Jump to content

Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stephen J Sharpe (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 14 May 2014 (→Russian presentation of the observers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:CollapsedShell

Voting irregularities reported in Ukrainian media

I moved this line, "There were reports of people able to vote multiple times and not having to be from Crimea to vote, with turnout exceeding 100% in some places, 123% in Sevastopol.[1][2]" from the lead to the procedure section as the media sources given cite a Ukrainian blogger for their claims. This seems like undue weight to me for inclusion in the article but I want to discuss it or wait for better sources before removing it entirely. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The alleged 123% "anomaly" was debunked by reddit fairly quickly. Here's their explanation:[1]

Somebody mixed 1 724 563 and 1 563 724.
If we subtract 1563724 - 1250426 we get 313298 voters in Sevastopol.
Dividing by the population of 385462(which is inaccurate), you get 81.3%. The stated ratio is 82,71%.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any more reliable sources either so I'll remove the bit about +100% turnout rate. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporated the explanation into the Results section. — Petr Matas 17:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Reddit as a source is disputed. I believe that it is permissible here, because the claim is also supported independently by other reliable sources, like ITAR-TASS. — Petr Matas 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
how is using a site's comment section valid? how does this pass the WP:RS sniff test? This is invalid by any metric of wikipedia and is beyond typical wp:or--Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not say that it is a reliable source. You cannot rely on it, but what rule prevents you from including it? WP:RS says nothing about a sniff test. — Petr Matas 22:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one good reason to include even such unreliable source: To attribute the original idea to its author, even if it is a semi-anonymous comments section contributor. — Petr Matas 22:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for others: We are disputing this source. — Petr Matas 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we're going to get a more reliable source for how the error was made for the same reason we don't have reliable sources for the original error - it's not notable. Only obscure Ukrainian media and blogs commented on the ITAR-TASS error. I'd support just removing the whole thing. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original ITAR-TASS article still contains the erroneous count. — Petr Matas 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just ignore that and use the corrected ITAR-TASS article? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can, but many people seem worried about the 123% turnout since the calculation was published by UNIAN, one of the largest Ukrainian news agencies. — Petr Matas 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize that. Well, do we really need a source to replace Reddit? I think the corrected ITAR-TASS article alone can serve as a citation to support the text as it currently stands. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't, but the question is: Does Reddit have to be removed? I think that its inclusion does no harm. — Petr Matas 00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to its inclusion but it doesn't look good to have Reddit as a citation. Perhaps we could add the explanation for the error and and use the video of the press conference together with the original and corrected ITAR-TASS reports of the press conference as supporting sources. It would be OR/synthesis but I think this is one of the those situations where we should ignore all rules and use common sense. But I want to hear Львівське thoughts on the idea before making the edit. It seems this is only getting bigger with the Guardian quoting a 'senior US administration official' who repeats the claim. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: I think that media would verify their sources better if there was a service reporting on all proven canards. — Petr Matas 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to assume incompetence before conspiracy but this is pushing it. I think some journalists choose not to verify their sources. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis consists of the words "incorrectly" and "error" and can be easily removed: "ITAR-TASS initially reported this as 1,724,563 voters in total (which lead some people to report a 123% turnout in Sevastopol), but corrected it later." — Petr Matas 08:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I'll make the edit. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Look. We do NOT use reddit comments as sources. Period. If you think we do, you need to find some other project to contribute to. On the other hand, the 123% frequency is also mentioned in this Timothy Snyder column [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk is next — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.233.244.66 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results for separate municipalities

Are the results for separate municipalities available? If so, could the referendum map be made so that different shades of color indicate different percentage ranges like in File:Egyptian constitutional referendum 2011.svg (perhaps using narrower ranges if necessary)? --188.252.130.227 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean referendum, 2014 → Crimean status referendum, 2014 – All Wester's objections have been dissolved. — Petr Matas 07:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image error

the "Linguistic map of Ukraine according to the 2001 census" says "Chernobyl diaster". Should say "Chernobyl disaster" Ultrabutter (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for not dispatching OSCE monitors

I disagree with Stephen J Sharpe's removal of the reason for not dispatching OSCE monitors. It IS supported by the source, which says:

Jak Evropská unie, tak Organizace pro bezpečnou spolupráci v Evropě (OBSE) přitom pozorovatele odmítly na Krym vyslat s odvoláním, že v minulých dnech nebyli na Krym vpuštěni vojenští pozorovatelé.

which translates to

Both the European Union and the Organisation for safe Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), however, refused to send observers to Crimea, noticing that in the past few days military observers have not been admitted to Crimea.

— Petr Matas 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought I read through that whole article but I guess I missed that. If aktualne.cz is reliable then I don't think you need to preface it with "Aktuálně.cz claimed". I'll look for better sources as well. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. :) It's one of the newspapers frequently appearing at Google News. Is it enough? — Petr Matas 17:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. After reading so many imperfectly translated foreign news media my eyes tend to glaze over material. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Concerns

I'm not necessarily opposed to including something about the monitors' political affiliations given that most of them wouldn't be considered mainstream but I think it's problematic to imply that neo-nazis and communists are sympathetic towards Russia without some pretty strong sources to back that up. The information about political affiliation should be presented neutrally so readers can decide whether they think such people would be biased towards Russia. Given that there were 135 observers (according to RT), information about individual observers seems like undue weight but I'd support a more general statement about the observers. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but as of now, all observers refered to in the Monitors section are problematic in my opinion. I hoped that either many others with no problems will be added or some problems will be found for a vast majority of them. — Petr Matas 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the entire "bias concerns" section needs to be deleted as it is original research. Here's an example using the first name on the list; lets assume for the moment that it is an undisputed and properly cited fact that Charalampos Angourakis is a Representative from the Communist Party of Greece. Wikipedia can not say that is a "concern" unless there is a reliable source to be cited that says it is a concern. It doesn't matter if half of the observers are known to be personal friends of Vladimir Putin, we cannot say that is a "concern" unless a reliable source says it first. - Hoplon (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's not say that it is a concern, but the contents of the table are sourced, so I think that we should keep at least the table. — Petr Matas 20:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of international observers, I don't think any individual observer's political affiliation or history is notable. Consider - what does observer Johan Bäckman's activist past say about the referendum? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. But a list of affiliations of all observers mentioned by this RT (pro-Kremlin) article will be interesting. — Petr Matas 00:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I can understand this being relevant to the article is if these affiliations affect the credibility of the international observers. We cannot make that argument ourselves, we need a source. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. — Petr Matas 06:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think their affiliation matters considerably. If the validity of these monitors is based on their credibility, then it matters greatly if Russia collected a bunch of random malcontents, and blocked OSCE accredited observers, in order to have a group that was more pliable. It seems that objective observers were blocked from monitoring the elections, and a selected group was admitted. How much we value the viewpoint of the monitors goes to the essence of them being monitors at all, so yes the background of the monitors is what decides their relevance and credibility. Furthermore, we do not "need a source to say they a concern", thats neither here nor there. Does it meet notability criteria? yes, this is notable, relevant, an important part of the article. ITs up to wikipedia readers to decide whether its a concern or not to them. The article does not make up people's minds for them by telling them what is right, wrong, or credible, wikipedia gives the facts of the situation and readers make up their own minds. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before including facts so readers can "make up their own minds" those facts have be to be determined to be relevant. In this case relevancy depends on the idea or concern that any individual monitor's political beliefs or affiliations affects his ability to be a referendum monitor. But Wikipedia can't state that a neo-nazi or a communist or Vladimir Putin's best friend is unfit to be an observer unless there is a source to back that up. If the Crimean authorities only invited "malcontents" or Russophiles to be observers that would be relevant but we'd need a source for that and even then going into detail about individual monitors would be undue weight. Per WP:BRD, the usual practice is to edit, revert and discuss; leaving the article in the state it was before the edit until some sort of consensus is reached. Given that Petr Matas re-added the section after a revert and he has since agreed, I'm going to remove the affiliations section although please don't take this an attempt to close discussion on the matter. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


↓ (moved from User:Petr Matas)

"But Wikipedia can't state that a neo-nazi or a communist or Vladimir Putin's best friend is unfit to be an observer unless there is a source to back that up." That assertion was not made: nowhere did it say that they were unfit to be an observer, the material did not say that anywhere You removed all this material, which should still be there. I object to its removal, since understanding the background of the observers is important to being able to judge their credibility. Ottawakismet (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requested - Crimean monitors affiliation

Sure, absolutely fair request. The source has been added to the referendum page. Canada banned him from entering the country for his hate views (hate speech is prohibited in Canada, though not in the United States as much) I found a second article from a high quality news source (macleans), which adds more information. x http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10630-canada-ejects-serbian-american-scholar-stops-speech-at-university http://www.macleans.ca/education/university/guest-ubc-lecturer-denied-entry-to-canada/ http://ubyssey.ca/news/serbian-speaker-accused-of-hate-speech/ This is an exerpt from the first source:

IRGC is shocked that the University of British Columbia would allow Srdjan [sic] Trifkovic, who has repeatedly and openly denied the Srebrenica genocide to speak at this respectable academic institution. A historical revisionist like Trifkovic should not be allowed to lecture in an academic context. His version of events in the Balkans is inaccurate (as proven by his denial of the Srebrenica genocide) and the Serbian Students’ Association should not be allowed to pass him off as a reliable source.

Denial of genocide is widely considered to constitute a form of racist hate propaganda that is incompatible with Canadian values. Recently, the Parliament of Canada has recognized the Bosnian Genocide that took place in the enclave of Srebrenica in July 1995.

Thanks for sending me the note, always better for things to show their sources.Ottawakismet (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

↑ (moved from User:Petr Matas)

  • Here is a source, for the concerns. Quote: No major international organizations are monitoring today’s vote, after “self-defense groups” prevented their entry. A number of self-proclaimed observers, mostly far-right European politicians from across Europe, are in Crimea, with one saying “What is sauce for Kosovo’s goose is certainly sauce for Crimea’s gander.” — Petr Matas 19:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Communists are far-right now? Far be it for me to question the guardian so I won't challenge that description but the source doesn't report on any concerns. Again, it can't be implied that far-right Europeans are unsuited to perform the duties of a referendum observer simply because of their political beliefs. The refusal to allow OSCE military observers is already covered in the article. OSCE referendum monitors were (informally) invited by Crimean PM Aksyonov but declined as the article says. A number of media reports I've read recently seem to conflate the OSCE's military and referendum monitors but that doesn't mean we have to. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd support the inclusion of "No major international organizations sent observers" but I'd prefer more sources and a citation needed tag to encourage other editors to find them. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (more info here) sent an observer mission and I think the CIS can be described as a "major international organization". Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any other sources reporting the involvement of the CIS IPA and nothing is reported concerning Crimea on the CIS IPA website so I expect the www.contact.az article was mistaken or badly translated so disregard that. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no one needs to have "raised concerns" in print for the material to be relevant, its relevant regardless. Secondly, I have added those who objected to the validity of the observers. The OSCE, and others have printed concerns about the validity of the observers, though someone took that down. Ottawakismet (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider - why do you think this is relevant? Is it not because you think these affiliations affect the credibility of the international observers? That may very well be true but we cannot make that argument ourselves, we can only report on a notable source that makes that argument. If OSCE has "printed concerns about the validity of the observers" then by all means that should be added but, considering that there were 135 international observers, going into detail about individual monitors would be undue weight. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ottawakismet re-added the disputed section. Per WP:CON, as consensus has not been reached, and considering the agreement of Petr Matas and Hoplon, I will revert the edit. Please continue to discuss the matter on the talk page and do not take unilateral action. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The OSCE, and others have printed concerns about the validity of the observers, though someone took that down"

I reverted your original edit and I reverted your new edit for the same reason (found in the edit summary) - it wasn't in the source. The first part about the OSCE considering the referendum illegal is already covered in the "background" and doesn't belong under "Monitors" because they weren't monitoring. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your arguments, but still I would prefer to keep the section to encourage others to improve it and provide sources. At least for a few days. — Petr Matas 04:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time - given that there were 135 international observers, details about individual observers is not notable. Only general statements about the observers is notable and that doesn't require its own section. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about this source? No national or objective international monitors were allowed to observe conditions of the referendum. — Petr Matas 05:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can't support a statement of fact because it's an opinion piece. At most, we could write in the "Monitors" section:

Some media commentators questioned the objectivity of the international monitors.

But that's just gonna stick out like a sore thumb. Most readers will wonder why their objectivity is questioned. As the source doesn't give a reason why, we can't speculate that it has to do with political affiliations or anything else. The notion that "No national or objective international monitors were allowed" is refuted by better sources in the article which notes an invitation to the OSCE. This further undermines the credibility of the source. Given the sole weak source, it doesn't belong in the lead. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to recall those references, which dicuss the Czech observers under EODE, but now I see that the news are written in a way that it seems that they question the observers objectivity, but in fact they don't. — Petr Matas 06:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, Lidovky.cz questions credibility of Stanislav Berkovec, because he claimed that he paid the trip cost himself, while the Czech trio including him was paid by EODE. Quote: Zarážející je ale ještě další rozpor v popisu této pozorovatelské mise. Zatímco Šarapatka připustil, že měl celou cestu "gratis" včetně letenek, Berkovec v rozhovoru tvrdil, že si vše financoval sám. "Cesta se uskutečnila na mé vlastní náklady," uvedl. — Petr Matas 08:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your enthusiasm, Petr, but you have to keep in mind two things - relevancy and notability. Regarding relevancy, political affiliations are only relevant if they affect the credibility of the observers and the source has to explicitly report that. Regarding notability, given that there were 135 international observers, details about individual observers are not notable. Therefore, only general statements detailing concerns about the objectivity/credibility of the group of international observers could be both notable and relevant. It would be WP:SYNTHESIS to use a number of sources detailing concerns about individual observers to support a general statement about the observers. Perhaps if there were only 10-20 observers in total we could overlook WP:SYNTHESIS but as it is Berkovec, Angourakis, Trifkovic, and several others does not constitute a significant fraction of the 135-member observer team. I don't want to be rude by bolding what I wrote but I've repeated myself multiple times. If you disagree with what I said about relevancy or notability then please discuss that with me but please don't fill the talk page with information about individual members until we've discussed the notability and relevancy of concerns about individual members. Thank you. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got it, Stephen. No more sources without general statements. — Petr Matas 19:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found an op-ed where the authors writes, "At least many of the monitors were no doubt biased" and precedes that with the description of the EODE as a "hardly a non-partisan organization." Ironically, he comes to this conclusion by citing the EODE wikipedia article that Petr Matas himself recently created. That worked out well, I guess. Together with the previously discussed Huff Post opinion peice, we can confidently include a general statement of concern about the international observers. I think we have Petr Matas to thank for this more than anyone ;) Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual affiliation reports again

According to the consensus above, reports on individual observer affiliations are not notable and should be removed. — Petr Matas 08:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-secret votes, semitransparent voting booths

(Copied from User talk:Stephen J Sharpe so that others can join discussion)

[..] I do not understand your reason for reverting my edit [3]. What I meant was that some votes were already visible before putting the ballot into the box, since some people did not fold their ballots so that their vote was readily visible to bystanders (as shown in several of the images of the Mashable source). This has little to do with the transparent boxes, but I think it's an important fact to add that secret voting was only optional, since it (unlike the boxes) contradicts democratic standards as I know them. (Also, the voting cabins were semi-transparent, apparently, further reducing secrecy.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If voting cabins were semi-transparent that should be added, no question. If some people did not fold their ballots that is their own choice. If envelopes had been available and some voters just chose not to use them it wouldn't be notable either. It sounded like the edit was belabouring the point. On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to an edit that noted how the ballot boxes were visible to bystanders during voting if that can be sourced. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my edit wasn't clear. Semi-transparent cabins are shown in the Mashable images at two of the three polling stations shown (the third seems to have nontransparent ones). FWIW, I don't agree that "if some people did not fold their ballots that is their own choice". It can put significant societal pressure on any dissenters to "prove" they voted the "right" way; e.g. in the GDR people were "expected" not to use the voting cabins, thereby removing the secrecy of the vote. At least in Germany, it IS forbidden to show your vote to anyone; I would have thought this was common in democratic countries. (But maybe we should discuss this at the article talk page...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Czech Republic (my country), you will not be allowed to vote if you don't use a cabin, and a ballot, which is not in the official pre-stamped envelope, is invalid. (It would be nice to move this entire discussion to the article's talk page.) — Petr Matas 20:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you guys are getting at. In Canada things are a bit more relaxed but thats probably because we have a less . . . interesting . . . political history. Even so, without a source that reports on concerns of 'societal pressure' as a result of the voting procedure/environment it is original research on our part to speculate about how Crimean voters might have felt. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that in an "unendangered" democracy this enforcement may seem unnecessary; so showing your marked ballot is allowed/tolerated in Canada?
I don't want to add the "pressure" part to the article without a source, only the fact that several people voted openly, for which we have a (photographic) source. People can draw their own conclusions from this fact, which may be as different as ours here... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that voting without envelopes and with transparent boxes is the standard procedure in Ukraine, as can be seen from 2010 elections photos. 2010 elections were declared fair and an "impressive display" of democracy by OSCE. 130.132.173.148 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(End copy) Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of 5-10 Crimean voters - or however many we have photographic evidence of - does not really matter next to the total 1,524,563 voters. You might say it's indicative of a greater trend (and that's probably true) but I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia making that argument on its own. That is where we need a source. That said, I'm not strongly opposed and I won't revert if the edit is made. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point; but we also use the images of a few transparent boxes as a reference for transparent boxes in general in this article... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable that other transparent boxes were used in polling stations throughout Crimea although I'll add some sources that explicitly say so. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reports on legitimacy and lawfulness

  • I think that before you try to edit this article, you should know that the majority of the Crimeas population are Russians. I read smth about cabines for voting upper, it's false, because there was everything that should be on such events as referendum, moreover, each editor is already agree, that there no violencences or illegal actions during it. You could find smth illegal if enemy forces intruded the peninsula and made everyone recognize it as a part of Russian territory (like the US did with Mexico or Spanish colonies in the Pacific ocean), thats what we can call illegal actions and occupation. but in Crimea everything was legal, legitimate and necessary for Crimean people. Read and look reports from Crimea and opinion of the voters, and you will understand. You better study Your Own history before teach someone else how to call such main events for people (even a strange for you).
PS and also read the 2nd chapter of the UN regulations. You may learn smth new about politics and laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.205.109 (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Reports" where it says: "The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered", a recent an edit by 85.140.218.205 added that the observers found it legitimate. Since this was taken from the same source, how come the edit was reverted? After all, all it will say is these particular observers found it legitimate. I don't think that should be a problem. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, seems like there is a bit of a tug of war happening with this particular line between 85.140.218.205 and Stephen J Sharpe. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
85.140.218.205 has agreed to discuss the matter on the talk page so I think we can resolve this. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the of those, who won't hide the truth and belittle the importance of that event for the Crimean people (though I'm not from there, but I've been there recently). And in my editing I dont lie (and other editors agreed with it, as you can see in previous talk). Nothing personal, but Nato's countries mass media are often distorting information with their subjective points of view :) (If its matter, I read american, british, deutsch and russian newpapers and magazines)

And also, if you are so stubborn about it, show me according to which documents its illegal? I didnt see, but I know, that any people anyway have right for self-determination. And you cant argue that its illegal, cause this is false. As it was said before, read the UN rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.205.109 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit from an EODE statement reporting that referendum was conducted freely and fairly. I'm opposed to including any reference of legal legitimacy because the EODE is not an authority on international or Ukrainian law. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RA0808 reverted this edit describing it in the edit summary as 'subjective'. I don't argue it isn't 'subjective' but the edit clearly attributed the claim 'freely and fairly' to the EODE which is relevant because they were observing the referendum. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it seems I was complicating things, but the way the statement was written did not seem to attribute the claim to EODE but stated it as if it were objective fact. As you stated yourself: EODE is not an authority on international or Ukrainian law (in fact they are a group led by a Belgian far-right activist), so any claims that they make should carry a caveat to that respect. I think that is better addressed further down in the article where there is space to articulate the precise leanings and biases of the various bodies and nations piping in on this referendum. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to say, whether the referendum was illegal - that would be original research. Next, I agree that a monitor's opinion on legality is irrelevant unless he is a legal scholar. But I'm not sure that it is ok to insist on not including such well-sourced opinion. Anyway, it is definitely not true, that ALL observers found it legal (see Berkovec above...). — Petr Matas 22:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see it wasn't directly attributed to EODE but to the 135 observers. That was an oversight. Also, I assumed that all the observers were working through the EODE mission but that might not be true. How about we phrase it:

The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered. The Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE) observer mission concluded that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly.

Also I did not say 'any claims that they make should carry a caveat' but just argued that legal claims by the EODE aren't relevant because they aren't a legal authority. Concerns about observer credibility have been discussed under Bias Concerns. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I going to be BOLD and add my proposed solution but if anyone still has a problem with it please revert and discuss your concerns on the talk page. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to attribute the freedom and fairness to EODE? How about something like this? The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered, concluding that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly. — Petr Matas 04:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the same assumption I did - that all the observers were working through the EODE mission but none of our sources explicitly say so (that I could find). Therefore, the statement has to be directly attributed to the EODE. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RT said it was fair as well, without refering to EODE. — Petr Matas 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the passage you're referring to please? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I messed it up. I meant free in qoutes of Stadler, Baborats, and Radoychich. — Petr Matas 06:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stadler, Baborats, and Radoychich are just individual observers. Given the statement of the EODE, concluding the referendum was free and fair, it would be undue weight to quote individual observers from the EODE declaring the same thing. If there was an observer who reported a dissenting opinion, that might be notable. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Crimea

Should the article on Constitution of Crimea be modified? MaynardClark (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that option 2 didn't succeed, they didn't adopt a new constitution but the old constitution can't really apply in every respect anymore either. Whatever the case, this shouldn't really be discussed here. Please keep discussion over at Talk:Constitution of Crimea Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Total registered voters calculation and rounding

In the Results section table, the Crimea total registered voters is calculated as Total votes cast (sourced) divided by Turnout (sourced). The result is almost identical to the number of registered voters from February (sourced), which is out of date however. The question is, whether such calculation is permissible under WP:CALC, and if yes, whether the result has to be rounded to reflect the fact, that the turnout is given with a 3 significant digits precision, to avoid false precision.

Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014/Archive 2#Original research. — Petr Matas 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think that we have reached consensus for the archived discussion yet. I would like to hear Aleksandr Grigoryev's opinion. — Petr Matas 05:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guy from Lvov? Lol, they hate east ukraine and crimea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.217.149 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is from the glorious city of Lviv. And does not hate east Ukraine or Crimea, but such non-adequates like yourself. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Matas, I appreciate your gesture. But we still did not confirm where the total numbers of voters came from in the article. According to Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars only 30% of voters participated. So, statement from the Sevastopol city administration is seriously challenged and qualifies for POV or neutrality fail. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official numbers are well-sourced and therefore should be included into the article. The Mejlis claim is well-sourced too and should be included as well. The numbers in the table come from the following sources:
  • Crimea total registered voters: Calculated as Total votes cast (official number) / Turnout (official number). The result is almost identical to the official number of registered voters from February. The question is, whether such calculation is permissible under WP:CALC, and if yes, whether the result has to be rounded to reflect the fact, that the turnout is given with a 3 significant digits precision.
  • Sevastopol total votes cast and total registered voters: These come from the Sevastopol city administration, so they are well-sourced and correspond to the official February figure as well. However, a simple calculation confirms with a 99.7% confidence, that at least one of these numbers does not come from the original vote count sums, but it is rather calculated using the turnout percentage rounded to 89.5%. This proof is an original research and I don't know how to deal with it. This is discussed in the next subsection.
— Petr Matas 13:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no consensus on applicability of WP:CALC, I am going to restore the notice on calculated values to let the reader decide for himself. — Petr Matas 08:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Remark: @Petr Matas, use {{DNAU}} to avoid archiving by the bot. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think such calculation is permissible and not WP:OR because it is simple math, but maybe prefix it with "approx." or something because it is clear that 83.1% is rounded assuming all other figures are accurate. Biglobster (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that vote counts have been reverse calculated

The Sevastopol total votes cast and total registered voters are both sourced and the latter corresponds to the official February figure as well. However, a simple calculation confirms with a 99.7% confidence, that at least one of these numbers does not come from the original vote count sums, but it is rather calculated using the turnout percentage rounded to 89.5%. The same occurs for the Sevastopol "Join Russia" vote count, which is precisely 95.6% of the total votes cast. This proof is an original research and I wonder whether we can make any use of it.

Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014/Archive 2#Sevastopol registered voters count. — Petr Matas 16:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Chubarov video

I recommend the video of Chubarov be removed primarily because it's in Russian but also because he's a somewhat marginal figure. The caption reads, "Refat Chubarov, leader of Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, commented decision of Supreme Council of Crimea" which gives no indication of what he's actually saying. If the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People were the representatives of the Tatar people then perhaps it would be warranted but they're just an unofficial political association of Crimean Tatars as the article says. All things considered, and given the already large number of images in the article, I think it should be removed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the Vote

I don't see the conceptual or operational distinction between simple majority vs. First-past-the-post voting, the (FPTP or FPP) voting systems. Several online explanations equate the two.[3]

  • Simple majority voting. A simple majority simply means more than half the votes cast. However, since very few candidates in FPTP elections with more than two candidates achieve this, majority should be read to mean 'relative majority', rather than 'absolute majority'.
  • Plurality voting. Another name for simple majority.
  • Furthest past the post. Recognising that the candidate with the most votes almost never has more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, some people have suggested that thinking of the post as a starting point rather than a finishing point is more sensible and thus that 'Furthest past the post' is a more accurate name.
  • Winner-takes-all, because the winner does, take all.

That is, I appreciate subtle nuances, but I hardly think that such quibbles (unless spelled out coherently for all us simpler-minds to appreciate) warrant or justify 'an undo war' or 'a war of undoing'![4]
Wikipedia has a number of articles on these voting systems:

MaynardClark (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use simple majority, as many more readers are going to understand that. — Petr Matas 10:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/17/6244866/questions-surround-crimea-referendum.html
  2. ^ http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/17/7019270/
  3. ^ http://www.conservativeelectoralreform.org/Voting-Systems/FPTP.htm
  4. ^ Types of Voting Systems

Additional sources for the 135 international observers?

In the head of the article, there is the phrase "The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered." It was sourced by three links, two of which were clones of each other and said nothing of any international observers. The third source is Russia Today, a Russian-sponsored news source. Does anyone have any additional sources for the existence of these observers or should we change the sentence to something like "According to Russia Today, there were 135 ..." --Petr Hudeček (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These "observers" were from the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections a group with no international standing with links to far-right and Neo-Nazi organizations. I'm still a bit on the fence as to whether this info should be included.

IF, this organization was actually invited by the Russian or the Crimean government then it does seem noteworthy that such a group would be invited to "monitor elections". However I'm not 100% if this was a case. Rather it seems like they might have just invited themselves. If that is the case, then who cares, just keep this stuff out per WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Snyder says that they were in fact invited by Moscow [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article you are referring to Timothy Snyder is expressing his own opinion, without providing any evidence to back up his claim. Please explain what gives any relevance to his words. I cannot see any reason to quote him in the article. - Tamas90 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snyder's claim that the observers were far-right is clearly overblown. There are three Czech observers named in the entry. None of them is far-right (nor far-left either). Determining what proportion of observers are indeed associated with far-right parties would be an useful information. —Gootcha (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong interpretation of a poll

I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I am starting this thread to discuss how to fix an apparently wrong interpretation of the poll conducted in February 2014 by KIIS:

"A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 67% wanted to remain in Ukraine and 23% wanted unity with Russia.[39] By early February 2014, just days before the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych, support had risen to 41% in a subsequent KIIS poll.[40][41]"

The question in the IRI [39] poll was: "In your opinion, what should the status of Crimea be?" But, according to the primary source [40], the question in the KIIS poll was "Ukraine and Russia must unite into a single state". These questions are not equivalent. Clearly, only a subset of people who would want just Crimea to be united with Russia answer "yes" to the second question. Therefore, the result of the KIIS poll underestimates the support for Crimea to be united with Russia. Second, I don't see why is there [41] a link to a secondary source, which already misinterprets the poll result. Gootcha (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section split proposal

There is a template in the "Reactions" section of the article to split those reactions into a separate article (with discussion of the proposed move on the talk page). However, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on this subject on this talk page or in its archives. Was there a discussion, or was that template added and never discussed? RocioNadat 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been discussed yet. I added the template because the section is very long and consists mainly of a list. A would prefer to keep just a summary here. — Petr Matas 02:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only summary here is ok. I think the split proposal is good because there are many reactions to referendum. The splitted article for example can be build up by chapters "Reactions before referendum" and "Reactions after referendum".

Observers and legitimacy

Non admin closing with agreement from originating editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Can many citations of RT news (a source biased in favor of Russian government) be removed from the article entirely without explaining each particular instance removal? Volunteer Marek started an edit war by doing so. — Petr Matas 20:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Your attempt to start an rfc is ill-formatted
  2. Your description of an issue is non-neutral which is NOT how you open an RFC
  3. I did NOT start an edit war. As can be seen right below here, I'm the one who initiated the discussion. The edit war was began with other editors who insisted on retoring dubious information, unreliable sources, and unneeded citations
  4. Your description of the issue is inaccurate. I did *not* remove RT from the article entirely. I merely removed it where 1) there were other, more reliable sources, already given (in which case I kept the text). This was the majority of my edit and 2) it was citing dubious and controversial info. I left RT in place where it was citing simple facts (current version has couple citations to it)
  5. You're mixing up the usage of RT with the issue of the so-called "observers" which is a whole different kertuffle.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed straight up POV-ing of the article and misinformation. For example

[5]

and

[6]

RT and RT news is not a reliable source for anything except its own opinions. It has no place in this article citing facts. The EODE Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections is not any kind of official body of observers but a sketchy group with ties to far-right and neo-Nazi groups. Who cares what they think. If anything, if they really were "invited" by the Russian government... yeah, maybe that fact should be included, but it sure needs to be worded differently. Otherwise this is a straight up dishonest attempt at misleading the reader and trying to get them to believe that this is some legitimate independent body. The list of EODE "observers" likewise does not belong here, aside perhaps from noting, that these are people with some pretty nasty views.

Please do not restore unreliable sources, misrepresent info regarding these "observers" or otherwise try to push a POV in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the international laws, volunteer marek before trying to disruptively edit our article

"Our" article? What international laws? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RT is a reliable source. Your edits are POV. Please stop attempting to delete valuable information. It looks very strange and unconstructive when you remove a source and add {{citation needed}} instead. You should better remove all the Ukrayinska Pravda and UNIAN references. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it's not. Removing an unreliable source and replacing it by a [citation needed] tag is standard procedure. This gives a chance for other editors to find an actual reliable source. If they cannot do so, then the text is removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree that RT can be considered a reliable source where Russian foreign policy is concerned. See a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159#Enquiry concerning the RT Network - "RT is not appropriate for foreign politics, international relations", "it should not be considered a RS for anything controversial." etc. Number 57 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you think they are not reliable, you should say what exactly you think is incorrect. 2. There are Ukrainska Pravda, UNIAN, and other Ukrainian sources used. No one touches them. 3. Volunteer Marek's edits across Wikipedia are so obviously POV that I think he should be banned from the topic. --Moscow Connection (talk)
As Number 57 points out above whether RT is reliable or not has been discussed at WP:RSN before. They're not reliable except for simplest facts. As to Ukrainska Pravda and UNIAN, feel free to bring that up at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a proof link, please? --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Number 57's comment above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion you are pointing me to can be used as a proof that RT is reliable. Because user Zavtek who expressed their own opinion that RT was unreliable happened to be a sockpuppet. Another user, not a sockpuppet, said RT could be trusted. I'm really beginning to doubt your and Number 57's good intentions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, no, no it can. The editors involved in the discussion, regardless of who this Zavtek fellah is, clearly state that RT cannot be considered reliable except for simplest facts. Are we reading the same conversation? "I'm really beginning to doubt your and Number 57's good intentions.", hey, right back at ya.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My intentions are good cause I am not changing the article, I am just restoring it to the state it was in before you came. I am not deleting sources and parts I don't like, but you do.
As for the RSN discussion, I didn't notice Bobrainer's opinion and misread JYtdog's statement. Still, JYtdog says "RT is probably fine for simple facts", "it should not be considered a RS for anything controversial". Sepsis II says "only .. if they are reporting facts which conflict with facts other RS' are reporting" (which is probably true for any source, so that's an positive opinion.
Please explain what is controversial in every statement you deleted a source from. Please list them one by one and explain what you think is incorrect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no presumption in favor of the status quo on Wikipedia, otherwise articles would never see improvement. And I could just as well argue that I am restoring to the state before somebody else came. Removing and deleting POV material cited to unreliable sources constitutes article improvement. An encyclopedia is not an accumulation of random junk. In fact, cutting junk is what an "editor" does in any publishing venture.
And again, it's not up to me to justify removal of POV and unreliable sources. How about YOU list a statement which you want to include and we discuss it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RSN heading says: Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". That means, that even biased sources like RT may be valuable in some cases. For example, RT can be used without concerns for the statement "Mikhail Malyshev said on press conference..." Conclusion: Every particular disputed source use has to be discussed separately. — Petr Matas 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, which is why RT can be used for simple facts. Also note that in the majority of cases where I removed RT, there were other, reliable, sources already supporting the text. Hence, including RT was not even needed. There was one or two instances where controversial text was being sourced to RT alone and in those cases I either removed the text or put in a citation needed tag. Again, standard procedure. (This also addresses Moscow Connection's comment above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't address my comment. I think you deleted RT references from perfectly innocent statements, including, as you said yourself, the ones that were supported by other sources.
On the other hand, Huffington Post is not to be trusted: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 165#Huffington Post. And there's a very controversial statement sourced from it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an "innocent statement" is already sourced to a sound, reliable source then it doesn't need an additional citation to a unreliable, controversial source such as RT. And as far as HP goes... again, are we reading the same discussion? Yes, the initiator of that thread went on a crazy rant against it but then we have comments such as: "The OP's assertion is not receiving any real support here, and I'll add my voice to the opposition. There's little prospect here of a blanket ban on HuffPo".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Little prospect of a "blanket ban". I didn't say anything about a ban on Huffington Post. I was talking about a particular controversial sentence sourced from it. See the difference?
You, on the other hand, are trying to present things like there's a ban on RT and removed references from non-controversial sentences. Why did you remove them? Was RT banned from Wikipedia?
Now, if there's no consensus, your changes must be reverted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more time. I removed them because RT is in general not a reliable source (except for simple facts) and the relevant text already had other, actually reliable, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, you also removed parts of text. Everything must be put back if there's no consensus for removal. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also removed parts of text that could not be supported by reliable sources. But that's not what you were complaining about in the comment(s) right above: removed references from non-controversial sentences.
And no, "everything" must NOT be put back... because you feel like it. You need 1) convince people at WP:RSN that RT is in fact a reliable source (good luck with that) and 2) get consensus FOR inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to do anything cause I'm simply revering non-consensual changes. It's you who needs to start a discussion on RSN, explaining what exactly you think is unreliable in the statements sourced from RT. Also, in order to have the right to remove RT from the article completely, you will need to get RT banned from Wikipedia. Right now, your changes must be reverted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are inserting non-reliable sources into the article. As pointed out repeatedly, there already HAVE BEEN discussions at RSN. I'm getting a sense that what we have here is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't need to "get RT banned" from Wikipedia. I can simply remove it because it's not a reliable source and for the most part the statements which are cited to it already have other, actually reliable sources. And *you* are the one making non-consensual changes, with the difference that your changes are in contradiction of Wikipedia policy WP:RS and WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VM removed "Mikhail Malyshev said 135 observers were registered." – a simple fact, which had three different sources. — Petr Matas 17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ANYTHING but a "simple fact". Come on! Let's not play games. The "observers" were from a self-appointed group with ties to Neo-Nazi and far-right organizations. Apparently they were invited by the Russian government (!) although I would want to find reliable confirmation of that before putting it in. They were a collection of crazy politicians from all kinds of nasty organizations. So you can't just put that in there as if it was a "simple fact". It's not, nevermind the dubious reliability of sources.
This - the question how to convey information about these "observers" in the article - is actually a bit of a separate issue from the RT issue and should probably be discussed in the separate section. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you saying things like this? You are obviously trying to push your opinion into the article. (Actually, you don't need to push anything into it, it already represents all sides. But you want it to say only what you like it to say and nothing else. Your opinions are too strong to be able to edit neutrally.)
No, it's not a separate issue cause you deleted the list of observers and some other info related to them. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions are fine and reflect what the reliable sources say. EODE has no legitimate international standing. It *is* a motley collection of right-wing extremists. There is no credibility to these guys and we shouldn't pretend that there is - THAT would be "trying to push an opinion into the article". On the other hand, if it is true that the Russian government actually invited these neo-nazi guys to observe the referendum... well, yeah, that's noteworthy and should be discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing this discussion is not going to get anywhere. No consensus. I'm reverting. Go to RSN and explain to them what exacly was incorrect in the sentences you deleted and how these sentences demonstrate that RT is unreliable and should be removed from the article completely. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There already have been discussions at RSN. How many times do I have to repeat that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been decided anything definite. Yes, in controversial case RT shoudln't be used. How is the list of observers controversial? Is there any reasonable doubt that it is correct? And why did you remove all RT references? Your edits were not constructive. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There hasn't been decided anything definite" - no, it has been decided that RT is not a reliable source for anything except "simplest facts". "controversial case RT shoudln't be used" - especially in controversial cases, but also not generally. "How is the list of observers controversial?" - see above. Describing these guys with ties to neo-nazi and far-right groups as "international observers" who said that the "referendum was legitimate" is most certainly controversial. Listing their names without explaining who they are, to make it seem like the referendum was observed by neutral parties (who's heard of these guys???), is a sneaky way of POV pushing. There's also a question of WP:UNDUE. Who cares that some extremists certified Putin's referendum? Now, if they were asked to do so by the Russian government, that's a different story. why did you remove all RT references? - because it's not a reliable source, except for "simplest facts" and in many cases was not needed. Generally we need only one solid, reliable, citation to support something. My edits improved the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, your removed valuable info and made the article even more non-neutral than it was. You deleted references simply because you wanted to delete all references to RT. Go to RSN and we'll see what they say. But explain to them what exactly you removed and why. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, please take a minute or two and read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Now. Let me repeat myself for umpteenth time. There already was a discussion at RSN about RT. The prevailing view was that RT is not a reliable source, except for "simplest facts". That means I don't have to "Go to RSN". That's already been done. It means that I can simply remove any instance where RT is being used to cite anything but "simplest facts". Which is what I've done. That's consensus. If you don't like it, it's up to you to change people's minds at RSN.
And what valuable - and sourced to reliable sources - info did I remove? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

marek, each people have a right to self-identification as it said in the un rules. When your Poland (or where are you from) separated from Russia, or when czech separated from Austria nobody boycotted them or recognized it illegitimate, when the west Germany in fact annexed the east Germany without any official treaties nobody recognized it illegitimare. Dont forget - annexion and rejoining are different things. Russia joined the peninsula without a one shot. And officially there were no Russian troops there except the Sevastopol forces (officially had right to base there), officially (if you are such a pedant) other troops were self-defence soldiers without Russia symbolics on the uniform. (Ps in fact if be honest we all know that that's all because the nato leaders have butthurt when they understood that they forever lost the possibility to occupy such an important point as crimea Self-determination

See WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And please sign your posts. About whole RT discussion. I'm think, that we should remove ALL sources, directly affinilated with conflicting sides (both RT & UNIAN), because they would naturally propagate positions of their owners (Russian and Ukrainian gov'ts respectively). Or at least not post their statements as pure facts, but only as "[source] reported that...". Seryo93 (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is UNIAN a Ukrainian-government agency or is it independent? If the former is it editorially independent (not the same thing - for example PBS is a US government organization but editorially independent and probably airs stuff way more critical of US government than American non-government sources)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's owned by governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is actievly involved in current Ukrainian affairs (on pro-revolution side). Therefore, if we retain it as a RS for this article, it must be used with caution. Seryo93 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any evidence that RT is unreliable. Reliability btw refers to whether not the facts they present are accurate. It has nothing to do with the opinions they present. I notice that Larry King who worked for CNN has a show with them. I would point out that RT did not say that representatives from 135 countries monitored the election, they quoted the Crimean election official as saying that. Does anyone doubt that is what he actually said? TFD (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said several times, the whole issue of these "observers" is really separate, but connected, to the issue of reliability of RT. The question there is how to present the facts about these "observers" in a neutral and accurate manner. You can't just quote one guy saying "there were observers", based on RT, without also mentioning WHO these observers were (a who's who of far-right extremists), how they came to "observe" (either self-appointed or invited by the Russian government, still not 100% sure) and how OTHER, actually reliable, sources describe them (as a joke, more or less). Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do would be to take the source back to RM, consensus can and does change on top of that the discussion did not have enough editors to make a proper consensus and a couple of valid concerns were raised about the previous one. Consensus also simply can and does change. In addition the term simplest facts is a concern what one considers as simple is not necessarily what another person does and that's part of the problem the pointless slow edit war is caused by. One of you needs to be the better editor and simply take back to RM for a further discussion. If all you are interested in is helping the encyclopedia in a neutral manor then doing so causes no undue harm to the encyclopedia and is worth whilst not only on this article. Also I suggest you both remember this article is under discretionary sanctions. Blethering Scot 01:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blethering Scot: What is RM? — Petr Matas 06:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he meant WP:RS noticeboard (RM for "Reliable Media"=="Reliable source"). Seryo93 (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: btw. Crimea invited OSCE observers on referendum but they're rejected offer on grounds, that they won't monitor breakaway elections without consent (request from) of central government. Seryo93 (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That part is also unclear. RIA says they invited them but OSCE turned them down. This source says they didn't, apparently because they think that real election observers such as OSCE (rather than a joke like EODE) are "NATO saboteurs" and that previous reports were incorrect. This source says that OSCE was invited, but by Ukrainian government, not the Crimean one, but when they tried to enter, they were fired upon - not clear if this was an invitation to act as observers. This source says that OSCE observers were not let in, and instead the Crimean "authorities" invited various extremist far-right politicians to act as "observers".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's controversial story. BTW: If there are Crimean "authorities", then there are Ukrainian "authorities", due to procedural violations (Con. and Supr. Courts weren't involved in impeachment proccedings at all, Rada was surrounded by armed men from Maidan Self-defence etc.). This is revolution, guys, and it naturally breaks the law (on both sides). Let's stay neutral ("and demand civility"). Seryo93 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this issue was explained well in the article before VM came. Let's start from there and discuss what is wrong. — Petr Matas 10:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmmm.... that section about the OSCE is exactly the same as "before VM came". So how am I suppose to be to blame for it? Please, drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and refrain from making baseless accusations against me. That's not very nice or honest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I brought the issue to RSN. Currently, all 5 editors there (excluding VM himself) oppose removing RT without explaining each particular instance. Thus, the consensus surely is NOT that RT can be removed with only saying non-RS. I am going to revert the article to the pre-VM state and then I will try to reapply subsequent undisputed edits. — Petr Matas 19:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting what I said. Right above you try to blame me for problems with a section which I didn't even edit. Now you're twisting my words at WP:RSN. It's beginning hard to assume good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry meant RS and I've responded there. Need to start proper proof reading my talkpage posts, tend to do quickly. Blethering Scot 19:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment in time Marek as your last revery showed it seems you have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as much or more so than Petr. No excuses stop edit warring and discuss, there is absolutely no justification for whats been going on here.Blethering Scot 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies to you Petr, stop edit warring and discuss. You both have valid points but neither of you are going to achieve a thing over edit warring. You can & should reach a consensus here before continuing. Marek must provide a valid reason for removing sources, there is no excuse for not and you should stop adding them without discussing, and they should only be used non controversially with context the example given at RS is a clear case where its reliable with context.Blethering Scot 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You asked at DRN which version is correct, simply the answer is neither both should be improved on. You need to learn to work together to improve not simply edit war and blast each other, you will both as all editors do need to make concessions to make sure the article is neutral and ultimately unbiased to one side or another. Neither of you are necessarily right or wrong.Blethering Scot 22:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to point out that there had been consensus since hundreds of revisions before VM came (Oh, I did it... Sorry, I couldn't help it.), but you just convinced me, that it is silly and that we have to move on:
VM, do you still want to remove the case cited at RSN? — Petr Matas 22:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Status quo" or "last version edited by User:Petr Matas" is NOT the same thing as "consensus". If that were the case Wikipedia articles could not be improved (except with your permission I guess). That's a bit of a self serving and disingenuous interpretation of what "consensus" means. It's also a violation of WP:OWN.
I don't understand your last question? Remove what case?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking whether you still want to remove the following statement:

A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to monitor the referendum,[1][2][3]

— Petr Matas 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you state it above, yes, of course. It's a controversial statement, cited to unreliable sources. But, like I already said multiple times, the issue here is bigger/different than just the use of RT as a source. It has to do with how to neutrally present the information about the "observers" in a way which does not try to mislead the reader.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say "as you state it". How do you propose to fix it then? — Petr Matas 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've both had your cheap digs ok, enough. Marek I think he means should the point raised at the RS be removed, but that would be futile at present given its a valid statement and being discussed. Everything else you should discuss here, raise the points you feel need added and the source you wish to verify them and people will comment on it to decide if controversial or needed. Its the only way to proceed given there is a clear dispute here.Blethering Scot 23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that we shouldn't discuss that case anymore? — Petr Matas 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observation: WP:VPP#BRD enforcing — Petr Matas 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...it was just and observation and was actually not accurate. See the response I left. Editors should be following the Bold, revert discuss cycle but more important, if this becomes a content dispute please consider WP:DRN.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way this is a very inappropriate RFC as it is a policy/guideline question. A local consensus here cannot override the larger consensus of the general community. It is also seems to be directing comments within the RFC at an editor. If you feel that the editor has edit warred report them to the proper venue. I suggest this RFC be closed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. — Petr Matas 05:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer is actually yes, editors can make bold edits without explaining first, but if challenged they should discuss the changes afterwards.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Mark Miller I find the last comment rather unhelpful, given these editors are disputing the source every time hence the ongoing edit war, saying editors don't need to explain is unhelpful, they should be explaining in their edit summary exactly why they are removing in each case, not explaining in cases such as these inflame the situation not help it. Were way past normal BRD.Blethering Scot 19:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ukrainska pravda is ukrainian-sponsored source, it cant be reliable

The observers and other edits

This edit [7] adds "There were 135 independent observers from 23 countries who found the". No. These were not "independent observers". They were an assortment of far-right politicians cherry picked by an organization with ties to extreme right and Neo-Nazi groups. The claim is unsourced. Do not restore it without providing a reliable source.

This edit [8] changes it to "While the referendum was described as fair and legitimate by reputed international observers" and cites it to RT TV. This is exactly the kind of factual claim which you cannot source to a non-reliable source like RT. Same goes for the statement "Other politicians, for example Ewald Stadler - a member of the European Parliament, stated that the referendum is legitimate and should be recognized, citing the UN Charte" And you most certainly cannot just put that info in there without mentioning that Ewald Stadler is a member of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria. But honestly, since this is a WP:FRINGE, and minor politician the text violates WP:UNDUE, in addition to the unreliable source. And you really really really cannot make such an edit with an edit summary which falsely claims "minor clarifications" and is marked as minor.

This edit [9]. The claim that "The status quo was instead implied by the choice not to vote" is unsourced and, aside from not making much sense, is an example of original research.

This edit [10] changes sources but does not actually improve them.

This edit [11] appears to contain original research and again talks about these faux-observers, including Stadler, without mentioning their ties to far-right groups. And no reliable sources are used. Again, this is NOT a "minor" edit.

This edit [12] just removes tags which where rightfully placed there by another user.

This edit [13]. The quotation marks around "observers" is in the source itself. Please don't remove them.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes have non-neutral connotation of "so-called" (implies fakeness). If you insist on them, you may separate them from main text with something like blockquote (or similar quoting instrument), but not leave in plain text, otherwise it (the article) becomes POVed (that is, assures 100% illegitimacy, this point is controversial due to:
a) revolution brokes laws (Kyiv gov't was already formed with procedural violations I've pointed above) and
b) there is a Kosovo independence precedent, which, just like Crimea now, was self-determination made in violation of national laws (of Serbian constitution). Seryo93 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The scare quotes are used in the source itself. NOT including scare quotes would be misrepresenting the source. THAT would be non-neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, we can remove Ukrinform on same grounds as Russia Today, because: a) it's owned by Kyiv gov't, and b) editorial independence of Ukr. media during current revolutionary conditions is also under much doubt. Seryo93 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ukrinform widely described as a "propaganda tool" in reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UPD: after having reviewed issue further I'm decided to withdraw my support for immediate rt.com re-inclusion on certain topics where it seems to be "banned" (I'm rather abstain from that controversial issue instead, esp. considering fact that there are still Russian sources around, with not so controversial reputation). But how about official/"so-called official" acts of the Republic of Crimea&similar entities: can RT and/or Crimea Inform be used as a sources (with proper attribution and caution)? Seryo93 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that ("ban" of RT) raises some questions: there are situations, in which RT is only source avaliable (for example: interview with ex-chief of SBU about this, which - for obvious reasons - wouldn't be made by either Ukr. agencies (who *usually* either glorify revolution, self-censored, or, as in case with Svoboda MP incident, overtly censored) nor Western agencies, (who usually (but not always, to be fair) do the same thing). Can we add that with attribution (for example: "... released interview with..., who claims that..."). This seems to fall under this case (upd: and under this). Seryo93 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right, neo-nazis

And another point: "admirer of Adolf Hitler" [possibly] may stay in article about this person, but here it seems like another ad Hitlerum argument (that is, reduces credibility of article). I think, that marking him just "far-right" is enough (everyone knows that far right is about extreme nationalism and/or fascism/Nazism). Seryo93 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notable fact about the person, one of these "observers". Gives context to who they were.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This "gives context to who they were" (without neutral attribution "far-right") is what ad Hitlerum argumentation is: "He is a Hitler fan, he is a lier and murder-assistant of bloody Russian occupiers, etc." How about overt US involvement in the Ukr. Revolution then (incl. scandalous Nuland support of the protesters at the Maidan Nezalezhnosti - which is completely unacceptable due to doctrine of non-intervention in internal affairs of sovereign states - and formation of government is definitely "internal affair", not external - unless state is officially a colony, not independent)? It's not metioned at all! (And you remove even Guardian sources, whenever they say that RU views 2014 Revolution as a coup). Sorry, but it seems more and more similar to case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKETHIS. Seryo93 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "...Hitler" is really too much, even though the source gives it in connection to the observer mission. I would prefer neo-nazi. I think that far-right is a too weak formulation in comparison to what the source says. — Petr Matas 02:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, far right is enough. — Petr Matas 02:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were no neonazis among the observers, but there are many nazis in kiev and the west ukraine, obvioulsy the ukrainian illegitimate government's mass media is more reliable source for u as the russian. Where are nazis among the observers? Reliable proof or liar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.223.199 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources say that many of the referendum observers have ties to far-right and neo-nazi groups. Should we use only far-right and avoid neo-nazi? Previous discussion is above. Petr Matas 11:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing 135 observers

Copied from #Observers and legitimacy:

I am asking whether you still want to remove the following statement:

A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to monitor the referendum,[4][5][6]

— Petr Matas 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you state it above, yes, of course. It's a controversial statement, cited to unreliable sources. But, like I already said multiple times, the issue here is bigger/different than just the use of RT as a source. It has to do with how to neutrally present the information about the "observers" in a way which does not try to mislead the reader.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say "as you state it". How do you propose to fix it then? — Petr Matas 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come up with a neutral way to describe these "observers", their affiliations and how they came to "observe" the referendum. It might - probably will - take a bit more than just a sentence, probably a paragraph, maybe even a sub-section. But you can't present only cherry picked aspects of the phenomenon and purposefully leave out all the significant details.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I'd like to add here some info, that in October 2013 they [newspaper The New Republic ] were accused of inciting Yeltsin-style coup d'etat in the US (see here and NR article, that caused controversy). And BTW, again, WP:BALANCE, WP:Goals (second pillar) and WP:NPOV. Seryo93 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you being serious or is that meant tongue-in-cheek? I'm having trouble discerning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's sarcasm (about first sentence). About second one: well, isn't the article needs to be balanced (to show at least some Russian point, not resorting only to Ukr. one)? I've posted a link above (to Svoboda deputy beating of head of Ukrainan analog of Gosteleradio, note that link is not from Russian state media but from Euronews), which, in my view, shows that Ukrainian state media (like Russian one) are under governmental pressure too, and shall be treated in same way: if we remove RT - then we shall remove Ukrinform too. Seryo93 (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove Ukrinform, then you need to go to WP:RSN first and make the case that it is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not "picking cherry picked aspects" (sorry for tautology), "admirer of Adolf Hitler" is definitely argumentum ad Hitlerum, and emphasis on that (even if it's true) will undermine credibility of the article. BTW: I'm not going to contiune this dispute anymore, if there is apparently WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Let our readers presented with ad Hitlerum, "Russian occupiers", "democratic government of Kyiv" (so "democratic" that one of their first acts was against nearly half of population - and it's seems that it was Putin's 1 March address to Fed.Council. which has influenced Turchynov to not sign repeal of language law - repeal, which was supported by current PM of the Ukraine (even if he denies that now)). Seryo93 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the report on 135 observers needs to be balanced by saying who they were. I think that the section Observers from this version (from "Concerns have been raised...") gives the required balance. — Petr Matas 02:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this edit is useless and should be reverted, because the observers are dealt with in a more ballanced way a few paragraphs lower, where I wrote: A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries... — Petr Matas 23:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Seryo93 (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polish observers

Polish observes weren't "far-right", one was an SLD activist (criticised by his party) and the other one pro-Russian.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But VM's sources claim so. Opposite[*seen by him as*pro-Russian]-side sources (RT, for example, and even The Guardian (!)) are often removed by him. Seryo93 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piskorski is from Samoobrona and he also played around with various neo-Nazi groups and publications, like Niklot [14]. This is the kind of populism similar to National Bolshevism that combines elements of far left and far right and is essentially fascist in nature, so the fact that sources describe him/it as "far right" is not surprising, nor is it inaccurate. Who was the other guy? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://wyborcza.pl/1,75248,15641458,Posel_SLD__ktory_byl_na_Krymie__juz_zmienil_zdanie.html Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx236: Currently my preferred version of report on Piskorski is that he is an antisemite and neo-nazi. Unfortunately I don't speak Polish to read that Wyborcza article. Please provide your proposed version of report on him and back it up with a quote from the article, so that I can check it using a translator. — Petr Matas 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the quality of this rather obsolete description [15].Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piskorski seems to be active in Russia [16], this part of his life in unknown in Poland. He used to be a Slavic activist in Poland more than 10 years ago. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian observer

The whole section about the international observers is very badly written, absolutely unneutral and unbalanced. Beside many other problems it contains at least one (probably more) false accusation about an observer, claiming he is a member of a "neo-Nazi" party. The person who wrote this is either not well-informed or is deliberately spreading disinformation, as he/she fails to back up his/her claims with any reliable source. By the way, while I am not an experienced editor and I don't know what the rules of Wikipedia say about this issue, I think basic logic dictates that describing a group/party/person as "neo-Nazi" can be considered as a neutral characterisation only if that group/party/person characterises itself as "neo-Nazi". This is certainly not the case with Jobbik. They received more than 20% of the votes at the parliamentary elections last week. This makes them the second-strongest party in Hungary. Béla Kovács is a Member of the European Parliament. I am not sure why this fact isn't mentioned in the article, because it is certainly more relevant than the alleged antisemitism of another observer. - Tamas90 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jobbik is commonly described as far-right. Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even this description can be disputed. But labelling them as "neo-Nazi" is certainly not acceptable in an encyclopaedia. I haven't made any edits yet. This is because I think the whole section should be completely rewritten from scratch. Since English is not my native language, I would rather leave this task to a native English speaker or someone with a decent level of English. - Tamas90 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014

An unidentified US official was claimed to have stated there was "concrete evidence" of some ballots having been pre-marked[7][8]. Such claims were rejected by referendum observers who went on record to verify that the referendum followed all international standards and was legitimate [9][10][11]. CanadianProfessional (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC) The text that should be replaced is the following: "A senior US official stated there was "concrete evidence" of some ballots having been pre-marked.[12][13]". The text should be modified because (1) I read the reference and it states exactly that the US official source is not identified. I believe the same should be conveyed in the Wikipedia. (2) I believe the view of the observers who were present at the referendum and who are not afraid to give their name (and thus support their claims) should also be indicated. When the person states something without giving their name or source, especially if the source cannot be confirmed I am suspicious of how true the source actually is. Please consider and make the modification I requested. Thanks.[reply]

References

  1. ^ Crimean ‘referendum at gunpoint’ is a myth – intl observers — RT News
  2. ^ "135 observers from 23 countries are registered in the Crimea". News from Armenia. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  3. ^ "Over 130 Observers from 23 Countries to Monitor Crimea Referendum". CrimeaInform. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  4. ^ Crimean ‘referendum at gunpoint’ is a myth – intl observers — RT News
  5. ^ "135 observers from 23 countries are registered in the Crimea". News from Armenia. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  6. ^ "Over 130 Observers from 23 Countries to Monitor Crimea Referendum". CrimeaInform. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  7. ^ U.S., EU set sanctions as Putin recognises Crimea sovereignty | Reuters
  8. ^ "Crimea Votes To Join Russia, European Union Imposes Sanctions". Huffington Post.
  9. ^ "'West sanctions against Russia stupid'". PressTV. Mar 22, 2014. Retrieved April 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  10. ^ "MEP Ewald Stadler talks about experiences as an election observer in the Crimea". LiveLeak. Mar 20, 2014. Retrieved April 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  11. ^ "'Anyone with sense of fairness should accept the choice of the Crimeans'". RT. Mar 17, 2014. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  12. ^ U.S., EU set sanctions as Putin recognises Crimea sovereignty | Reuters
  13. ^ "Crimea Votes To Join Russia, European Union Imposes Sanctions". Huffington Post.

As stated above, to include info on these "observers", WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT would require that we provide detailed information on the links to far-right and neo-Nazi affiliations of many of these observers. You can't just say "there were observers and they said it was legitimate" without explaining who these guys actually were. Likewise, including prominently the opinion of one far-right politician (again, without explaining that he's WP:FRINGE) also violates Wikipedia's policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the ref does NOT say "unidentified senior official". It says "senior official". Adding "unidentified" in there because you don't know who s/he was is original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The article is no longer protected. You can make changes yourself. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Can i remind all users to stop edit warring and reach a consensus before making any further changes or reverts. There is no excuse for slow edit warring whether or not your breaking WP:3RR, its exactly the same and not justifiable. You should also remember that the page is under Discretionary sanctions as clearly listed at the top of this page. Please take time to think about this before continuing.Blethering Scot 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PACE resolution

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution about Crimea crisis and referendum yesterday. I guess it must be written about it here in aricle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.76.1.22 (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.interfax.ru/world/371038 Donetsk will be the next. Funny, when I was writing this, the capthca was "aromatrue"

*from Yalta with love* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.28.148.60 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington News

Im so sorry, but how this link is "pure propaganda?" Or Washington News became RT subdivision?* Seryo93 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this was an internet rumor which was later discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it seems these doctored Russian wire-taps will never go away --Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is a debunked rumor, then it's removal is fine for me. I'm not going to insist on it's re-inclusion. Seryo93 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present the source to say was later discounted, you need to present evidence not talk.Blethering Scot 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tym. has said, that part of video was a result of audio editing, but the rest of talk has took place. Shufrych denies talk at all, so story is complicated (but well, Yatsenuk, for example, claims that he was behind Turchynov veto on repealing lang. law - even trough there is a clear evidence of opposite (his vote for repeal on VerkhRada site). I'm not pretending, that this is a debunked, I'm said "IF this is a debunked rumor". Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if u think that RT is propaganda why washington post cant be propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.210.32 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV: "overwhelming humanity are loyal to the referendum"

This edit is a massive POV, OR and non sequitur. It should be reverted. — Petr Matas 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fact It's free encyclopedia, yes? Yes. you are not its owner, yes? Yes. youre not a teacher, im not a pupil, yes? Yes. You dont have right to disrupt my well-founded words. If u wanna, prove it seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.223.199 (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could also write that overwhelming humanity did not accept the referendum, because 100 UN member states voted in favor of the resolution which declared it invalid, and 10 were against the resolution. Which one do you see closer to the truth? "Overwhelming humanity are loyal" or "overwhelming humanity did not accept"? — Petr Matas 06:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of opinion polls

Poll by Institute for European Policy Studies

This poll has been removed. The reason given was "Institute has no web presence outside of press release, doubtful source". — Petr Matas 21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poll by GfK

This one has been removed as well. The reason given was "no mention of this result in press release or polling data released by gfk". However, it has been published by Guardian. I don't think they would lie on this, but another source may be needed. — Petr Matas 21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote directly to GfK Ukraine and got this link: http://avaazpress.s3.amazonaws.com/558_Crimea.Referendum.Poll.GfK.pdf BTW it follows that the Guardian quote is inaccurate. I will add the relevant info to the main article shortly.— Gootcha (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gootcha, I fixed it myself according to your source. — Petr Matas 12:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observers in the lead section

The observers are a strong argument (let's leave its validity aside) of the Russian side and therefore I think that we should deal with it in the lead section somehow. If we leave it out, readers will perceive the article as biased. In my opinion, this version was the best one we had so far (sure - I am its author ;-) ). Maybe it's not that good in your eyes and you can improve it, but it's still better than nothing. Please improve it, if you can – deleting everything is not a solution. — Petr Matas 16:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you put in info about these so called "observers" in the lede then NPOV requires that you actually describe who they were; a motley assortment of far-right and neo-Nazi-linked individuals (with perhaps a few who didn't know what they were getting into).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about linking Useful idiots? Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then this will become very big POV-push (like unattributed Hitler parallels). BTW, since observers (or "observers") are so controversial I would support removing them from lead and describe them in separate section of article. Seryo93 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of attributed Hitler parallels. The name "Anschluss" is quite popular even in Russia.[17]Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed parallels (i.e. not presented as encyclopedia siding with them) may go well (but not overused). We have one such attributed parallel in ruwiki, where it stated that

4 марта бывший госсекретарь США Хиллари Клинтон сравнила действия российских властей по Украине с агрессивным поведением нацистской Германии накануне Второй мировой войны, а Путина — с Гитлером, кроме того отметила, что когда Путин «смотрит на Украину, он видит место, которое он считает по самой своей природе частью России-матушки.»[552].

Seryo93 (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it that way, I agree that removing the observers from the lead is the best solution. Everyone can find them in the TOC. — Petr Matas 07:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates of real support for secession

I don't see why the Illarionov's estimate (34%) should be notable. Note that the poll results are as follows:

  • 63.8% (Razumkov Centre, 2008)
  • 23% (International Republican Institute, May 2013)
  • 77% (Crimean Institute of Political and Social Research, 8-10 March 2014)
  • 71% (GfK, 12-14 March 2014)

— Petr Matas 09:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Illarionov clearly has no special knowledge on this matter. Furthermore, even institutions responsible for low polling numbers can think of an explanation for the referendum results that does not involve electoral fraud. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-explanation-for-crimea-referendum-landslide/ — Gootcha (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the alleged claim by Refat Chubarov (the linked reference quotes Akhtem Chiygoz, not Chubarov) is dubious. The argument is: "Maximum voters, who in the best times and in a peaceful environment could come to the polls and vote for a particular party or a particular candidate, never exceeded 40 percent. And now all 70 percent and without participation of the Crimean Tatars," This is comparing apples to oranges, and factually untrue. In fact, all referendums conducted in Ukraine and Crimea had a turnout similar to the alleged turnout of the 2014 referendum. Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 had a turnout of 84 %, Crimea 1991 sovereignty referendum 81 %. Even presidential elections had a turnout in the 60ies and 70ies. I think all these statements by individuals with an agenda should be removed from the lead, otherwise why not adding Putin's statement as well? Perhaps there should be a separate section for statements by individual politicians. —Gootcha (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another series of polls was conducted quarterly by UNDP in Crimea. Results are available in Russian: 2009, 2010, 2011. Survey showed that if referendum was held, between 65% (2011Q2) and 70% (2009Q3) would vote for accession to Russia, while 9% (2010Q4) to 15% (2009Q4) would vote against. Altes (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge was raised due to "undue weight" assigned to one person's opinion on the matter. Regardless whether or not Illarionov is correct, his opinion has no place in the lead. --Truther2012 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Undue weight" would be to only report "official" results and cite it to RT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

propaganda and lies

"the Hungarian neo-Nazi party Jobbik."

wtf? u call this objective, non-biased information? this is simple zionist propaganda. a lie. and article is locked so one cannot even fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.254.139 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


i tracked down the edit which added this libel as information. it was made by volunteer marek 12:50 april 4. 1st: his source cannot be considered objective or unbiased since it is from new republic. go see controversies in the wiki article of The New Republic. 2nd: moreover he is even falsifying this non-objective, biased source he added as reference: in the article Timothy Snyder wrote this: "Béla Kovács is a member of the Hungarian extreme-right party Jobbik and the treasurer of the Alliance of European National Movements.". Volunteer Marek falsified extreme-right into "Neo-Nazi". while even Jobbik being extreme-right can be disputed, it is still an utter lie to call it or its MEP a Neo-Nazi. Jobbik is 2nd-3rd largest party in Hungary with over 20% of votes in the last elections a month ago. claiming it to be a neo nazi party is a simple anti-Hungarian libel which translates into 20% of Hungarians being Neo-Nazis as well. no wonder Volunteer Marek has only a Paul Krugman phrase on his editor page - Paul Krugman is known in Hungary as someone giving space regularly in his blog to Kim Lane Scheppele a well known anti-Hungarian who in the 90s worked for SZDSZ, a party that went from being the 2nd biggest in 1990 to being hated and extinct (less than 1% on 2010 elections) for its anti-Hungarian policies.

looking more into Volunteer Marek's edits in this article i came to the conclusion that he is doing a an anti-Russian propaganda job, a crusade lacking any objectiveness. i hereby asking real editors to overview his edits and clean the article of them and ensure that it is unbiased, objective, non-propagandistic and that references arent falsified.

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.254.139 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is embarrassingly easy to find sources which call Jobbik a "neo-Nazi party" [18]. Also, if you think that being anti-Jobbik is the same as being "anti-Hungarian" then you're the one who has a problem not me. Anyway, I'm fine with "far-right". Weasel it if you must.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would rather agree: equating one party with entire people (regardless of how party popular is) is something from not-so-old times. Seryo93 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observers section POV tag

What part is POV? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overemphasis on "admirer of Adolf Hitler" and antisemitism on observers part. Far-right is, IMO, enough. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most controversial section of the article and it's discussion will be quite lengthy. The controversy will be discovered through editing and we should discuss each element in a separate section. — Petr Matas 14:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both "admirer of Adolf Hitler" and antisemitism is well sourced (see also [19]). Omitting the info would be POV.
Petr, can you keep the discussion within the same section? Claiming that the section is "most controversial" is not the same as actually explaining why it's suppose to be POV. I don't know what "controversy will be discovered through editing" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, it's well-sourced, that fallen Soviet soldiers monuments are those dedicated (by Soviet authorities) to WWII fighters against Nazi Germany, but Lvivske removes this part "to soldiers, fought against Nazi Germany" because "this labels protesters as neo-Nazi". Why we can't label protesters but should label Russia? Seryo93 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, I'd like to apologize for misunderstandings we had in the past. Seryo93 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not talking about the monuments, we're talking about the observers. We can start a different section about the monuments, but here let's stick to the topic.
And apology accepted, and please let me likewise apologize.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Accepted :). Seryo93 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we mix all observer-related disputes in a single section, we won't get anywhere. The far-right vs. neo-nazi discussion has its section already.
There is an open POV-related dispute in the following section and more are going to come. As the tag says, it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. — Petr Matas 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian presentation of the observers

I disagree with removal of thorough description of the observers by the Russian side, because:

  1. It is balanced with an extensive discussion of their non-reliability, which makes up the rest of the section (4 paragraphs)
  2. The difference between two reports on the number of international observers (70 and 135) may suggest that it has been manipulated with
  3. The observers' findings need to be included, even though they are unreliable

— Petr Matas 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we need to avoid saying the same thing twice. If you can combine these two paragraphs into one coherent whole then it can go back in. We need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to views which are not backed by reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the repeated expression "from 23 countries" is ugly. I suggest deleting its first instance. Otherwise, the Russian view already was a single paragraph and I think that it was coherent. — Petr Matas 15:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the problems. Why did you remove everything again? I think that you could be more cooperative. Petr Matas 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something but I fail to see how you "fixed the problem". In your version we first have the official Russian claim, sourced to RT News. We then have Mikhail Malyshev making a similar claim (with some different details), also sourced to RT News. These are presented as fact at the top of the section. We then have "RT News informed that the observers did not report any violations.", sourced, again, of course to RT News.
What's going on here is that the section is introduced by trying to beat the reader over the head that there were "observers" and then all the info about who these "observers" actually were - a bunch of sketchy politicians from far-right and neo-Nazi parties - is pushed down to the end of the section as far as possible. This is POV pushing and giving UNDUE weight to FRINGE views although it's done in a bit of a sneaky manner.
And that's exactly why 1) the intro sentence or two, where the "observers" are mentioned should be kept succinct and 2) the "However, concerns have been raised..." part needs to follow immediately after all this trumpeting of the presence of these "observers".
The real story here is actually not that "observers" were present but exactly who these observers were. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Congrats, you are becoming constructive. I think that we can find a common point. Lets say in one sentence that there were observers, but objectioned. Then give all the details by Russian side and after that all the objections. Ok? Petr Matas 07:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a proposed wording here on talk? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Yes: "Russian state-owned media informed on many international observers, whose objectivity has been questioned however."
But isn't it easier to edit the article immediately and then discuss what is wrong and how to fix it, instead of reverting? That is called consensus finding through editing and discussion. Petr Matas 07:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After rethinking the inclusion of the two different numbers (70 vs. 135), its sole purpose is to suggest that there is a possible discrepancy between different Russian reports. Although it is not stated explicitly, the reader will probably perceive it as such (the goal was to make someone look deeper into it), but such statement is an original research. I would like to hear on it from Stephen J Sharpe and Seryo93. Petr Matas 13:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposal for "Russian presentation"

Russian state-owned media and referendum organizers claimed that from 70[1] to 135[2][3][4][5] observers monitored referendum, claiming no violations[6], but objectivity of these has been questioned, because many of them had far-right ties.

Seryo93 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice solution. Petr Matas 22:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current intro sentence of the section is sufficiently balanced and concise to be eligible for inclusion into the lead. Petr Matas 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I'd change "claiming" to "reporting" as that sounds more appropriate. Also I removed "mission leader Mateusz Piskorski, who is a far-right activist and antisemite" because I didn't think the source, a Czech op-ed, was sufficient sourcing for a claim of being an anti-semitic. Glad to see you guys still maintaining the article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated concerns about the observers

The concerns are currently mentioned twice in the Non-OSCE observers section, one instance should be removed. It is also useless to mention the OSCE mission there. — Petr Matas 16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Union, intro section, fourth paragraph

Hi all, just wanted to note that the article says: "The referendum was considered illegitimate by most countries including the European Union, United States, ....". However, the European Union isn't a country. Shouldn't it read, "The referendum was considered illegitimate by most countries including those in the European Union,..." or some variant on that? I can't change it myself because the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.200.1 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Petr Matas 17:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Snyder's claim

I think that the Timothy Snyder's claim

Moscow sent an invitation to parties of the European far right, and found politicians willing to serve as "observers."

should be removed. We can present it neither as a fact, because it is an opinion, nor as an attributed claim, because an opinion of a single historian is not notable. Furthermore, his article is biased:

  • Only polls showing low support for joining Russia in Crimea (33 and 23 percent) are presented.
  • The falsified allegation of a 123 percent turnout in Sevastopol is presented as a fact.

— Petr Matas 07:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he's an expert and there's no reason to doubt him. he's not the only scholar who has reported on this --Львівське (говорити) 14:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lvivske: What about the notes above demonstrating poor quality of the article? — Petr Matas 04:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your dispute is with "Moscow sent an invitation to parties of the European far right" - this is widely documented, so how is it his "opinion"? --Львівське (говорити) 04:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I dispute other claims from the article to show that it is not a reliable source for "Moscow sent...". Also note that the article is a quick reaction to an event – it has been published the same day that the official results have been announced. How much research could have been done to that time? We need a secondary source to back up such claim. — Petr Matas 05:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's an expert, but his opinions are VERY biased and sometimes misleading. "Peaceful protesters" a-/were so peaceful... And again, 123% issue. IMO, if we won't inisist on scare quotes, we may replace direct quote with following:

According to Timothy Snyder, people invited as observers by referendum organizers were invited by the Russian government from among European far-right parties and other willing politicians[ref goes here]".

Isn't this a good compromise? Seryo93 (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, but still I would prefer a statement backed up by a secondary source, see my comment from 05:34 UTC above. — Petr Matas 05:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about putting it to the end like this? — Petr Matas 06:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm support that solution. Seryo93 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with the Lvivske's "According to" wording. I think that "even claims" is better to suggest the dubious reliability of the source. — Petr Matas 08:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a POV interpretation, to try to make a source look dubious by weasel words. --Львівське (говорити) 08:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:WEASEL, but rather WP:ALLEGED and WP:EDITORIALIZING. In this case, I think that it is approproiate, because the source is dubious, and therefore not POV. — Petr Matas 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
outside of you calling the source dubious, explain why its dubious. The publication itself is a reliable source, and he as a well known scholar and expert in this region is obviously a great source. What is dubious here? --Львівське (говорити) 07:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained "why" above. "Peaceful protesters". Peaceful Molotov by peaceful protesters is a really peaceful way to achieve political goals, don't you think? Seryo93 (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main problems with the "rewrite" of Snyder are 1) the words "even claimed" which appear to be a way to tag his statement as something outlandish - this is definitely a type of POV weaseling, and 2) rephrasing it to "European far-right parties and other willing politicians" which misrepresents Snyder. Snyder is saying these guys were far right AND willing. The rewording tries to make it seem like the observers were a group of far right guys AND some non-far-right guys who were just "willing". Two different meanings. Stick to the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to "European far-right parties and willing politicians". "Even claimed" could be replaced by "reported". Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: I agree that "even" may suggest that his opinion is outlandish, for which we don't have a source. In that case I think that only "claimed" is appropriate, not "reported", given the article dubiousness. However, without "even", the notability issue arises again. In that case I suggest to drop Snyder completely and report on the opinion of the dissenting Russian presidential council member instead. Petr Matas 08:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your logic. Putting in "even" is OR which is not supported by a source. Hence we should not include the "even" and even drop the source (Snyder) entirely. ???. How does the conclusion follow from the premise? All you need to do here is not to include the "even" and stick to what the source (Snyder) actually says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: The word "even" suggests also low notability, so it could permit inclusion of an insufficiently notable fact. That was just to explain the logic; let's leave the Snyder's notability aside and think how to report on this notable opinion held by many people. Petr Matas 17:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add: generally I'm against using direct quotes, since I think writing an encyclopedia involves competently paraphrasing the sources. However, in this particular case, given ... the controversy ... about how to relate what Snyder (yes, an expert in the topic area) is saying, it's probably best just to stick with the quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but the problem is, that an opinion of a single historian is not notable. We need a secondary source based on multiple primary sources. Or maybe "Some scholars and politicians including Timothy Snyder[ref], ...[ref], and ...[ref] claim ...". It would be a little bit of WP:SYNTH, but still better than Snyder alone. Petr Matas 08:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the historian is Timothy Snyder then yes, that opinion is notable. That is a secondary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but never mind, let's make the synthesis. Petr Matas 20:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis isn't necessary. Snyder's quote as it is in article is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I am the only one to have problems with "according to" and I agree to use it. But still, let's put the paraphrase to the end of the section, as an example of the more radical points of view. Petr Matas 05:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you concluding that Snyder's view - the view of a professional historian and expert on the region - is a "radical point of view"? The quote actually should be at beginning as it serves to introduce the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any evidence that Russia invited them yet. Yes, Russia-based EODE invited at least some of them, but that is not Russia. And then there are the disproved claims in the article. The opposition to the Russian presentation should be started with "Objectivity was questioned," continued with explanation of why, and conluded with Walker and Snyder. Petr Matas 06:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your basis for concluding that Snyder's view is a "radical point of view" is your own personal evaluation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One can find sources for almost anything on such a popular and controversial topic. Therefore we must choose which viewpoints we will present and how. Note that we are not going to state anything from this evaluation in the article, however it is important for decision how the information will be presented, in this case which order the objectivity objections should be presented in. I suggest: There are objections, then supporting facts, and finally opinions. Petr Matas 03:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this isn't just any source - despite the fact that you're trying to sound like it is. It's a Harvard historian and an expert in the history and politics of the region. That sort of trumps the evaluation of Wikipedia editor Petr Matas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: It seems that we won't agree on his notability, but maybe that is not necessary. Please comment also on my objectivity objection ordering proposal just above. Petr Matas 11:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Snyder's claim can be easily disproved: Many of the observers did not belong to far-right parties, including Berkovec, Soušek and Šarapatka. Petr Matas 12:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are disproving (original research) a strawman. Snyder does not say that every single of these observers was from far-right parties, just that "Moscow sent an invitation to European parties of the far right". He is not saying "every person in the list in the Wikipedia article is from the far-right" (although actually *almost* all are).
In terms of your ordering I'm having a hard time seeing it. Which ones are "objections", which ones are "supporting fact" and which ones are "opinions"? For example the statement "there were XX numbers of international observers" is NOT really a fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: I see. I'll fix it. Objections mean "objectivity has been questioned," supporting facts are "some were from far-right," and opinions are Walker and Snyder. Petr Matas 22:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout

Hello! English isn't my native language, so I can't edit articles. Official Russian Council for Civil Society and Human Rights stated that voter turnout in the referendum was only 30–50 percent. Direct link - http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php Citation - подавляющее большинство жителей Севастополя проголосовали на референдуме за присоединение к России (явка 50-80 %), в Крыму по разным данным за присоединение к России проголосовали 50-60 % избирателей при общей явке в 30-50 %. Please add this info to the article and make an archive copy. Name13$$_0ne (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very strange document. It says two people went to Crimea for a couple of days and prepared the report. It says the estimations are based solely on the opinions of some unnamed "specialists" and common people (on the street?), so these are basically rumours. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a Russian government commission (!) disputes the official figures is notable enough to be included in the article IMO. It's also reported internationally, e.g. in the German weekly newspaper Zeit. Just because they don't name the specialists in the short report doesn't reduce their estimates to rumours. However, the 30-50% turnout seems to refer only to Crimea proper, i.e. excluding Sevastopol, which has 50-80% turnout according to the source. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it on several Ukrainian outlets as well [20] --Львівське (говорити) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that it is from an official governmental commision? — Petr Matas 05:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You can go to official Kremlin website (http://state.kremlin.ru/council) and click on the fourth link (named Совет по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека) (screenshot - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MD3naVi_R6YlpPUDNVLWZmOVU/edit?usp=sharing). It will redirect you to domain. Name13$$_0ne (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't from a governmental commission. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's from a dissenting member of the governmental commission. Petr Matas 20:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This articles journalists is disgusting criminal. I wish every person they will meet in their dirty life will lie to them in the same way (if they were not forced to do it). No one link from sources prove that silly info/ Cathry (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Львівське (говорити) 03:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many people do not like many crimes Cathry (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What crimes? What are you talking about now? --Львівське (говорити) 03:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting article. I'm keen on seeing whether anyone is able to disprove it plausibly. — Petr Matas 05:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they don't revealed how representative this poll was (unlike GFK and UNDP, for example, where both posted their sample sizes - 600 and 1200 respectievly). Seryo93 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And moreover, some other points:
a) Forbes article again repeats biased 'referendum under Kalashnikov' point, implying that voters were pressured - but this contradicts earlier independent report that "majority of Russian-speakers in Crimea really wanted, and there was little need for Kalashnikovs in the streets". The only Russian military action during referendum was "maintaining order" (i.e. just guarding), but not 'forcing voters' out from their homes under gun to go to a voting box.
b) Gannushkina is from opposition camp and vocal opponent of president (signed Putin must go open letter). Add this to "unknown sample sizes" point (whom these three people asked? Dzhemilev and company maybe? Kiev Patriarchate?) - and this returns strong suspection, that these 'Presidential council reporters' were probably "produced" (i.e *fabricated* with intent to discredit referendum, also consider Gannushkina remarks on Ukr. 24 TV channel). Had report been true information (not fabrication), it would have some backing data (such as "sample sizes"), to defend itself against falsification accusations - especially considered how quickly such controversies arise when related to Crimean referendum. Don't have any backing? No plausibility, sorry.
c) even when assuming, that report was representative and correct, we get another issue: big gap between turnout. 50-80 turnout in Sevastopol? 30% (!) gap without reporting on which districts turnout was 50%. One small city under jurisdiction of Sevastopol may had low turnout and it was written as low estimate of entire Sevastopol voting. Nice job, "opinion pollers"!
d) report is controversial in other details. It complains about persecution of Hizb ut-Tahrir - but well, isn't this organization banned in Russia? This is law enforcement - and this is like complaining, that "thieves are persecuted by police"
e) "жители Крыма голосовали не столько за присоединение к России, сколько за прекращение, по их словам, «коррупционного беспредела и воровского засилья донецких ставленников»". Really, Crimea opposed Yanukovich? But broke out of Ukraine only after VY was overthrown? Without much resistance? Nice, nice...
f) only one of reporters was from the Council itself, neither he was tasked by the Council to gather report on behalf of Council. So, we arrived to a conclusion: It wasn't report of a Council, it was report of one of its members and his two associates. Council often posts dissenting opinions, but that doesn't made them official commentaries of the Council.
In the end, it makes result not more plausible or reliable than Dzhemilev remarks. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Petr Matas 11:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
cmt to my sentence above ("it makes result not more..."): by result I meant those "presidential council reports about fraud". Seryo93 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highly recommended: Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:-D This entire section is about that. Petr Matas 21:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"with a turnout of 30-50%," suggesting that only 15-30% of Crimeans " That's absolute nonsense. Every election is like that, we always give percentage from those who voted and people who didn't vote aren't included.You can likewise state that in 2012 Obama didn't receive over 50% of votes, because only a part of people eligible to vote casted their votes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is true that "every election is like that" but it's precisely that every election is like that, yet in this election the official claim was something like 80% turnout that illustrates the point. 80% turnouts are basically nonsense, wherever these are claimed. And that's all that the source is saying. In other words, you're basically agreeing with the assessment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both UK and USA had several elections where turnout was higher than 80%:

[21] [22] Last Presidential elections in France in 2012 had higher turnout than 80% as well[23]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "report" was already addressed (see my lengthy post above). In short: it's neither commission report nor more reliable than Dzhemilev claims. Nothing new :). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voter turnout is always based on registered voters, your math is wrong, the article is correct. --Львівське (говорити) 06:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleague, please read report text:

По мнению практически всех опрошенных специалистов и граждан: - подавляющее большинство жителей Севастополя проголосовали на референдуме за присоединение к России (явка 50-80 %), в Крыму по разным данным за присоединение к России проголосовали 50-60 % избирателей при общей явке в 30-50 %;

  • 50-80 means "from 50 to 80". Somewhere turnout was (according to 'report') 50, somewhere 80. It won't prevents *hypotethical* situation, when low turnout was reached in rare instances but still written to report.
  • We don't know how representative polling was (note word "опрошенных") and which specialists they asked. Formula "с должностными лицами органов государственной власти, духовенства, журналистами, общественными деятелями, адвокатами, правозащитниками и гражданами" is very vague (both sides claim such, but how about sample sizes and/or "имена, пароли, явки" (c). Whom they asked?)
  • "обзор подготовлен членом Совета Бобровым Е.А., руководителем сети «Миграция и право» ПЦ «Мемориал» С.А. Ганнушкиной и адвокатом Сети Цейтлиной О.П". It was not report of the Council, but report of one of its members, assisted by two Memorial members.
  • They complain about persecution of banned organization. Can we complain that US persecutes al-Quaeda, for example? Law enforcement is law enforcement.
  • Referendum at gunpoint? BBC won't agree with you (see above). And same gunpoint argument can be applied to 2014 presidential elections (elections in state of emergency and without turnout threshold, very nice and democratic way) and to all elections in US-occupied Iraq (2003-2011 period).
  • "жители Крыма голосовали не столько за присоединение к России, сколько за прекращение, по их словам, «коррупционного беспредела и воровского засилья донецких ставленников». Жители же Севастополя голосовали именно за присоединение к России. Опасения перед незаконными вооруженными формированиями в Севастополе были больше, чем в других районах Крыма. ". O, really... Why Crimea won't supported revolution then? Why secession from post-Yanukovich Ukraine wasn't meet with much resistance (or attempts of) from majority of population? Maybe they broke from centralized unitary Ukraine in general, not just from Yanukovich regime?

Seryo93 (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, quit it with the original research. Stick to what the source says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although in my eyes, the article conclusions are nonsenses, I suggest that we make a clear attribution to the dissenting council member. I think that his opinion is quite notable. Petr Matas 08:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shii: By your last edit you claim that the English version of the report is still in its place. Where is it then? Petr Matas 17:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was never an English version, this is a made up misinterpretation of a blog post. Shii (tock) 18:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, AFAIK Russians usually publish in Russian only. Petr Matas 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Dear colleague, don't you think, that English sources misrepresent (either by an accident or deliberately - I don't care about that) the original source? I can read Russian text and I can confirm: it was report by Council member (namely by Evgeny Aleksandrovich Bobrov), not by the Council itself. And council itself has confirmed, that "В связи с многочисленными ссылками СМИ на обзор "Проблемы жителей Крыма" как на официальный документ Совета при Президенте РФ по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека, выражающий оценку Советом крымского референдума, разъясняем, что он таковым не является.". Pretty what I said in thread above. I'm not opposed to it's inclusion, but we must attribute this document correctly, to avoid misleading our readers. Likewise, I'm not opposed to Snyder inclusion ("according to" is pretty correct attribution, IMO). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Copied from #Differences by Petr Matas 05:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All sources about the presidential council report

Of these sources the Zeit report is the only reliable secondary source, but it doesn't explain context very well. The report itself now has an update (in bold) that explains more clearly where the information came from. Shii (tock) 18:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both Forbes and Washington Post are also reliable secondary sources and do go into some detail.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look closer, both the Forbes and WaPo sources are not reliable newspaper sources but questionable blogs (WP:NEWSBLOG) Shii (tock) 20:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newsblogs they may be, but "questionable" they are not. WP:NEWSBLOG does allow use of newsblogs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That policy says that blog-sourced information must be attributed to the writer. Petr Matas 06:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence normally I would say 'so attribute it' but it's not the only source for the info we have. Here's one more [25].Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming majorities in Crimea support becoming part of Russia-Pew Research Center poll

[26] Pew Research Center is a renown research institution often dealing with voting, polls and social issues. Here is the relevant part: "For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%)(...)Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula."d This is a reliable source and I think it should be included.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah already added a good portion to the pro-russia unrest page, interesting numbers but confusing --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I reviewed the article and the skew in high popularity may be because the poll only took results in Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Kerch: three very pro-russian cities. Tatars are only 7% of the population in Simferopol and 0% in Sevastopol.--Львівське (говорити) 02:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, we may add both Memorial poll (AKA 'presidential council report') and this one. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Petr Matas 06:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the observers section

Please do not make major changes to this section - such as removing sourced statements (same goes for the lede) - without discussing them first. You cannot unilaterally make big revisions (seemingly per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and then, afterward, demand that your new version for which there is no consensus has to be the starting point of any discussion. That smacks strongly of WP:GAME.

Also, it makes perfect sense to have independent assessments of turnout and voting in the lede so don't be removing that either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differences

between the older version and the changes Petr is trying to force through [27]:

  • Illarionov in the lede. I actually don't care if it's specifically Illrionov's numbers which are mentioned in the lede, but quite simply there needs to be some mention of alternative, independent estimates of frequency and outcome in the lede. This is particularly true since otherwise all we have in there is the "official" numbers sourced to Russian government propaganda outlet. See WP:WEIGHT.
Discussed in #Estimates of real support for secession. The discussion is currently not in favor of Illarionov in the lead. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "discussion" consist mostly of User:Gootcha soapboxing and engaging in original research. Like I said, Illarionov doesn't have to be mentioned by name in the lede, but you can't just present only "official" results and source these to unreliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion of Malyshev's statement and numbers in the observers' section. Again this is cited to RT news and is also redundant with the previous sentence. The use of non-reliable sources to repeat dubious claims violates WP:BALANCE. It's trying to cram a POV down readers' throats.
Discussed in #Russian presentation of the observers, which you quit. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't quit, I suggested you combine the two paragraphs/sentences which say essentially the same thing into one. Which you haven't done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing goes for the claim "RT News informed that the observers did not report any violations". Yes, yes, yes. I'm sure RT News "informed". But a Wikipedia article isn't a platform to present Kremlin views. Sure, we include info on their position but this is just over doing it.
Ditto. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removal of quote and assessment of Harvard historian Timothy Snyder. This is being discussed above. There's neither consensus nor any policy based reason for removing this expert's and specialist's opinion. There's certainly no support for this removal.
Snyder's claim is already paraphrased with attribution in the section, according to #Timothy Snyder's claim. You are adding another direct quote. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed one of the redundant instances. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes in the wording which discusses the EODE. This is at best an attempt at whitewashing and WP:WEASEL. Some of these EODE sponsored observers have ties to neo-Nazi groups and that's very well documented. Who these "observers" were is pertinent and important info.
Discussed in #Far-right, neo-nazis. It has been decided that neo-nazi wording will not be used. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was decided at all. Again, you got some WP:SPA Ip account ranting and you and another user expressing your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is the charge of "neo-nazi" in the source? Quote: Enrique Ravello has belonged to the neo-Nazi CEDADE and now belongs to the extreme-right Plataforma per Catalunya. Luc Michel used to belong to the neo-Nazi Fédération d’action nationaliste et européenne and now supports a blend of fascism and Bolshevism that is also popular among Russia's Eurasianists. . Is it relevant to the article? Yes. So don't remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research in regard to the report on the actual frequency and voting by the President of the Russian Federation Human Rights Council, which includes removal of reliable sources and substitution of non-English sources when English ones are available. Stick to the sources and leave them in place.
Discussed in #Voter turnout, no conclusion yet. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So leave it be for now. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply copied to #Voter turnout. Please continue there. Petr Matas 05:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Dear colleague, don't you think, that English sources misrepresent (either by an accident or deliberately - I don't care about that) the original source? I can read Russian text and I can confirm: it was report by Council member (namely by Evgeny Aleksandrovich Bobrov), not by the Council itself. And council itself has confirmed, that "В связи с многочисленными ссылками СМИ на обзор "Проблемы жителей Крыма" как на официальный документ Совета при Президенте РФ по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека, выражающий оценку Советом крымского референдума, разъясняем, что он таковым не является.". Pretty what I said in thread above. I'm not opposed to it's inclusion, but we must attribute this document correctly, to avoid misleading our readers. Likewise, I'm not opposed to Snyder inclusion ("according to" is pretty correct attribution, IMO). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional edit with the latest removal:

  • Removal of Illarionov from body of text as well. Why?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How come? He is there. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the latest Volunteer Marek's edit be assessed as a whole, as there are already talk sections for each issue. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check that all my edits since 8 April, when I changed my behavior, fall into one of the following categories:

  • Small edits with low frequency
  • Immediate reversions

Petr Matas 22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colleagues, this section is about editorial process, not about content. Please return the content disputes into their already rich sections and discuss there. The dispute over the latest mutual reversions between me and VM should be resolved quickly so that we can resume the cooperation. Petr Matas 04:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, article talk pages are for discussion of content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and a discussion about a content issue should be kept together, if possible. If you discuss all content issues mentioned in this section here, it will be a mess. However, the dispute we are having is about the process. If a more suitable place for it exists, please bring it there. Petr Matas 04:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found it: It is WP:RfC/U. I am drafting one at User:Petr Matas/Volunteer Marek. Petr Matas 03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voter support lower than in Falklands(99.8%) or Gibraltar(98.48%)

In Crimean the voter support was 96.77% for joining Russia. This is lower than voter support in Falklands(99.8%) and Gibraltar(98.48%) in similar referendums about their national status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that 99.8% support can be obtained by democratic means. 97% may be possible in a country lacking independent media, but I would not call such country democratic. Petr Matas 03:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And also lower than some other referendums. Do you really think anything hinges on this fact? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please define similar. Russia isn't UK, ask the reachest Russian people, who transfer their money to the UK, send their children to UK schools and universities. Who didn't participate in Gibraltar or Falkland Islands like Tatars didn't?Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so sure. The 2008 Razumkov Centre poll suggests that 14% of Tatars were even in favor of joining Russia. Propaganda works quite well in East Europe. Petr Matas 14:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Около 70 наблюдателей из 23 стран зарегистрировались для работы на референдуме в Крыму". Russian.rt.com. 15 March 2014. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
  2. ^ Paving the future: Ukraine’s Crimea goes to independence poll — RT News
  3. ^ "135 observers from 23 countries are registered in the Crimea". News from Armenia. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  4. ^ "Over 130 Observers from 23 Countries to Monitor Crimea Referendum". CrimeaInform. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  5. ^ Op-Ed: The Crimea referendum and International observers
  6. ^ Crimean ‘referendum at gunpoint’ is a myth – intl observers — RT News
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Crimean_status_referendum&oldid=608613508"