Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

Was this really an Annexation?

There are experts of international law who disagree with this view.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. According to retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov, it was a plain military invasion. More relevant, if you wish to propose any specific changes to the article, then please do so while referring to reliable sources. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The main reason for the military intervention of Russia was actually to ensure the Referendum. It was not an Invasion and it was not an Annexation, its was just the Supporting of Separatism.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Er...??? Now that's what I call original research with a heavy POV slant. Reliable sources for your 'interesting' take? Added to this, please bear in mind that this is an article talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The German scholar of law Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider deny the Thesis of an Annexation Schachtschneider: There was no Annexation (German).--Xiuhcoatl Kvasir (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You need actual reliable sources, not wacky conspiracies from far-right outlets. Volunteer Marek  09:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

correct answer. Funny: pointing on one opinion if there is far more others that say annexation: the discussion in german lists at least 25 for annexation - only within german speakers.--Caumasee (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We, the Crimeans, call it reunification. It should be mentioned in the article as well. Francois (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that what you are saying is best expressed by the following quotation: "Point 1. We demand the unification of all Russians in the Greater Russia, on the basis of the right of a self-determination of peoples."-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Francois. Wikipedia calls it whatever reliable sources call it. If you have a reliable source stating that many Crimeans regard what happened as reunification, then that can be added to the article. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

To qualify Spiritofstgeorge's comment a little further, it would also be dependent on whether it's deemed to be WP:DUE in the context of the article. I'd take Toddy1's insightful observation on board. Who represents the 'we'? I've seen nothing in RS to suggest that the 'annexation' is the expression of a happy, unanimous voice. Given the complexity of Crimea's history, and the displacement of the closest thing it has to an indigenous people - the Crimean Tartars - it can equally be construed to be the voice of very, very recent colonists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sooo.. a foreign-backed neo-nazi coup which takes control of a government without a vote is constitutional. But a declaration of independence placed to a general vote is not!?

John Pilger, for example, made an interesting analysis on the subject, at the time. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, give it a break already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:19, 13 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)

Lead is a summary of the article

I am being challenged why i have moved material from the lead into the main body of the article. Simple - the lead should be a summary of the article. Information about the 'blow by blow' account of how the annexation happened should be in the main body but the lead should summarise. There are lots of individual facts that editors may feel have particular significant but the lead is not the place for them - otherwise there is no need for a lead, we might as well just have the main body of the article. Hope that explains my revert. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1. You are removing information from introduction which indicates that the use of military force and annexation have been pre-planned in advance. I disagree because this is a critically important information that should be in the lead. It should not be moved without obtaining a consensus on this talk page. Therefore, I reverted this "bold" change per WP:BRD. This should remain as it was until you obtain consensus for making such change.
2. As about your another change [1], which source tells that these measures are related in any way to the annexation? This is completely unclear from text. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. If you believe that the fact that the annexation was planned in advance is so critical that it should be in the lead, no problem - let add words to that effect - but what we don't need is that degree of detail. I will amend the lead to include your point. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but you did not respond to point #2. Now, speaking about your "fix" [2], no, this is not good. You are telling that it was planned in advance as a fact, instead of telling very specific, factual and brief info provided in the previous version. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are now confusing me.

You complained above that "You are removing information from introduction which indicates that the use of military force and annexation have been pre-planned in advance" and now you are complaining about what I added, saying "You are telling that it was planned in advance as a fact".

Then you make the claim that the previous version was 'brief' - but the previous version would add "On 22–23 February, Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security services chiefs to discuss extrication of the deposed Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and at the end of that meeting Putin had remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia". On 23 February pro-Russian demonstrations were held in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. On 27 February" compared to my version which adds "but was pre-planned rather than a response to events. It was also".

So you complain that I added what you earlier said you wanted the lead to say and then you complain that you you wanted a 'brief' version when you are actually arguing for a longer version!!

So, taking into account that I have not deleted anything - just moved detailed information into the main part of the article - how about you actually explain a coherent reason why you think the detailed version you support is specifically needed in the lead rather than my summarising version. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The intro should be informative and objective. "Was planned in advance" is your interpretation. On the other hand, a "meeting was convened" [by certain people and on certain date] is a factual and exact information. Therefore, it should stay. This is not "my version" because it was not me who have written it. This is "stable version" you should not change without consensus if your edits cause anyone's objections, as in this case. And you still did not respond to my #2. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's deal with your first point before discussing the second. You say that the previous version "indicates that the use of military force and annexation have been pre-planned in advance." In advance of what? In advance of President Yanukovych being removed from power? Clearly not as the meeting you want mentioned in the lead happened the day after the President had been removed from power. So what we have is a chain of events in which a consequence of the decision to remove the President from power was that Putin may have decided to plan to take over Crimea. If that is what we are suggesting, that has to be placed in the context of a detailed explanation of events - precisely what the main body of the article is for. The lead should summarise the sequence of events as briefly as it can. Therefore s sentence that sums up that the sequence of events was that 'masked men without insignia took over the Supreme Council', 'installed a new government', which then 'held a referendum', which led to 'a declaration of independence' and then 'annexation' - is what is required. Not a blow by blow and detailed account - that is for the main body.

What I am looking for from you is an argument why so detailed information is necessary in the lead - it is not enough to simply reply 'because that is the way the article was before you changed it'. (Anyway back to the second hald of the FA Cup match - chat again later :) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not "detailed information" (it is very short!), but precise and self-explanatory information. I explained everything above. Let's see what others have to tell about it if anything. If you do not respond to point #2, your another change should be fixed as well.My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. Let's discuss your second point. My question is, why do you object to the bit I added about the Ukrainian authorities actions towards the media, but not the early part about the media in the same subsection. Let me quote it: "The Ukrainian National Council for TV and Radio Broadcasting has instructed all cable operators on March 11 to stop transmitting a number of Russian channels, including the international versions of the main state-controlled stations, Rossiya-1, Channel One and NTV, as well as news channel Rossiya-cable operators on.[241] They have claimed that this is because of Russian media showing them in a negative light." You will notice that what I added was an extension of this point - taking action against media which the Ukrainian authorites didn't like because of what they were transmitting or reporting. Parhaps you would be happier if I linked the addition more clearly to the earlier point about the media? I can do that if you wish. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So, now we are talking about #2. Here is your addition. As anyone can see, the previous paragraph (just before your insertion) tells: "On 16 September 2015 the Ukrainian parliament voted for the law that sets 20 February 2014 as the official date of the Russian temporary occupation of Crimean peninsula." So, yes, that does belong to this page ("Russian temporary occupation of Crimean peninsula"). However, your text does not mention any connection to the annexation of Crimea. Hence my objection. Perhaps they were banned because of other events? This is clearly undue on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, this phrase: "Ukraine disputes this, as it does not recognise the independence of the Republic of Crimea or the accession itself as legitimate [42]" in intro. This is not a fair summary of the Ukrainian source and should be removed or rephrased. This source only tells that Ukraine considers this annexation to be a violation of international laws and agreements (so, Ukraine simply holds essentially the same position as UN).My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Some corrections please lookup alleged in the dictionary.

I will be more polite this time, although my previous comment was deleted with the wrong reason.

I ask to replace "Russian Troops" by "Alleged Russian Troops" or "PRO-Russian Troops". This is no propaganda whatsoever. Just a fact. No one knows to what extent there were Russian troops and to what extent there were Russian friendly troops.

Then I would like to see this part rephrased: "Russian officials eventually admitted to their troops' presence. On 17 April 2014, Putin acknowledged the Russian military backed Crimean separatist militias, stating that Russia's intervention was necessary"

Can this be rephrased, please? Just read your own article on the little green men. This phrase is unclear. It is ambiguous, because it sounds as though all the little green men were Russian, when actually, the original statement was that of "we backed them", so more of "some" green men were Russian officers: “Crimean self-defense forces were of course backed by Russian servicemen,” Putin said. “They acted very appropriately, but as I’ve already said decisively and professionally.” (https://www.rt.com/news/crimea-defense-russian-soldiers-108/) Please avoid taking the previous paragraph for granted, because it is an allegation by the reporter to jump to the conclusion that the "little green men" were all Russians. Honestly, I would think that backed means that special forces were sent to help local militia structure and probably to direct them. They would most probably not deploy hundreds of officers this quick but rather use local volunteers. This is my opinion, you may have a different one, the point is that if it is not 100% proven, then the text shall reflect this and not mislead people.

165.225.80.59 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium

And I forgot this one: but rapidly escalated due to Russia's overt support for separatist political factions close to line 99. Please provide a source. 165.225.80.59 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Bernard@Belgium

To be clear, we can't used "alleged" per WP:ALLEGED. Regardless, the idea of these being "allegations" has passed into history. If you use sources from the present, as to opposed to those from the time at which these events took place, one will find that there could not be more clarity. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Where? Give me a present day cite!!! Your logic is the worst in case of history revision. So in 1945, as is widely recognized in the former Soviet Union, Russia invaded Poland in an attempt to free its people from the Nazi rule, correct? This is what I heard in a history lecture of a 4th grade school in Ekaterinburg in 1999. Then of course versions vary from one country to the other. Which one is the right one? THE TRUTH. There is just one fact: You were not there to see whether they were Russians or not. They are ALLEGED Russians soldiers, and I am pretty sure that there were some Russians but also Ukrainians, anyhow, in Ukraine how many people have a double citizenship?

You say that this is an annexation when according to Russia this was the result of a referendum. I think that my contradiction with you is verrrrryyyyy minor in regard. 165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium

As too WP:ALLEGED: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Exactly to the point. Alleged is correct in this case. The West thinks that. Just for your info, Mr. Putin recognized that there was military personnel in Ukraine, just like there is US military personnel in Ukraine, he did not say they were a battalion or anything else. All the other statements are PURE ALLEGATIONS.

"Alleged" is not used by reliable sources, so we don't use it either. In this case "alleged" would be original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to stay polite... WILL YOU EVENTUALLY NAME YOUR SOURCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am fed up of running around the pot. If you have a reliable source then add it as a cite!!!! I could not find any non biased media that was claiming this. If not, remove the whole sentence altogether. I KNOW for a fact there is no reliable info that can state this. NO ONE KNOWS how many were Russians and how many were not. It really looks like it is so hard to change just one word for the sake of accuracy, when this scam is entirely western biased. FYI ISIS fighter were spotted who were wearing US army boots... So Wikipedia will state that US Marines are fighting with ISIS? And that was on a picture relayed by many media output, which is not hard as the SOHR is spaming.165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium

The sources are already in the article. The links are in the little brackets, like this [1]. If you have problem with western sources (provided these are reliable) then I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong place. (Same is true if you have a problem with reliable Russian sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have a problem with that source this is a paid for media that I cannot access, and it is just one source. If it is the same quality as the other I pointed, then it is just lost in translation. I have given, in my erased change, another source, where you could read the ORIGINAL statement about the presence of Russian troops.165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium

BTW what do you have against "Masked troop wearing Russian made uniform" which is accurate and matches with all sources?165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium"

Because it's WP:WEASEL. (Also I don't think it matches the sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

actually all this article should be labeled WP:BULLSHIT IMHO. This is not at all weasel. The fact is that all your so called reliable source consider that when Mr. Putin said "the local militia were baked by Russian military" he said "the local militia were actually Russian military" and you continue deceiving people. Read your sources please and refer to the FACTS. He never acknowledged what FT is distorting... I will soon write an article on the non existence of the holocaust based on renown German papers, but using edition from during the nazi era. Then I will see how important the source versus the facts are. You are deceiving plenty of students in our so called democracy and this just feeds their hatred for Russians. I was hoping you had higher aspirations, i'm so sorry. I will avoid Wikipedia and tell anyone I know to avoid it. Just thought I should share this highly reliable source with you: serendipity li cda censorship_at_wikipedia htm which is blocked by WP how come!? 88.82.33.171 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium

Again, WP:NOTAFORUM (and there's usually a good reason why a website is blocked on Wikipedia. And no, that's not "censorship") Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

haha! Wanna have the last word huh? Yes it is. Enough evidence. WP:NOTAFORUM applies to your comment as well, my dear. Did you consider removing this article altogether?165.225.80.80 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium

I'd just like to note that this is approaching a breach of WP:CIVIL, which would be bad. Dschslava (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Euromaidan and the Ukrainian revolution" section needs to be rewritten

An editor has brought my attention to the present state of "Euromaidan and the Ukrainian revolution" section. As it stands, the section seems to be an attempt to shoehorn in a certain viewpoint on the progression of events. Whilst this editor's first attempt to resolve this was to remove the section, I think that a better option is to rewrite it. As it stands, the section has been tagged for PoV. Does anyone have any suggestions on how write a neutral summary of the Euromaidan for the background section? RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There's some weaseling and pov pushing in the next to last sentence, but other than that I don't think it's too bad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that the phrase 'cobbled together' is not neutral but apart from that it seems good to me. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and in the earlier sentence I'd reword "fever pitch".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've made some adjustments. Please take a look. RGloucester — ☎ 23:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like improvement to me. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, thanks for improving it, User:RGloucester. --Remote Helper (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

not to rely on Putins self-declaration

the article gives space to the declaration of putin himself (22-23 of February) when the action started certainly earlier. (If Putin says 23rd it't certainly different.) The medal mentions 20th and Die Zeit also mentiones 20th for Russian naval officers to look out for leaders on crimea: Wann die Krim-Annexion wirklich begann, Die Zeit , march 16th 2015 --Caumasee (talk) 21:59, 16 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), 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)

Legal Obstacles section - can anyone explain...

While I understand that a section on the legal obstacles makes sense, I don't understand why it includes details about a Bill that was proposed on 28th February 2014 but later withdrawn on 20th March. If a Bill is withdrawn before it becomes law, it had no legal effect so how can it be included as a legal obstacle?

I tried to remove the details from the section and was immediately reverted. Even a small rewording has been reverted - why it a Bill that never became law so important to this article?

Unless there is a clear reason why a Bill that never became law should be included within a legal obstacles section, I propose it be removed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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." [3]. And are you making threats? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewording

I undid this edit [4] 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.

In regard to this edit [5] - 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)