Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Date change

Need to mention the process and date change [1](Lihaas (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)).

Voting system?

Are there any details on what the voting system is going to be like? Is only a simple majority needed? Will there a minimum percentage of voters either overall or for the yes options? Are the questions being treated as totally independent (meaning you can answer whatever you want in 1 and 2 and they both count). If so, is there any explaination for what happens if both pass? Will the one with the highest majority win? (Which could be interesting if most people voting yes on question 1 don't bother to vote for 2 so 2 ends up with a greater majority despite fewer yes voters or something of that sort.) Or highest 'yes' votes? Or what? i don't speak Ukrainian or Russian so don't think I can help clarify the article myself even if such details have been made public. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is only one question with two options as possible answers. They will be able to choose only one option. Whichever is chosen by the majority wins (ie: simple majority). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we are either lost in translation or the information given to the media was poorly redacted. The process and questions as stated by the BBC don't make sense: the "questions" are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be independent from one another; it should be either one or the other (or against all) but you can't have a tie between Question #1 and #2. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can't have a tie. See my recent post in topic above. Seryo93 (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation of Question #2

RT reports the text of the 2nd question as "Are you in favor of restoring Crimea's 1992 constitution?", but the Crimean government website (http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/06_03_2014_1 in Russian) lists it as also asking that Ukraine remain a part of Ukraine (per the 1992 constitution). I added that text to the article, and I hope an English-language source will report it in the near future. Kilternkafuffle (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding it - that's a pretty important piece. Kiralexis (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• I dispute this translation. It doesn't make sense. I ran the text through different online translators and it might mean something different. I think it means, "restoring the 1992 constitution and apply it as if we were still the Ukrainian Crimea even though we might be a Russian Crimea from now on". Can a translator help please? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems they are not questions but options. The question seems to be: "which of the following two options do you support? (choose one)" with the first option being joining Russia while the second being remaining a part of Ukraine while restoring the 1992 constitution at the same time. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, they are options, not separate questions (see voting bulletin). Moreover, marking two variants at same time is impossible (these bulletins are invalid per art. 4 of chapter 4 of the voting regulations). So they are mutually exclusive by design. Seryo93 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Perfect, just like I suspected. Can you please help us to translate that into American English? I tried with Google translator but it missed several critical words. Thanks a ton! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I will try when i'll get a time. Seryo93 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Done. Seryo93 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"some"

"some leaders of the Crimean Tatars"

why "some"? how many millions are there? 174.19.174.16 (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

hypocrisy of Turkey's reaction and general comments on the "reactions" section

I smell some strong hypocrisy in Turkey's reaction particularly considering its own civil rights record that should be made note of, no less its protracted occupation of Cyprus and its relations with ethnic minority groups within Turkey. If Cypriot's had a referendum tomorrow there would no longer be an occupation and the TRNC "government" and those who support it would be expelled. So... What gives on Turkey lecturing others about this? other than in the sense of rye humor... Or making this sort of commentary any sort of relevant statement in an encyclopaedia? Turkey has no right to lecture anyone about occupation for as long as the puppet government in TRNC continues to exist.

This kind of "reactions" section is only going to lead to more hypocritical commentary and heavily weighted bias. At this point in time I have been simply watching this article, as with other Crimean related pages. There is always more than one side to the story, we should be careful not to have a section here that is purely the negative reactions from those that support the Ukrainian perspective. Moreover, we should also be careful to choose what sort of countries are providing their "analysis" (using the term very loosely) of what is going on.

This section needs more references, particularly from those who support the Russian and Crimean position --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite any "hypocrisy" of Turkey, which is well-known as only itself recognises the TRNC, we can't delete a reaction from a significant nation in the area because of that. However, I do agree that this section should be balanced with pro-Russia announcements, but I haven't seen enough international news to know who that would be. I imagine that Russia's main supporters would possibly be Belarus, Bulgaria and Serbia, and maybe somebody should look for such reaction. The Almightey Drill (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's comments like these from Turkey that simply are incomprehensible through any rational logic, my comments simply reflect that. I realise we cannot delete such statements that are credibly referenced despite their questionable merit. My main concern is that this section in particular maintains a semblance of neutrality.

I think we should consider a few subsections here. Domestic in support of the Russian position with what the Crimean "government" (I will call it that for now) has to state, Domestic in support of the Ukrainian position, international in support of Russia and international in support of the Ukrainian position --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced to RS and written in a manner that asseers Turkey's claim not as if it is fact. We can't choose/select what to put in. Its NPOV just to have these reactions. And if you find other international reactions on other sides then feel free to add it. In the meantime, like or disliking or calling otu the hypocrisy is synthesis here and our own analysis.

Of cours eyuou have to first find RS sources with said position, you cant organise like that without any content.

Though the domestic section is adequate there. Im removing the tga and reorganisating is.Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reaction Section

The reaction section clearly suffers from reference bias. It would serve the article better to include "reactions" from countries that have supported (Russia,Syria, etc) and been neutral to lukewarm (china) 24.114.70.179 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources that show that? If so then feel feree to add it(Lihaas (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)).

What would change

It should be explained how exactly would Crimean status change in case of passing referendum, what sort of autonomy would if get that it doesn't have now. --94.253.204.88 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source yet that would explain, what the referendum would change. This ambiguity is probably intentional - they don't risk with outright referendum of independence, yet the people are demanding that something be done as a reaction to the events in Kiev. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that they are declaring that Crimea is sovereign ('state independance'), but is currently choosing to stay inside Ukraine on the basis of agreements and treaties, rather like a EU state is sovereign but chooses to stay within the EU. The point is that a sovereign state can change or repudiate agreements and treaties and leave the union should it wish. I think that most or all of the Union Republics of the USSR declared themselves sovereign in early 1991, and after initial opposition Gorbachov eventually tried to bring in a new USSR constitution that recognised this. A few months after the failure of a hardline coup in August 1991, supposedly intended to prevent the breakup of the USSR by preventing the adoption of that Gorbachov Constitution, the main republics decided to leave the USSR (or rather to abolish it) at the end of 1991. Presumably all this is well understood in Moscow, Kiev, and Simferopol, and it should probably be explained to our readers in this article. But this can't be done unless somebody can find reliable sources that say this (after all, it's just my interpretation, and it could be wrong).

It's also too early to say whether the Crimean leaders and/or Putin intend Crimea to leave Ukraine, or merely to use the referendum to guarantee the official status of the Russian language which Kiev has just abolished (along with that of the Tatar language, though the Tatars currently seem more worried about the Russians than the Ukrainians). And it's unclear what the implications are for Russian speakers in the rest of the Ukraine, and perhaps elsewhere such as the Baltic states, where the issue is arguably potentially even more dangerous as they are already in the EU and NATO, unlike the Ukraine. However the West did guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity by treaty in the 1990s when Ukraine agreed to give up the nukes it inherited from the USSR, so any failure of the West to protect that territorial integrity would presumably weaken the credibility of NATO's other promises, including the promises of mutual defence that are the basis for NATO's existence, so the West seemingly can't easily just turn a blind eye to the break-up of Ukraine even if it wants to do so. But it's not clear whether Putin and/or Obama see it that way, and whether or not either is prepared to risk a new Cold War (or worse?) if they do see it that way. And so on. But as usual none of that can appear in this article unless somebody can find reliable sources to back it up.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I gather Crimea considers itself an independent state that was ceded to the Ukraine back when the USSR was together, which was pretty much meaningless and a gesture of good will to Ukraine at the time. The general Crimean population has decided it wants a referendum on whether it no longer wishes to honor that agreement and whether its people want to rejoin the Russian federation. This is no different really to when Czechs and Slovaks decided they no longer wanted to work together or any other recent split among slavic nations. The Crimean population simply wants their choice rather than having it usurped by the Ukrainian government.

On the issue of the treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign territory, this is not legally binding and I doubt either the UK or the US has any interest what so ever in starting a war that may become protracted with Russia. Any East vs. West conflict would be the bloodiest conflict we would have seen in decades. David Cameron and Barrack Obama are not that stupid, whether or not you agree with them politically or otherwise. IF the US wont touch North Korea beyond the demilitarised zone there is no sensible logic that can convince anyone they will do anything other than sanction Russia for their recent escapades and Russia simply doesn't care no less is it really affected by western diplomacy when in return it can simply decide if it likes to stop shipping petrol to Europe and turn off its gas lines, or any other amount of options in return --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What??? Orestes1984 where are you getting these facts (quoting your statement) "Crimea considers itself an independent state that was ceded to the Ukraine back when the USSR was together, which was pretty much meaningless and a gesture of good will to Ukraine at the time". Do you known history of the region? Apparently, not. What about infrastructure, geography, cultural ties with neighbor? You have not even a basic understanding. Another quote: "The general Crimean population has decided it wants a referendum on whether it no longer wishes to honor that agreement and whether its people want to rejoin the Russian federation." What??? When the "general Crimean population requested the referendum? Was it right after the forceful installation of the Kremlin "puppets" in Crimea? The fact that US and UK tries to avoid it, it is apparent, I agree. However, do you realize what consequences it carries? Ukraine was the third biggest nuclear power in the world and the United States were spending $10 billion a year to keep that power in check. When the Budapest memorandum will be thrown to the wind, how does that help to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapon, what will happen with a trust in the Western powers, and what will happen with trust of any international treaties and borders? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev I know a few simple things, Crimea was ceded to the Ukraine, this is a fact, the second fact here is that the population for the majority would appear to be ethnically Russian, I don't know exactly about the specifics of the cultural practices of Crimean's. Crimean WAS an autonomous region. The New Ukrainian parliament doesn't seem to want to accept that. The ethnic Tatar's have their own issues with Russia. I know what's going on, and your use of puppet government doesn't help to serve your cause. When were the Crimean's asked about for their consent to have their constitutional rights stripped and abolished? North Korea is a very serious analogy and offers a direct parallel. If the US and the UK cannot hope to ever do anything about the situation on the Korean peninsula what chance do you give them about doing anything about Russia.

The Budapest agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on, and on the issue of Ukrainian proliferation, that is no longer a significant issue. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, you say: "Crimean WAS an autonomous region. The New Ukrainian parliament doesn't seem to want to accept that." Wow, where did you get from??? Now, a question. When did Crimea lost its autonomous status? After the World War II when all the Crimean Tatars were deported by the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT (see Deportation of the Crimean Tatars). How do you call that other than genocide? Next question. When did Crimea regain its autonomous status? Just prior the fall of the Soviet Union. When Ukraine became independent, the government of Ukraine granted Crimea the autonomous status and allowed the return of the Crimean Tatar people who mostly were resettled in Uzbek SSR. Next you are asking about rights being stripped. What is that all about??? Have you read the Constitution of Ukraine? Apparently not. Ukraine is a unitary state. Back in 1994 there was one separatist from Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Yuriy Meshkov who already tried to cede Crimea to Russia. Did you know anything about all I have just told you? Do you know that the only potable water in Crimea is supplied by the North Crimean Canal that branches away from Dnieper? Which by the way was built after transferring of Crimea to Ukraine, not when it was part of Russia. Do you know that gas transportation is provided through the territory of Ukraine? There is no analogy with Korea, except for your own opinion. Your statement about the Budapest memorandum is simply insulting. It implies that Ukraine was cheated to surrender its nuclear arsenal. Significant issue? Wait, until Ukraine will resume production of nuclear rockets. Don't forget that Ukraine has a nuclear potential and powerful rocket production in Dnipropetrovsk. What you know about significance? You have no idea about the situation in the region comparing it with the North Korea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see the reaction of the United States if Russia would invade Alaska stating that the sell of Alaska was conducted without national or regional referendum. All needs to be done is to take over the regional administration as it was done in Crimea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, why are you supporting the Kremlin??? Why do consider Ukraine inferior to any sovereign country in the world, borders of which are respected across the world. Also, is it really possible to conduct a referendum in less than 10 days? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine is the only state in the world that surrendered its nuclear weapon. And now what? What is the power of that Budapest memorandum? Now no one even listens and no one can find it on the map. It only reassures that the surrender of nuclear weapon was a grave mistake. So, stop your off-topic political analysis about North Korea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, do you know what happened to Abkhazia and the South Osetia (see Russia-Georgia war) when those republics were invaded by Russians, note during the 2008 Summer Olympics??? Or even with Transnistria? Those are all forgotten countries. How do you call invasion of Crimea by Russian four days after the Olympics? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

On March 8, 2014 Russian military invaded the Kherson Oblast which IS NOT autonomous region (Russian Military Forces Come Into Chonhar Village, Kherson Region). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, I am Russophone ethnic Russian from Ukraine and I am against that insane referendum as it may lead to total chaos across the globe. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev None of where the electricity or water comes from is relevant to this, and perhaps you should read some Crimean history. This is the exact same type of nonsense which happened with the 1994 Crimean presidential elections, and just like 1994 the Ukrainian government involved itself in a situation where the Crimean people are not allowed to have their own opinion on the issue of independence. Furthermore you may wish to read about what happened On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic The transfer of the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture," On the issue of the Budapest memorandum it is absolutely not worth the paper that is written on... The United States will or United Kingdom will never directly sanction a war against Russia. The US particularly with an elastic band ecconomy that is about to snap will never win a conventional war with Russia in Russia, Crimea or anywhere else for that matter.

I support this because the installation of a pro European government is nothing more than the same nonsense that is going on in Venzeula right now with the attempt to cause acromony and install a pro Western government there. Deposing the Ukrainian president was nothing more than a pincer movement on territories that would traditionally have supported Russia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, it seems that you are questioning my knowledge of the Crimean history. Is that right? Do you actually know what happened on February 19, 1954? What were pretenses of transferring Crimea to Ukraine or you believe the nonsense about the "symbolic gesture". That is a Kremlin propaganda. Note, who only talks about it. How else would Kremlin contest the territory? Do you really believe that the people of Crimea want to become independent from Ukraine? Crimea is being raided by the Kremlin. That is all. Look at their Prime Minister. He was elected from the least popular political party in the Supreme Council of Crimea. Not Konstantinov nor Temirgaliev both represent the biggest faction became Prime Minister. All decisions on appointing the Prime Minister and referendum were conducted right after sailors of the Black Sea Fleet raided the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea with the Russian soldiers still being inside the session hall. Do you know what will happen next? Russia will invade the European Union. To no one is secret that eastern regions of the Baltic states contain high concentration of the Russophone population. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev I am not talking about propaganda, the way you frame your conversation however is open to interpretation. I could interpret that it is loaded with propaganda. Russia as far as I can tell has no interest in invading Europe, what it has had interest in more recently involves protecting its own territory and that includes maintaining influence in states and territories largely that have supported the Russian position including the Ukraine and other nations that Russia would otherwise consider "buffer zone" nations. Likewise the west has a great deal of interest in supporting regimes such as the current Ukrainian government that would break this down. There is a lot of value in understanding that it has been nothing more than a coup in Venezuela and now in the Ukraine from Western powers via guerrilla tactics to install pro western governments and that the former Ukrainian president was deposed simply on the basis that he chose to support Western interests rather than Russia. Do you understand anything about cold war geostrategic politics here or am I simply talking to myself? --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, I understood only one thing that you are absolutely confident that all my facts are absolute propaganda and your "buffer zone" understanding of Ukraine is absolute truth. You refuse to see anything further beyond the stand off between east and west. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, there never ever have been any reports of persecution of the Russian population in Ukraine, so the invasion is completely groundless. The autonomy of Crimea is not a Russian national autonomy, but rather due to its multinational composition, please refer to the Constitution of Ukraine and Constitution of Crimea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you bringing Venezuela? Who invaded it? Uhh.... NO ONE. So how is it the same? Are you comparing it with Euromaidan or the Crimea crisis? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, about 100 people were snipped down while trying to topple down the Kremlin-supported Yanukovych regime and you are here expressing your support for the Ukraine's division. Do you have any morals? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course your prediction may well turn out to be right. (Note: This referred to the above 'no war' prediction by Orestes1984 at 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC), which was a reply to my contribution of 12:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC), and to which I was then replying - but a vast amount of intervening text has since been inserted by others between his or her prediction and my reply here). But in terms of what is likely to happen, whether the treaty is legally binding or not is largely irrelevant, as is the abstract morality of the issue, US policy on the rather different issue of North Korea, and the position of the UK government. The US (and/or elements within it, such as Cold Warriors within the CIA, arms traders, etc) is perfectly capable of trying to start a guerrilla war in the Ukraine and/or the Crimea, and/or anywhere else it thinks Russia might be punishable (Chechnya, Dagestan, etc), and/or supporting and arming a guerrilla war that had been started by locals, if it (and/or elements within it) reckon that has become necessary to protect the credibility of its NATO guarantees (particularly the guarantees to the Baltic states, NATO members with many similarities to non-NATO Ukraine) following a breakup of the US-guaranteed territorial integrity of the Ukraine (which is what a Crimean secession would be, at least in American eyes which is what matters in this particular context, regardless of the rights and wrongs of such a secession). The US has frequently supported guerrilla wars in the past (as its Soviet adversary also did) and there's not much evidence that the cost of such guerrilla wars was or is deemed unacceptable by those who started and/or supported them (as distinct from the unfortunate local peoples who paid the price). This may even happen if Obama doesn't want it (For instance, Reagan at least claimed that he was largely in the dark about much of the Iran-Contra affair, and it's at least possible that he was telling the truth). Whether it will choose to do so on this occasion is not something Wiki editors can reliably predict, but the risk seems to be there and seems worth noting. Incidentally, history is littered with wars that happened because one side deluded itself the other side would not or could not respond effectively, arguably including parts of both World Wars.

However this is not a forum for abstract debates, but for discussing how the article might be improved. So I will simply mention that I think the article would probably be improved by adding something like views such as mine and Orestes1984 (above) and any others that might be out there regarding the wider potential implications of the referendum and/or any resulting secession from Ukraine, into somewhere like a new subsection of the Background section of the article, if (and only if) reliable sources can be found to support them, perhaps with sentences beginning something like 'Analysts such as X and Y have expressed the view that A[citations], while analysts such as Z1 and Z2 have expressed the view that B[citations]' I'm not sufficiently interested to go looking for such sources, but other editors might well be.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Item that may be citeable by us in relation to the war risk

On the question of the war risk (discussed and overdiscussed in our first Talk section above), here is something that we might actually be able to use, albeit possibly in one of the other articles on the crisis. It's a transcript of a discussion on CNN yesterday, GPS (for Global Public Square), hosted by Fareed Zakharia. I saw part of it. There are several participants with differing views, but the one who is talking about the risk of war is Stephen Cohen, who is is professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at New York University and Princeton University. He says "I think we're two steps from a Cuban Missile Crisis and three steps from war with Russia for the first time." However his reasons are not those mentioned in our discussions above, but are concern that the West is ignoring Putin's concerns, and has sent aircraft to Poland and may thus end up provoking a Russian move into some other parts of Ukraine. So one of the other articles on the crisis may be a more appropriate place to use it. I'm not sufficiently interested to do so, but I'm mentioning it here in case anybody else is. Also I expect there are many similar articles out there if anybody is interested in looking for them (I'm not).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

International law

There were claims by some heads of states that this referendum would violate international law. If it really does violate it then it would be nice to mention which part of it would be violated. Also, that would imply that international law forbids any secession that is not supported by the laws of the central government (i.e. not supported by the central government), which would render illegal any attempt of secession that comes with disagreement with the central government. Is that really so? --94.253.155.89 (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• It depends on which treaties the signatories have ratified. In this case, it depends on:

1. which treaties the Ukraine has ratified (that by extension apply to Crimea since Crimea is a Ukrainian subdivision), and
2. which treaties Russia has ratified (since the outcome would be for Crimea to join Russia which at this time is part of Ukraine and is, therefore, not independent)

Furthermore, it is a very interesting case for international law since, regardless of which treaties have been ratified, laws and treaties are a human construct: the people of Crimea ultimately have the inalienable right to do whatever they want by simple majority. Now, the question is if this is truly the will of the people or not, as there is a military intervention in the region by alleged "self-defense forces" and foreign (Russian) troops. These troops might instill fear on the people and sway away the referendum towards a particular outcome, even when the military is not coercing the populace (its mere presence alone can be catalogued as a "coercion").

HTH,

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The notion of rights and inalienable rights are also human constructs, and inalienable rights are usually stated as being rights to be defended regardless of the will of the majority, let alone a local majority that is a minority in a wider context, etc. The notion that a 'people have an inalienable right to do whatever they want by simple majority', regardless of consequences, seems like a new one to me. Of course if such a claim is being reported by reliable sources in the context of this referendum, then maybe it belongs in the article. But I suspect we are more likely to find reliable sources discussing the international law claims, if anybody wants to look for them. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We can take this convo to my personal talk page as this page is to discuss the article rather than our personal opinions about what constitutes a human construct or not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We could take it there, and thanks for the invitation, but I'm not sufficiently interested to do so - though my memory on the matter is none too reliable, at least in theory I think I was probably merely trying to point out under what circumstances your opinion might be included in this article, as well as pointing out some of the counter-opinions that might then also acquire a claim for inclusion. However if anybody else wants to discuss it on Ahnoneemoos's Talk page, I certainly wouldn't seek to dissuade them. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. This is a talk page, not an article. Whatever I say here should be taken as that: an opinion, and should not be included in the article just because. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

But getting back to the question of international Law, currently the final paragraph of International_recognition_of_the_Republic_of_Kosovo#Background seems to be of possible major relevance here. It says:

A United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution adopted on 8 October 2008 backed the request of Serbia to seek an International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence. On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that the declaration of independence of Kosovo "did not violate any applicable rule of international law", because its authors, who were "representatives of the people of Kosovo", were not bound by the Constitutional Framework (promulgated by UNMIK) or by UNSCR 1244 that is addressed only to United Nations Member States and organs of the United Nations.

This ICJ ruling would seem to suggest that the Crimeans are also not violating any rule of international law, for the same reason. HOWEVER we are seemingly not allowed say this ourselves in the article (because of I-forget-which Wikipedia rule), BUT we seemingly are allowed quote reliable sources that say this, if any can be found. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a complete article on the judgment at International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, which incidentally states that "This was the first case regarding a unilateral declaration of independence to be brought before the court." Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So, is unilateral declaration of independence legal under international law or not? And, more importantly, is it possible to find the part of international law related to this legality and cite it from a reliable source?

Otherwise, it seems that "this is illegal under international law" is just an empty phrase used by various politicians to negatively comment on the stuff they don't like. --109.60.127.225 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

When people say that the referendum is illegal "under international laws" that might also mean that Crimea, as part of Ukraine, is subject to international treaties. One of these treaties might regulate the way referendums (or referendums for secession for that matter) must be executed. Furthermore, the referendum is even more complex because it's seeking SECESSION (from Ukraine) followed immediately by ANNEXATION (into Russia). So you have two international matters going on at the same time. My guess is that typically (notice I said typically, not always) when a region wants to annex another country they would request first to secede then, while seceded, request to annex. Or if they want to annex they would request permission to conduct a referendum from the national authorities. But this thing is looking to do both at the very same time without the express authorization of Kiev. Confusing isn't it? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Ukraine parliament delivers ultimatum to Crimea over referendum(Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

Lead revamp done in good faith, March 11

I revamped the lead boldly and in good faith. Please check for NPOV and tag anything that you believe that must change. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Whether or not the "region used to be part of Russia" is irrelevant, if not controversial. It has never been part of the modern Russia, but rather Soviet and Imperial Russia. But then, we will have to start listing all countries it has been part of. I'd say "complex history" will do. --Truther2012 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Further, this sentence is not consistent with the body of the article: "The referendum will ask the people of Crimea whether they want to annex to Russia as a federal subject of the Russian Federation, or if they want to declare independence while restoring the 1992 Crimean constitution". I feel that "annex" is improper term (if not POV), "join" will be much more appropriate. The second option clearly is not about independence, but rather remaining within Ukraine (as the body shows, despite possible conflict with 1992 language). I think the problem here is the COI source. --Truther2012 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Feel free to change "annex" to "join". Regarding the modern Russia, feel free to change it to, "the region used to be a republic of the dissolved Soviet Union". What matters here is conveying to our readers that it used to be part of the former "version" of Russia. Let's wait for more feedback regarding the independence/sudivision of Ukraine as I don't speak Russian. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think it's POV as currently worded. We should probably use the wording of the referendum question (which is there even in the cited Kiev Post article), and then add a sentence about 'The Kiev Post has said that ...' Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree, will reword. Btw, I removed "Crimea was part of Russia" due to points above, plus, at some point Ukraine was part of Russia and Soviet Union, so the point is really moot.--Truther2012 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm not so sure that removing "Crimea was part of Russia" is such a good idea - even CNN at the start of the Russian take-over had a big notice on its map saying Crimea was part of Russia until handed over to Ukraine in 1954 (or words to that effect). If even an American News Channel (rather than just the Russian side) saw that as relevant, is it NPOV of us to remove it? Tlhslobus (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
            • It has nothing to do with POV, but rather facts. As I stated above, Crimea was never part of modern Russia, but rather Imperial and Soviet Russia (and Soviet Union), which were different countries. In 1954, there was no Russia, but rather RSFSR, which was part of Soviet Union. By the same token Ukraine was part of both Imperial Russia and Soviet Union. --Truther2012 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Suggestion. Let's leave that part out. It would stir too much trouble as this article is controversial. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Independence as an option

Crimea has declared itself as a sovereign state and refuses to rejoin Ukraine. (Article) Maybe the options for the referendum have changed? [Soffredo] 19:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, but this move should be mentioned on the page.(Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

New question

According to this, the referendum has changed to "Join Russia now" or "Join Russia later". The article should be updated. [Soffredo] 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kyiv Post wrote about the terms and its cited in the article. Its between Russia or independence (and joining Russia later). Not Russia vs. Ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 04:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But that's just an interpretation. The real options in the referendum are not changed. In fact, the second option clearly include the word 'Ukraine'.--Wester (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just your personal interpretation, if reliable sources are unanimous in their assessment, that's what we go by. The wording of the referendum just says "its status vis a vis Ukraine", and in 1992 it was independent, and this is now covered by CNN, Fox, Globe and Mail, and KP.--Львівське (говорити) 20:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"The referendum will ask the people of these regions whether they want to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they want to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and potentially declare independence." This is still stated in the text and infobox. Why? As mentioned above, questions are not changed. The people will be asked whether they want to join Russia, or join Ukraine on term of 1992 Constitution. Current formulation is WP:OR and misleads readers. — 128.73.28.173 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move

What is this referendum about then? Its not autonomy, its not independence. It has to be about something. People are not out there to just vote. There is some status for sure and that caveat needs to be in the article.(Lihaas (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

• "Crimean status referendum, 2014" would probably be the most appropriate. It's what we use for things like Saar status referendum, 1935. Number 57 19:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• From what I understand the referendum is to vote on whether the action taken by the Crimean parliament and the city council of Sevastopol should be taken in final form. In other words: the legislatures approved the move but they want to check if the people support it through a referendum. Once the people vote they will then say, "you gotta recognize us because the people supported this through their vote." Russia will be the only one to recognize this move and the subsequent referendum however. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Was coming here to suggest what N57 diud. Its also with precedence on Abyei status referendum.Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Number 57, Wester and Lihaas can you please stop moving the pages - it has become quite a hassle trying to edit them! Can you reach a consensus first what this should be called and then (and only then) move. Please! --Truther2012 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have the same opinion that the page should not be moved all the time. That's why I moved it to the original and most neutral title: 'Crimean referendum, 2014'. Please let's not change it to 'Crimean independence referendum, 2014' since choosing independence is not an option. Also 'status' is a bit dubious since the status as a 'depended republic' is quite clear. It's only a matter which country it will be part of. So the original title was the best and is also in line with Crimean referendum, 1994.--Wester (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Saar referendum noted above was also about choosing which country to be part of. Crimean referendum, 1994 is so called because there were two separate issues, so neither can be in the title, and therefore is irrelevant to the title of this article. Number 57 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In case of the Saarland referendum. There was a specific agreement called the Saar Statute which people could approve or reject. That's why the article is called Saar Statue referendum (with capital letter).--Wester (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Again: Saar status referendum, 1935. No idea why you've brought up the 1955 one. Number 57 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have move protected this page. Six name changes in about 24 hours (3 away and 3 back) is way too many. Come to some consensus first, and then ask for the page to be renamed, if appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol

I do not see any references to Sevastopol participating in the referendum (I only see Crimea). I could be blind, but can we make those more prominent? --Truther2012 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 DoneTruther2012 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Qırım duvajte kurac

Can anyone validate the Crimean Tatar term for this? The article says: Qırım duvajte kurac. The ballot seems to say something different: Umumqirim Referendumynda. Which one is it? And can we get a source? --Truther2012 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 DoneTruther2012 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of Quebec referendum

That was on independence, not transfer of sovereignty. We may as well include this year's Scottish and Catalan referendums in that case The Almightey Drill (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Catalan referendum is a lot more relevant than either the Scottish or Quebec referendums, because London and Ottawa accept the legality of the Scottish and Quebec referendums, while Madrid and Kiev deny the legality of the Catalan and Crimean referendums. Incidentally, there is a debate below about whether one option in the Crimean referendum is about optional independence. But I think it's illegal OR and/or POV to include any referendum unless accompanied by a citation that X has compared the Crimean referendum to referendum Y, in which case it belongs in a "criticism and support" section rather than in See also. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Similar debate just two sections over ^^^ --Truther2012 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 Article Improvement Tag

This article had an improvement tag put on for POV check and significant changes. I believe, at this point the article is NPOV and we are more than 40 edits away from the last significant edit. Would you agree that we can safely remove the tag? --Truther2012 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the significant changes tag, as it has been quite a while since last overhaul. Unfortunately, POV still remains an issue.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars

There are two unreferenced sentences in the article dealing with Crimean Tatars that do not seem to belong here:

1. Demographically, the region is currently populated by Russian-speaking majorities but with such demographics undergoing dramatic changes for the past 200 years that have shifted the ethnic majorities from its indigenous people to ethnic Russians, due in part to the their deportation 70 years ago.
2. All Tatars were deported from Crimea and many killed in May 1944 by Soviet leader Stalin's order. Only after 1991 were they able to return in greater numbers to Crimea.

I recognise the fact that they were deported and it was a tragedy, but this article has nothing to do with it. This being a sensitive issue, I figured I'd ask for consensus before removing the sentences. --Truther2012 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Disagree. We must state that Tatars were deported and that Crimea's demographics changed because of that, particularly its ethnic majorities. The demographic history of a nation is very important for referendums as they tell you whether or not the referendum takes into consideration the nation's history and if it is protecting your minorities.

In this case, if the deportation would not have happened, Crimea would probably have an egalitarian society with 1/3 being ethnic Russians, 1/3 being ethnic Ukrainians, and 1/3 being Tatars. But when you decimate the Tatars (they were literally brought down to 0% of the population) through a forcible and highly questionable deportation your ehtnic majorities change to what you have today: 3/5 ethnic Russians which comprise more than half of the population and that can squash minorities through simple majority.

I don't know what's the law in Crimea but in America referendums like this require a supermajority of 67%+ or 75%+ to demonstrate, unequivocally, that that's what the vast majority wants. But this is not what Crimea has today: the indigenous people which comprised a majority were forced out and now compose a mere 12% of the population.

Then you have the case where the people of Crimea accepted the wrongs of the past and allowed Tatars to return through repatriation. Look at this graphic: [2] it took the Tatars 12 years to regrow from 1.6% to 12%. They have been draining political power out of ethnic Russians simply by reproducing. If the trend continues you will have a Tatar population with more political power and an ethnic Russian population with less political power. This is why Ukraine is adamant of calling this referendum illegal: Tatars tend to ally with Ukraine, if Ukraine waits a couple more generations, it will recover Crimea by natural reproduction.

So, 13 years later, as the Tatars are still recouping, this referendum occurs. Of course the outcome is gonna be to join Russia and of course it will be to secede: the people that deported the indigenous people are now a majority that fear they won't be one in the not-so-distant future.

But we must remain neutral in the article, so we can only say: "hey look, ethnic Russians are a majority today, but it has not always been like that. go to these articles, educate yourself, and come to your own conclusions." it gives a background to our readers that let them knows that not everything is black and white, nor as it seems on the first impression.

So no, I don't agree with the removal of these sentences.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I dont see how any of this has anything to do with the referendum. History of Crimea belongs in that article, Tatar deportation belongs in that article, Demographic distribution of Crimea belongs there. You can include as many links to all those articles. Referendum is about the future state of the peninsula, not its history.--Truther2012 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. Referendums, by their own nature, are heavily linked to your demographics and history. You have the right to differ though. So consider this as us failing to reach consensus on your your suggestion. Besides, the sentences don't dwell into details. They are both vague and neutral. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont argue the neutrality, but how vagueness is a good thing? My issue is that you cant seem to connect this with the issue on hand. Tatar question is not a part of the referendum.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Austrian Anschluss referendum, 1938

Just to explain why I added Austrian Anschluss referendum, 1938 to the "See also" section. The historical parallel is obvious: a rigged referendum as a post-hoc justification of an invasion. Former US Secretary of State Clinton also draws this comparison. --bender235 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

agree 174.19.174.16 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am removing the obvious POV in the see also section at the bottom of the page. A comparison to Nazi Germany is one-sided; it would be POV to link to Nazi Germany-related articles in articles of Maidan, for example, despite these comparisons having been made repeatedly by their opponents. A "criticisms" section in this article would be completely legitimate, as would the inclusion of FOX and the Kyiv Post's analysis of the ballot and Hillary Clinton (or whatever other relevant international figure)'s comparison to the Anschluss. To quote Wikipedia's guidelines [[3]] on NPOV:

"When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. In-text attribution to sources should be used where reliable sources disagree, not where editors disagree."

A comparison to Nazism is not a factual statement, it is a representation of ONE of the valid, mainstream opinions that exist regarding this issue and should be represented as such.

Some users have taken issue with my not providing a talk page justification of my earlier reversion. Hopefully this will be satisfactory to explain why these must be deleted, and not degenerate into an edit war.

In summary, I encourage such comparisons to be placed in an appropriate corresponding section and to be sourced to a relevant figure voicing said opinions.

Regards,

Polyglotism (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would note, as a brief follow-up, that the controversy over the meaning of "reverting to the 1992" constitution which the editor referred to in his/her edit summary and some interpret as being a second "Join Russia" option on the ballot is just that, a controversy. This was addressed earlier in the article in a way I feel is much more reflective of NPOV: "The ballot is even more confusing as it is unclear as to which version of the 1992 constitution does it refer to.[original research?] This is because in 1992 the republic initially had a version that stipulated that Crimea was "an independent state" but it then ratified a second version one day later that stipulated that Crimea "was a part of Ukraine".[e][1]"

Polyglotism (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It is short-sighted to rule out this historical parallel just because Nazi Germany was involved. The "tactics" involved in this referendum are the same they were in 1938. Ignoring international treaties, one country annexed parts of another purely based on an pan-ethnic argument. And then (which this article is about), there was a rigged referendum as a post-hoc justification of an invasion. The comparison, like I said, is obvious. Unfortunately, if one adds a World-War-II-era comparison somewhere, narrow-minded people have the tendency to ask "who's Hitler in this comparison? (and whoever it is, let us imply that he'll also do the other things Hitler did)". That is unnecessary. Just because a historical parallel is drawn (Sykes–Picot Agreement → Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact; Jim Crow Laws → Apartheid → Nuremberg Laws; PGM-11 Redstone → V-2 rocket; Gulag → Nazi concentration camps; ) does not imply all that other Nazi stuff. --bender235 (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

All the referenda in the "See Also" section are stupid and should be removed. If you want to write a section on historical comparisons that's neutral and shows both sides, (eg. Putin's assertion that Scotland is a good analogy along side Clinton's statement) then by all means, add one. Simply adding a link to a referendum implies that the situation was analogous or applicable. Failing to flesh out why it's applicable compromises the neutrality of the article. Marcus Graly (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stupid or not, we either include all "independence" or "status" referenda or none. Picking and choosing which ones to include amounts to OR. --Truther2012 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to include all. Just those that happend in a historically comparable scenario. I don't see much similarites to Scotland. But I do see some to the Separation of Panama from Colombia. --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And what would be a test for "historical comparability"? If you are really bent on Anschluss comparison, find the source that compares the two (there are plenty of those) and stick it in the article. Why do we have to have this debate on what other referenda to include at the bottom. --Truther2012 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why Panama is similar and Scotland isn't? --Truther2012 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

>>"Why do we have to have this debate on what other referenda to include at the bottom." Because it started with somebody adding Quebec and Puerto rico, neither of which is in any way relevant here. If somebody wants to add referenda under "see also," they need to be relevant. It'd be okay (or maybe even better) to add none, and stick to bigger picture stuff like Irredentism. 174.19.174.16 (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this is a perfect example of irrendentism. Would you like to write a sentence on this and insert it into the article? --Truther2012 (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd put that instead of "Greater Russia" under "see also" (in fact, I had that, but it got reverted; User:Polyglotism blanket-reverts everything I add, so I won't waste my time) 174.19.174.16 (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"shifted the majority from indigenous to ethnic Russians"

There were Scythians, Greeks and Slavs (proto-Russian) before the Tatars arrived. Can't the intro just say that over the last 200 years the majority went from simply "Tatar to Russian" seeing as the main focus of this referendum is on the interests of Russians in Crimea? '''tAD''' (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. I think it was me the one who wrote "indigenous people" by accident while I was copyediting. I agree with you, we should name them rather than call them "indigenous" to remain neutral. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Referendum Infobox

I dont think the Referendum Infobox is appropriate here, as it only assumes "Yes/No" outcome. A generic Election box would be better IMO. I dont have time right now to fix it myself, so if anyone could...--Truther2012 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. The problem is that {{infobox referendum}} assumes that all referendums follow the yes or no format... but they don't. For example, the 1998 Puerto Rican status referendum followed a similar format to Crimea's (asking to "choose the option you prefer best"). I changed it to {{infobox event}} and used its blank labels to portray the question and its options. HTH, —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Developments

• Pressure and Intimidation Sweep Crimea Ahead of Secession Vote by New York Times. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Legitimacy

Second paragraph in introduction tells: "The referendum is polarized by a divide..." and so on. I am not sure this is proper description. After reading various sources, it seems this referendum was described as not legitimate for the following reasons: (1) it contradicts Ukrainian constitution (as has been already confirmed by their constitutional court) - no one ever disputed this, (2) It is conducted under military occupation by another state - as a matter of fact; (3) the decision to conduct referendum was decided by Crimean parliament without quorum and with other violations; (4) referendum does not include the necessary question to keep "status quo"; (5) there was only a few days to prepare referendum. In this context, if the current Ukrainian administration or ousting of Yanukovich was accepted or not by any sides (as currently discussed in this paragraph) is irrelevant. There is discussion about international law and Kosovo, but this is also less relevant. This paragraph and some other parts should be rewritten, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What had actually happened? The Crimean parliament already adopted independence from Ukraine, a few days prior to this referendum, allegedly to make this referendum legitimate [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic map of Ukraine according to 2001 census, with Russian (in red) dominant in Crimea

This map is not what it seems to be. It's not about main spoken language, it's about 'native tongue', which in Eastern Europe means language of your ethnicity. Say, if you are Russian-speaking Ukrainian you are likely to answer that Ukrainian is your native tongue, even though you speak Russian in your daily life. This is what the word 'Russian-speaking' means in Ukraine and this is what Putin meant. This map is enormously misguiding in this context. 178.168.173.91 (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Specific tags for original research and improper synthesis

@Lvivske: could you please tell us what do you consider as original research or as improper synthesis on the following two sentences:

1. [Crimea and Sevastopol are] subdivisions of Ukraine with a long and complex history whose demographics have undergone dramatic changes.
2. The European Union, Germany, France, and several other nations, in contrast, recognize the newly appointed interim government in Ukraine and condemn the actions taken by Crimea and Sevastopol, including the referendum.

I fixed the other ones you tagged but I don't understand your claims on these two. I would really appreciate if you can explain your reasoning so that we can improve the article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

(That's not the way it works, btw. Others don't have to be begging for explanations or guessing. 174.19.174.16 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC))

Without going into explanation of every single point, because it was written like an essay (x happened but because of y, q is correct) and was a bunch of points strung together to form original conclusions. I think #1 is fine if its a standalone sentence, it was originally part of the intro sentence and read like it was causation, that the referendum was related to the historic demographic changes. #2 I think my issue with this standalone was the 'in contrast' since it's the 99% majority worldview. Ukraine shouldnt be contrasting the referendum, it's happening in Ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the reality of Wikipedia, as multiple editors attempt to improve the article, some points tend to get muddled as the surrounding sentences may change the context of otherwise valid point. Which is why we should avoid writing essays here.

I agree with #1, as it does imply causation, whereas the causes for the referendum as much more complex than "demographic changes".

The second point has been dragged back and forth more than a couple of times and may or may not make sense at any given time. Your premise is correct - wherever the events take place local opinion should matter first. However, in this case, Crimea takes precedence as locality over Ukraine. So, the opinions should count as Crimea > Ukraine > Russia (as the second party) > Rest of the world. Does this make sense? --Truther2012 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)