active Communist, I don't say he was indoctrinated becasue he belonged rather to the people who indoctrinated, who destroied any trace of independent thinking. He is 84, it doesn't help him to understand the world.Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view says: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  This would suggest that it might be OK to cite him, but there would be issues of proportionality - i.e. this is a guy who comes into the same category as the Greenham Common women, David Irving and (until recently) Jeremy Corbin.  So perhaps he should not be completely ignored.--  Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Proportionally means here 0.001%. BTW - why don't we present the Nazi opinions either? Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140320221039/http://www.concordmonitor.com:80/news/politics/11209502-95/putin-signs-treaty-to-add-crimea-to-map-of-russia to http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/11209502-95/putin-signs-treaty-to-add-crimea-to-map-of-russia
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/act/11433
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/act/11551
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/04_02_14_3
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140915180534/http://council.gov.ru/media/documents/pdf/41d4c5222e07062d3f21.pdf to http://council.gov.ru/media/documents/pdf/41d4c5222e07062d3f21.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rada.crimea.ua/act/11748

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources used in the section mapping
I am unsure what is the objective of some users who posted wrong information (supported by unreliable sources) in the section mapping. I must assume they are in good faith. Well, in this case they should first ask for permission before acting so boldly. However reliable sources have been added and the article has been formatted accordingly to the content of the sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative wording for the lead of the article
Perhaps a stronger link should be set in the lead between the Annexation of Crimea and the Russian military intervention. I have proposed a variant, and by sure some users might dislike it. Still the current wording is "too much on the other side". Any kind comment is welcome. And again, I urge all users to focus on the actual modification and to assume good faith. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of "annexation" is POV, violates NPOV policy
Crimea has declared independence as per UN-guaranteed right to self-determination that in condition of humanitarian concerns prevails over territorial integrity principle and local laws (as shown in Kosovo precedent). As an independent state Crimea has reunited with Russian Federation. So legally to call it "annexation" makes no more sense, than, say, calling reunification of Western and Eastern Germany with that term (or even less sense since they did not even have referendum). Calling Crimea's case "annexation" just because it is narrative of StateDep, and, hence, of the majority of Western media sources, is a blatant violation of NPOV policy. The article should absolutely mention that many (most of) countries call it "annexation", however, using of this term though the article as if it is a fact of reality is highly manipulative. Whether humanitarian concerns were warranted enough in this case to work as foundation for declaration of independence is matter of dispute, but it was not subject of a trial, it was not established legally in an ultimate fashion. The next step, where independent Crimea has joined Russia, is indisputable already as independent countries as per UN clauses can totally join other countries, if they wish (vote) so. No "annexation" here is established -- at least not yet. 95.27.94.132 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "annexation" makes no statement about the legality of the action that occurred. Regardless, we use the common name in reliable sources for any given event per WP:UCN. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "annexation" does make a statement: "In international law it is the forcible transition" Annexation, and this is what the contributor above argued against. "common name in reliable sources": This kind of argument is basically saying "we use the name which media promoted the most" which contradicts NPOV. Teodorz (talk) 23:20, 05 July 2016 (UTC)

1. what kind of humanitarian concerns were in crimea? was the local population in some kind of danger or suffered from discrimination?

2. there is no comparison between Kosovo and Crimea. Kosovo had a civil war with elements of ethnic cleansing and genocide. There were long debates before Nato military intervention, and Kosovo was under UN protectorate for like 9 years trying to negotiate a solution with Serbia. Crimea had nothing like this. It was a peaceful place. 3. Crimea declared independence? Really? With russian soldiers with masks and no insignia all over the place? How long was that independence? A one day? Recognized by whom? Did west Germany invaded the east Germany with camouflaged troops, and had a referendum at a gun point without East German government consent? Don't think so.

4. Crimea is a sovereign ukranian territory, a local referendum has no legal power to change borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton9999 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In response to the above: 1) The local population was in danger of attack and ethnic cleansing by the Ukrainian armed forces, much like happened in Donbas. 2) Again, Crimea was facing invasion and ethnic cleansing by Ukrainian armed forces. 3) International observers noted no significant problems with the referendum. 4) The vast majority of voters in Crimea voted for Yanukovych in the latest election. When he was deposed in the Maidan coup, the Crimeans generally felt that the new regime in Kiev did not represent their interests.

And yes, I agree that the the use of the word "annexation" simply parrots Washington's portrayal of events, and is not an accurate description of the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.233.119 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How credible can be comments, such as the last one, posted by IP users who never contributed before with ad-hoc created accounts? Such stuff just clog the servers for no reason. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow Silvio1973, have you ever heard of an ad hominem argument? Critique the argument, not the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.233.119 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IP editor, Silvio1973 did not make an ad hominem argument. If you think that he/she did, you misunderstood.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainians Gave up Crimea without firing a shot
In Crimea Russian vs Ukrainian troop numbers were the same too. Why were the Ukrainians so lame? Russia’s conquest of Crimea has faced no real opposition and has been greeted with joy by many citizens in the only region of Ukraine with a clear majority of ethnic Russians. 

Yatsenyuk pointed out that the Finance Ministry's bank account was empty and that, according to the Defense Ministry, Ukraine had no military resources to defend Kiev if Russia invaded. Besides, Yatsenyuk said that there would be "an acute ethnic conflict" in Crimea and that the Ukrainian government would be blamed for failing to prevent it. He called for political negotiations through foreign intermediaries to grant Crimea more autonomy and in the meantime to try to rebuild the military. 

Saint Aviator  lets talk 00:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess whats not obvious to one is this is pre discussion prior to going in. Maybe not the lame comment though. Saint Aviator  lets talk 03:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have something to say about improving the article then say it rather than making random observations, letting us know your personal opinions or constructing some strange "pre-discussion", whatever that is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Its called discussion, see below. Saint Aviator  lets talk 09:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The below thread is indeed a discussion since the original poster mentioned a concern about removing content; and suggested actions for all involved. What is your suggestion in the opening post of this thread? Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Wikipedia's rules on synthesis and original research prevent us from taking this anywhere.  If he/she wanted to, Saint Aviator could write a book or magazine article making the obvious comparisons between the way that foreign forces were "greeted with joy by many citizens" in Summer 1941 and March 2014.  The people imagined that things would get better.  They turned out to be wrong in both cases.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you bring it up, in 41 the Nazis murdered a huge number of Ukrainians in the following years. There is no comparision with Crimea post 2014. Except this. Ukrainian fascists were evident at both dates. As for the ref, Its significant Coup leaders in Kiev were so scared of Russia they ordered no resistance in Crimea although they had parity in troops. Maybe a western MSM ref will come up in time. Saint Aviator  <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 21:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Such a crushing shameful historical defeat of Ukraine should be mentioned. After a 1 minute search on google. "This is all Kiev's fault. We are defeated. We suffered and ministers in Kiev did not bother to issue us a proper order," he said. "They smeared our flag and honour." <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 21:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Another 2 supporting refs. 'In sum, Crimea is moving smoothly toward siding with the Russian Federation against the European Union and the United States. The Second Crimean War appears decided in Moscow’s favor without a shot fired and before Washington, London or Brussels can find novel modifiers of condemnation.

Russian victory in Crimea especially rocks the U.S., the EU and NATO because more than half of Ukraine — including the rich, industrialized cities of Kharkiv, Donetsk, Odessa, Mariupol and Melitopol — is highly sympathetic to the Kremlin'. 

The problem may be Pro Ukraine bias in this article. Ukraine suffered a crushing humiliating defeat. These refs show it. 'I dont like it', is not a reason to exclude it. Any challenges to the refs? <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM and comments such as "Ukraine suffered a crushing humiliating defeat" only serve to illustrate your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and create a confrontational atmosphere on the talk page. This whole ridiculous section should be collapsed or removed - especially since it's mostly just SaintAviator talking to himself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Could editors removing sourced content please bring the discussion to the talk page first
Would editors please note that, with this article having gone through so much edit warring and POV pushing from all sides, it is inappropriate to just hop in from nowhere and make unilateral decisions as the reliability of sources off their own bat. Any concerns with content, such as this, should be brought here for discussion. If better sources are desirable, content can be tagged for more or better sources. If sources are deemed to be WP:BIASED, it may well be that WP:INTEXT attribution is required: this, too, can be discussed. Removing long-standing, consensus content from a reliable source and calling it BIASED is a WP:NINJA move. Thanks, in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a ninja move, just run-of-the-mill BRD; I Boldly removed a sentence that looked dubious, you Reverted it and now we Discuss. As I was reading up about the consequences of the annexation, this statement on dire economic consequences looked interesting so I went to read the source article. There I noticed that despite being published by CNN, it was an opinion piece from an anonymous writer who "lives and works in Crimea and has asked CNN to protect their identity". Consequently, no matter if what they say is true, it shouldn't be reproduced at face value in Wikipedia per WP:NEWSORG: When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.. Well, in this case CNN gives us no clue about the identity or even the authority of the source, so we just can't use it, it's not even attributable to anybody. Adding to that the rather grim and vitriolic tone of this particular article (was anyone sent to the gulag yet?), I feel that I was justified in considering it WP:BIASED. Note that my edit comment calls for more sources on the economic status of Crimea two years after the annexation, in order to expand this section to something meaningful. A cursory search will find a whole spectrum of statements from catastrophism to triumphalism and every nuance in between. So let's do some research, let's filter out the propaganda, and let's improve the encyclopedia! — JFG talk 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Was he right about, 'verbatim quotes' <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 09:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite verbatim but very close paraphrasing. Compare the source:
 * with the article:
 * Anyway, this source should be discarded and we can surely find plenty others. Iryna, thanks for adding the article from Foreign Affairs, I took the trouble of registering to read their generous 1 article per month. It confirms the drop in tourism but doesn't say a word about salaries; the main focus is the impact of Crimea support on the strained Russian budget. Can I suggest a new summary from that?
 * What do you think? — JFG talk 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this source should be discarded and we can surely find plenty others. Iryna, thanks for adding the article from Foreign Affairs, I took the trouble of registering to read their generous 1 article per month. It confirms the drop in tourism but doesn't say a word about salaries; the main focus is the impact of Crimea support on the strained Russian budget. Can I suggest a new summary from that?
 * What do you think? — JFG talk 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think? — JFG talk 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've actually found a few other RS which suggest a broader spectrum of calculations for a number of statistical changes. I haven't had a chance to extrapolate WP:DUE details as yet.


 * What really hasn't been clearly established by those editing this article is how broad a period should be covered by this article, therefore to how extensive the content on the economic impact should be. To my understanding, it's proscribed fairly much to the 2014 and 2015 period, so should be indicative of a cross-section of areas of the economy of the Republic of Crimea without going into excessive detail or WP:CRYSTAL regarding the future. I'd like to hear the opinions of other editors as to how they perceive the section best handled before progressing with developing the section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sourced content should not be removed without consensus. Right, but we are talking of mainly news. The thing is that this article is by far too much developed for an event that is so recent. And BTW, I do not see why the economics of Crimea should find their place here and not elsewhere. This article should focus only on the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Period. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A period of two years after the annexation is enough to assess economic impact for both sides, so the time is right. For, I think we should have some economic elements in this article and more detail in Economy of Crimea, but for now that is only a redirect to a short Economy section in the main Crimea article. Let's find data first. — JFG talk 17:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this very brief section about economic impact should not be shortened (all currently included info is important), but expanded using more recent data - agree with Iryna. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

is this wikipedia or kremlinpedia?
The article is overcomplicated, too much irrelevant stuff. The article doesn't point out that Russia have invaded Crimea and occupied the peninsula. Look at the contents table, do u see there something like "russian military intervention"? you don't,do you? That tells you pretty much about the quality of this so called "article". I guess Putin pays a lot of money to wikipedia, for making those kind of "articles". what a joke. 94.139.128.250 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can point specific section of the article in need of being improved please tell us. Coming here and calling names does not help. We need knowledgeable and calm editors here. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least you could point out the russian military intervention as the key factor to the events. Something like this "Russia used the Euromaidan events as a justification of military invasion into Ukraine. In Crimea Russian soldiers blocked all the Ukrainian military bases, and also seized the Crimean Parliament building. Then they replaced the Crimean Governer with a new one that declared he doesn't recognize the new Ukrainian governement and called for a referendum. Prior to the referendum russia managed an aggressive propaganda campaign, claiming that the Crimean people are in danger from "Ukrainian neo-nazis", and that by joining Russia they will get protection and also a better salaries and pensions..."

Also you fail to explain to the reader that what caused the annexation is not the maidan, and not the referendum, but the russian military intervention. And why didn't you explain that to the reader? Maybe because mr. Putin was very generous to wikipedia lately? 94.139.128.68 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly I recommend - as I usually do with all IP users - to open an account on Wikipedia. Secondly, I have no doubt that some people might be paid to write on Wikipedia. This is a known fact. It is very easy to have major influence on the Web even paying a restricted number of users. But certainly it is not with your claims that things will change. If you want things to really change you need to propose a variant to the existing text, and you need to support it with sources. You cannot ask other editors to make this job at your place. In a nutshell: find sources and propose a variant to the existing text which is organic to the sources proposed. I won't have any problem to follow you if you will act proactively. Dear IP user from Moldavia, this is not a forum. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What "sources"? lol. it's in the article itself. You chose to write the article in a complicated and twisted way, that the reader will not be able to understand that the peninsula was invaded and occupied by the Russian army. You chose to focus on the referendum, which has NO LEGAL BASIS to change the Crimea status. It was the russian military intervention and occupation the deciding factor, and not the referendum itself. This is really a joke, I'm wasting my time here, I'm talking to a wall. 94.139.128.92 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not contesting that the factor driving Crimea to be annexed by Russia was the military occupation of the peninsula, and not the referendum. No-one actually does. God only knows how many people actually voted and in which context of intimidation. And however that referendum had no legal basis, because organized by a foreign country and without the consent of Ukraine. Beside a restrict number of countries aligned with Russia's position for tactical reasons of opportunity, there is no serious country recognizing the validity of it. But this is not the point. WP works on sources. If you want to modify something, you need reliable sources supporting it. Again, I kindly tell you that if you want the article written the way you suggest, you need to rewrite it bringing sources. No user is going to do this job on your behalf. To conclude, please open a new section here and propose something, source it adequately and I will be more than happy to help you and to have an active role in this process. There are zillions things I do not like on WP but it is not your approach which is going to make this project any better. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 'no legal basis, because [...] without the consent of Ukraine' - mmh. Where was consent of Serbia when Kosovo was split off? Oh, and there even was some court ruling it 'legal' ... what was the name ... ah yes, 'International Court of Justice'. But even before the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence the USA set up a large military base in Kosovo. Consent of Serbia? 91.9.100.253 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * is this an article discussing the Kosovo? No it's not... so why do you mention it here??? Russia itself doesn't recognize Kosovo's independence by the way. Also Crimea is no Kosovo, Kosovo had a civil war with events of ethnic cleansing and genocide. None of that happened in Crimea. Also Russia signed documents with Ukraine, accepting Crimea as Ukrainian territory. 94.139.128.117 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, as has been pointed out previously, this isn't a forum for discussing the events, please stick to discussing improvements to the article. 173.177.183.115 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * However what is being raised is that pro-Kremlin editors keep changing anything which does not fit with the official Russian line. That is why this article is called "Annexation of Crimea...", not "Russian invasion and seizure of Crimea". I expect to be banned by Putin's tolls for writing this. Bu the reality is that this part of Wikipedia has been captured by Russian propagandists.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Quotation from "Why Ukraine needs Russia more than ever" article in the Grauniad
An editor added a context-free quotation from an article in The Guardian to the article:
 * The Guardian claims "There is a common thread that links the government’s irrational economic behavior – the understandable desire to spite Vladimir Putin. Alas, it is the average Ukrainian citizen who pays the price".

This from an article, 'Why Ukraine needs Russia more than ever'', by Nicolai Petro, The Guardian, 9 March 2016. The article talks about the way the Ukrainian economy is suffering now that the Ukrainian defence, aircraft and rocket industries are no longer exporting to Russia, and the banking industry has severed ties with Russia. In that context the quotation makes sense. Divorced from that context, the quotation is just a random collection of words.

The article's author, Nicolai Petro, is allegedly a professor of politics at University of Rhode Island, and is said to have been a US Fulbright scholar in Ukraine from 2013-4. This must mean that he is Nicolai N. Petro.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminder that this is an article talk page
... not a soapbox or a forum. Please pay attention to the very first box at the top of this page, being the talk page guidelines, which addresses what the purposes of article talk pages are and are not: "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Recognition
I have just removed Syria and Venezuela from the list. The sources were not even vaguely saying those countries are supportive about the legitimacy of Crimea's referendum. And BTW legitimate and legally binding are two different concepts (although I doubt the English proficiency of a number of people editing this article is sufficient to get the difference). Silvio1973 (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Concerning North Korea I believe this government is supportive about Crimea's referendum, hence I have left the country in the list but removed the current source because not acceptable. The provided source was (is) known for being notoriously not neutral and reliable. Silvio1973 (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * While I believe North Korea would be supportive of the referendum, we still can't jump to any conclusions so North Korea should probably be removed as well.  The Ninja5 Empire  ( Talk ) 06:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I see, let's wait one or two days to receive some additional feedbacks. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

a remark
"Whilst the "little green men" were occupying the Crimean parliament building, the parliament held an emergency session.[107][108] It voted to terminate the Crimean government, and replace Prime Minister Anatolii Mohyliov with Sergey Aksyonov." once the russian troops took over the parliament building, i don't think it's correct to keep referring to it as "crimean parlament", or to call any processes that are happening inside as "parliament decisions", or "parliament voting" etc. the moment that russian troops took control over the building, it turned into an occupied object and nothing more. it's the same as to say "whilst armed people were occupying the local american bank building, the branch management held a meeting and decided to open the vault and give away all the money"... it's simply incorrect writing. U just write "armed robbery", or "the bank was robbed under a gunpoint".37.233.63.200 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

remove saintaviator remarks
saintaviator is a troll, also he insulted ukrainians by calling them "fascists". Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of remarks.37.233.63.200 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not bother. If he keeps doing so I will ask for a sanction. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016
This statement of the public opinion of Cimmerians may be influenced by the intimidation tactics of Russia and this is not made clear or shared on the page. 67.226.156.206 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Conan is easily intimidated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌, it is unclear what the request is.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Economic impact section
Has anyone else noticed that the section has become an illiterate piece of WP:OR weirdness which is WP:OFFTOPIC for the section? It's less relevant content than COATRACK pulled from raw data and unreliable sources. I'm seriously tempted to remove it and paste it to the talk page for discussion and development. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that the offending paragraphs have been removed as not being salvageable. Good move: I second it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)