Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

POV blanking

Please explain how the additions [1] specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Would you be so kind to provide me the step by step explanation? Thank you!

1)

  • ===Crimean public opinion===

Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and thus demographically possessed one of the Ukraine's largest Russian populations.

A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year." —Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News.— Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages."


2)

  • == Ukrainian response ==
See also: Do not buy Russian goods!

Ukrainian authorities greatly reduced the volume of water flowing into Crimea via the North Crimean Canal, threatening the viability of the peninsula's agricultural crops, which are heavily dependent on irrigation.—"Russia fears Crimea water shortage as supply drops". BBC News. 2014-04-25. Retrieved 2014-04-26.

The Ukrainian National Council for TV and Radio Broadcasting instructed all cable operators on March 11 to stop transmitting a number of Russian channels, including the international versions of the main state-controlled stations Rossiya-1, Channel One and NTV, as well as news channel Rossiya-24.—Ennis, Stephen (March 12, 2014). "BBC News – Ukraine hits back at Russian TV onslaught". Bbc.com. Retrieved April 20, 2014.

In March 2014, activists began organizing flash mobs in supermarkets to urge customers not to buy Russian goods and to boycott Russian gas stations, banks, and concerts. In April 2014, some movie theaters in Kiev, Lviv, and Odesa began shunning Russian films.—Некоторые кинотеатры Киева, Львова и Одессы объявили бойкот российской кинопродукции (in Russian). ЦензорНЕТ. 11.04.2014

In December 2014, Ukraine halted all train and bus services to Crimea.—"Ukraine conflict: Crimea hit by shortages". BBC News. 8 January 2015.


3)

  • == Transition and aftermath ==

The first Deputy to Minister of Finance of Russian Federation Tatyana Nesterenko said in her interview to Forbes Woman that decision to annex Crimea was made by Russian President Vladimir Putin exclusively without consulting Russia’s Finance Ministry.—"Decision to annex Crimea 'taken by Putin personally'". UNIAN. 3 March 2015.—


4)

  • == Commentary ==

Commentaries and editorials published by China's state-run Xinhua News Agency—Ming Jinwei (March 7, 2014) "Commentary: The West's fiasco in Ukraine". Xinhua News Agency.— and Global Times—"Backing Russia is in China's interests". Global Times (March 6, 2014)— supported Russia's position on the situation, though Chinese president Xi Jinping said China's position was neutral, and noted Crimea's status does not meaningfully affect his country.—Brown, Stephen; Breidthardt, Annika (March 28, 2014). "China takes no sides on Ukraine crisis, Xi tells Europe". Reuters. Retrieved March 30, 2014.


5)

  • === Legal obstacles to Crimea annexation ===
Further information: Kosovo independence precedent


6)

  • ==Background==

In February 2014, repeal of the 2012 language law was met with great disdain in Crimea, populated by a Russian-speaking majority—Traynor, Ian (February 24, 2014). "Western nations scramble to contain fallout from Ukraine crisis". The Guardian.— and Southern and Eastern Ukraine provoking waves of anti-government protests, ultimately culminating with the Crimean crisis."—Ayres, Sabra (February 28, 2014). "Is it too late for Kiev to woo Russian-speaking Ukraine?". CSM.— In March 2014, the acting President of Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov, vetoed the bill effectively stopping its enactment.—На отмену закона о региональных языках на Украине наложат вето. Lenta (in Russian). RU. March 1, 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)


7) Images:

[File:Артимарка Микита Хрущов 2009.jpg|thumb|Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine]

[File:Smetlivyy2007Sevastopol.jpg|thumb|280px|Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea, August 2007]

[File:Euromaidan Night of 11 December 18.jpg|thumb|Euromaidan in Kiev, 11 December 2013 ]

[File:2014 Russo-ukrainian-conflict map.svg|thumb|Crimea, which is under Russian control, is shown in pink. Pink in the Donbass area represents areas currently held by the DPR/LPR separatists (cities in red).]

[File:Ukraine census 2001 Russian.svg|thumb|right|260px|Map denoting the subdivisions of Ukraine and the percentage of people that indicated Russian as their native language in the latest local census. Sevastopol identifies itself as the highest at 90.6% followed immediately by Crimea at 77.0%.]


-- Tobby72 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A good chunk of this is already addressed in the section above. The more general problem is that you're trying to sneak in some very POV edits (for example the stuff about the language law, or the controversial poll) under of guise of just adding pictures or other innocuous material. I've observed you trying to do this before and I consider it as acting in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Or another example - trying in to add the Kosovo stuff is a violation of WP:GEVAL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

For Crimea, Secession Is Only as Good as Recognition, The New York Times — "To justify Crimea’s pursuit of independence from Ukraine, Crimean and Russian officials have cited a seminal ruling by the International Court of Justice in July 2010, in which the United Nations’ highest court ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia did not violate international law."
"Crimea parliament declares independence from Ukraine ahead of referendum". RT. 11 March 2014. — "We, the members of the parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council, with regard to the charter of the United Nations and a whole range of other international documents and taking into consideration the confirmation of the status of Kosovo by the United Nations International Court of Justice on July, 22, 2010, which says that unilateral declaration of independence by a part of the country doesn’t violate any international norms, make this decision," says the text of the declaration, which was published by the Crimean media. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Russian authorities have cited Kosovo as a precedent. That's already in the article. The POV part is giving it undue weight.
RT is not a reliable source, and anyway that's quoting a primary source and I'm not sure what your point is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I remember several discussions on Wikipedia, going back years, about whether RT was a reliable source or not. I do not recall any of them coming to the consensus that RT is not a reliable source. Most of the discussions, as I recall, ended in a "no consensus" verdict. Esn (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Every Talk page I've ever been on in my time working on Ukraine and Caucasus topic areas has frowned upon using RT as a source for contentious matters, especially those involving Russia. As a source for non-contentious issues ("Putin appoints X as State Minister of Y", "Shoygu to visit Vladivostok seaport", etc.), if there's nothing else available in the English language, it might be usable. But it's simply too close to the Kremlin to be a reliable source for controversial subject matter like Crimean annexation, the war in Donbass, or Russo-Georgian relations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Tobby72, I've followed discussions over the use of RT as a reliable source on the RS/N closely for the last couple of years. Consensus is that it can be an RS, but dependent on the subject matter it deals with. Context is everything. It is not RS for areas where the RF have blatant vested geopolitical, economic interests (i.e., South Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.). If you have doubts about this, feel free to waste editor time and energy yet again on the RS/N by querying its use in this article (or related articles), pointing out what you want to use and where you want to use it. Let the broader community decide, but first just check for the current discussions on using RiaNovosti and other RF mouthpieces. Prediction: WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

To answer the points specifically

1) - the question of the poll is discussed above. It's cherry picking both within the source and across sources. It omits important details.

2) This is mostly ok though some of it's really trivial (flash mobs etc)

3) This is ok but without context it's not clear what the importance is. I have no strong objections to including it.

4) Commentary - POV pushing again through cherry picked sources. That there was some editorial in some media outlet stating some thing is trivia. The only salvageable part of that paragraph is the stuff about China not giving a fig either way.

5) POV pushing. WP:GEVAL

Vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT claims. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

6) POV pushing. The language law was never repealed and even if it had been it would have had zilch effect on the status of Russian language in Ukraine. This is just parroting Kremlin propaganda.

7) Most of these are probably fine. This one's more of a question of aesthetics.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you agree, I've added #2 back in with some grammatical fixes. I think it's pretty good. You're right about #3, I'm also not sure how it ties into things. Esn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything controversial or shocking about the poll. The population of Crimea was always pro-Russian(I remember violent protests against Nato exercises carried out years ago), and it is not a surprise that they prefer to be in Russia rather than in war-torn Ukraine descending into chaos and outbursts of violent nationalism. The poll was conducted by reliable research group and is quoted by reliable sources, therefore it should be included in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources actually discuss why the poll SHOULDN'T be considered reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Some polls could be reliable and may be noted, however all polls in support of Russian authorities are so unreliable that they became a matter of popular jokes and novels by satirists. Someones calls over the phone and tells: "Hello, Vladimir Petrov, we need to know your opinion. Do you support Putin?" People are afraid and especially in Crimea right now. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"Some polls could be reliable and may be noted, however all polls in support of Russian authorities are so unreliable" I can't agree with this, it seems to be a very strong and controversial personal opinion.There is nothing surprising about the poll. There was other one in 2008 which gave similar results.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
What Bloomberg article actually says: "Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets."
"The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation." --- Tobby72 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tobby72 here. There is nothing controversial about the poll. There were others like this in Crimea where majority supported unification with Russia,including majority of Ukrainian population.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You've both fiddled your way around interpreting polls in order to create your own WP:OR again. Neither of you are statisticians, or have the political awareness of what's going on to make any cover-all statements about how the polls were conducted. Get some RSs together to back your assumptions up and someone may take you seriously. Er, any mention of the number of refugees who left Crimea in droves, and where they stand on this 'most representative poll... since its annexation'? And the, "There were others like this in Crimea where majority supported unification with Russia, including majority of Ukrainian population."? Citation, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Look. There's obvious strong opposition, if not outright consensus against, to including the results of this poll, especially if you're going to do it in a POV way which omits the context. If you really want to put it in, try starting an RFC to get additional input.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

And here's a reliable source which addresses pretty much what Iryna is saying above: [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reminder about discretionary sanctions

Because of this edit summary [3] I feel that it is necessary to remind some users that discretionary sanctions are in effect for this article. So watch personal attacks, especially those which make false accusations against other editors - that they are "anti-" one nationality or another. Especially, if you've been warned about this kind of behavior before. As you have, User:Haberstr.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You have also been warned, User:Volunteer Marek, and you continue non-stop with POV-based misrepresentations of other editors' edits. For example the following in the last seven days are all misrepresentations: WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT [4], you're POVing the article with the Kosovo stuff. See WP:GEVAL, and one more time, stop using misleading edit summaries [5], don't put blatant misinformation in the article [6], remove the false equivalence POV [7].Haberstr (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
All of these edit summaries are accurate. Unlike yours and Tobby's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Platzeck and Jack F. Matlock

I wonder why the quotations by these two have been removed from the "Commentary" section. I would understand if the section included only commentary from the heads of state, but why, say, Kasparov is relevant, and those two are not? Buzz105 (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Kasparov is relevant because he is a major opposition figure. The other two are not particularly notable. Lots of people have said lots of stuff about this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Buzz105, more than likely the quotes were removed in order to make sure the sub-section stayed unbalanced anti-Russian POV. And no, Volunteer Marek, Kasparov is an exceedingly minor opposition figure. But, he says things the anti-Russian narrative wants, so he stays I guess.Haberstr (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no "anti-Russian narrative" nor is the sub section "anti-Russian". If you can't tell the difference between not wanting to include Krelimin propaganda and being "anti-Russian" then it's YOU who has a problem, not others. Stop it with the personal attacks and hyperbolic language.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Does this imply that Platzeck and Matlock are Kremlin propagandists? :) Buzz105 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does. But that's par for the course here. Check out the comparison of Crimea to Dachau concentration camp further down!Haberstr (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page indicates conclusively...

... that some editors don't know the difference between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NPOV: [8]

And that they just can't refrain from using hysterical edit summaries and just can't help but continue making personal attacks even after repeated warnings.

Unless this is seriously substantiated soon, with specific references to how and where the article violates NPOV I'm removing this tag. Per policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No need. I've already done so as the assertions were based on a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. The only issue being genuinely discussed in good faith (aside from the POV pushing of a couple of editors who are making a concerted effort to create the appearance of a lack on consensus by using this talk page to be WP:POINTy), revolves around whether the use of 'internationally recognised' is undue in the lead. The use of this tag as a 'badge of shame' is unacceptable, and the tag is irresponsible per the POV template: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." Considering the amount of discussion surrounding the content (as attested to by the talk page and the talk page archives), 'disputes' have been addressed by the use of quality RS and appropriate presentation of language and content.
At best, the only tag applicable is the POV-lead template. Even there, I'm not replacing the nonsensical one at this point. The discussion has only just begun, and it isn't over the substance of the lead, merely something which isn't so obtrusive that it merits the tag. If some form of agreement hasn't been reached in a day or so, I'm quite prepared to tag the lead myself at that point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources using the term "incorporation" rather than "annexation"

Use of one term or the other seems to vary. Publications that use "incorporation" include:

Note that I haven't mentioned a single Russian source so far, but shown that there is widespread use of the term "incorporation" among various notable sources, including ones severely hostile to the official Russian position. Most Russian sources (which are mostly supportive of the Kremlin's position, just like 80% of the Russian public) use both "incorporation" and "reunification", but never "annexation" (examples: [28] [29] [30]). Among academics, there seems to be a preference for the more neutral term "incorporation" over either "annexation" or "reunification".

So here's the issue. One side strongly believes that what happened was both incorporation and annexation (defining annexation as "forcible incorporation"), while the other side just as strongly believes that what happened was incorporation but not annexation (arguing that what happened involved almost no force, was legal, and reflected popular will).

Why not change the article name to Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation? All sides clearly agree that an incorporation took place, so the title would be unquestionably accurate and non-divisive. I should note that a similar compromise solution came about when War in Donbass was being renamed - both sides had different names for the conflict (e.g. anti-terrorist operation, Ukrainian civil war, Russo-Ukrainian war), but in the end a name was chosen that was uncontroversial and descriptive. Esn (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The quoted Polish source says The incorporation (...) qualifies as annexation, which isn't "incorporation" rather than "annexation". Isn't your quotation a little creative?Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't use WP:EUPHEMISMs. The proposed title is not neutral, nor is it descriptive. It is simply an attempt to weasel out of the facts. RGloucester — ☎ 00:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Crimea was annexed by Russia. I would say I don't understand why this language is somehow controversial, except that I know annexation is technically against international law, so the Kremlin avoids using that term like the plague and has been endeavoring to reframe it as something more benign for the past year. And I'd rather not change the wording to a more pleasant-sounding euphemism just because Vladimir Putin is concerned about his reputation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I support Esn; "incorporation" is neutral. (We should avoid all types of propaganda here.) --Tosha (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
How, precisely, is 'incorporation' neutral, Tosha? It wasn't a quiet incident in which citizens decided to have an impromptu poll and decide that they wanted to go and play with the RF instead of Ukraine now: it was a military invasion and unequivocally called such by the majority of the global community. I don't think you quite comprehend what WP:NPOV actually means. If an historical incident is widely discussed in the mainstream as being a "massacre", the WP:COMMONNAME defines the WP:TITLE of the article. We don't modify "massacre" to "some people who happen to be part of a sovereign state or ethnic group were killed a bit (but, giving the alleged killers the benefit of the doubt, it probably wasn't intentionally malicious.)".
The content of the article, itself, is further defined by the mainstream representation in the media and scholarly research. We don't make decisions based on WP:GEVAL, nor do we accommodate other narratives using euphemisms because we don't wish to sound a tad rude. I'm not even vaguely swayed by Esn's arguments because he's been able to find a handful of articles where 'incorporation' was used, or both terms were used when we have hundreds upon hundreds of RS who called it an 'invasion', as well as these articles and analyses of what happened deeming it to be a legal violation of international law, with no bones made about how this euphemistic 'incorporation' occurred. As it stands, using the term 'annexation' is the neutral compromise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally Esn, your choice of sources 'demonstrating' the use of 'incorporation' over 'annexation' are truly weak:
"The incorporation of the Crimean Peninsula, which forms part of Ukraine’s territory, into the Russian Federation qualifies as annexation – reads an opinion by the Legal Advisory Committee to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. In international law, annexation is as an illegal acquisition of the territory of another state by the threat or use of military force.

In light of international law, the incorporation of the Crimean Peninsula (Crimea), which forms part of Ukraine’s territory, into the Russian Federation qualifies as annexation, i.e. the illegal acquisition of the territory of another state by the threat or use of force. In this respect, Crimea remains an occupied territory under international law.

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has violated many treaties and fundamental principles of international law, namely the principle of territorial integrity of states, non-intervention into the domestic affairs of another state, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force against another state. Consequently, the Russian Federation has violated Ukraine’s rights which enjoy international protection.

Moreover, due to the special legal status of the principles of international law that have been violated, the Russian Federation has breached its commitments under law to the entire international community. This community has an international legal obligation not to recognise the illegal situation that has been created by the illegal use of force in the form of armed aggression, and its consequences." It seems to me that that one reference alone blows your contention right out of the water. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Potemkin told Catherine that the Crimean Tatars would be "happy" to become part of Russia. Nevertheless, he had no trouble referring to the "incorporation" of Crimea into the Empire as an "annexation". I wonder, what's the problem, here? This event was the definition of what an "annexation" is. One can mince words all one likes, but when one takes the territory of another sovereign country without that country's consent, that's annexation. Especially, of course, when one has agreed to protect that country's territorial integrity. There is not even any room for debate. Even if the referendum had been carried out in a free and fair manner, it still would've been illegal in both international law and under the Ukrainian constitution. It still would've been annexation under such circumstances, unless Ukraine gave consent to said referendum and the subsequent loss of Crimea. There is no need for euphemisms. This is a classic disinformation tactic. Redefining words, mincing words, changing from opinion to opinion on what exactly happened in Crimea. If one does these enough times, truth becomes obscured, to the point where there seems as if there is no truth. In such an obscurity, surely Russia cannot be at fault. Surely this was a mere "incorporation", because that's a "neutral" term for what happened, given that we cannot actually know what happened...surely. At that rate, it might be just as well to start writing things like "Crimea Incident". RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Harpy and RGloucester, we have three terms reunification, incorporation and annexation. Your arguments are against reunification, and I agree that reunification is not completely netral, BUT the same is true for annexation. The term incorporation on the other hand should satisfy all---I did not see an argument against it. --Tosha (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a euphemism. It doesn't describe what actually happened. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Look, for wikipedia it would be much better if we avoid any type of propaganda here. I hope you see that the term annexation is onesided---it means we should not use this. (I am not a friend of Putin, I am a friend of wikipedia). --Tosha (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"Annexation" is indeed one-sided, in that Russia unilaterally decided to take over part of its neighbor's territory. If the shoe fits... -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
And not even just any neighbor, but a neighbor whose sovereignty it had explicitly promised to respect. Lklundin (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Lklundin and Kudzu1 this is not right place for the political discussion. Clearly not everybody shares your oppinion and these people might be majority. It does not mean that we should decide things as majority wants, we need to do it right. I still do not see a reason against "incorporation". Some people argue this move was 100% constitutional, some people say that it was an armed intervention, why do we take one side and ignore the other. --Tosha (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no one that believes that this is was "100% constitutional", as that's very easy to prove false. What "some people argue" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what RS say. RS refer to this as an annexation. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is about a specific suggestion related to the article, so the discussion is on topic. There are enough sources to justify a title starting with 'Invasion' but with the subsequent charade, 'Annexation' is more apt. Even if you just don't like it. Lklundin (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Tosha, as you mentioned me in your original query, I'm going to chime in and agree entirely with every one of the rebuttals posted in answer to your "incorporation" argument. Yes, this is a political question guided by what reliable sources say. Again, you need to understand that WP:NPOV is not a simplistic policy, and is not designed to represent everyone's linear narrative of what occurred. If the finger is pointed at illegal, military invasion, there are no grey areas to be addressed, discussed, or compromised on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: Suggested reading for you would be WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Okey :)
  1. RGloucester says: There is no one that believes that this is was "100% constitutional" --- this is planly wrong, you can not say for all --- I am sure you did not ask Putin :)
  2. Iryna Harpy it is not my "incorporation" argument, see above, but I support it. Also you are talking about "reliable sources" I guess you mean western media (say BBC) which can not be called neutral, but still, even these sourses sometime use term "incorporation", on the other side you see "incorporation" and "reunification", so it seems like right term.
I still do not see a reason against "incorporation" exept just don't like it. --Tosha (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of reasons have been given. You're just NOT LISTENING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there are two problems with such renaming. Fist, many sources for renaming by Esn in fact tells something opposite. Consider this BBC article included by Esn above. It starts from this (in bold):"The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.". So, this is actually a source against renaming. Secondly, incorporation can mean a lot of different things. Only annexation means forcible acquisition of a state's territory by another state, and that is exactly what had happened. Even Putin openly admitted that Russian army took over the Crimea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The same can be said of the majority of the sources (other than the Russian and the Chinese source he offers). The moment you look into the text (including the downloadable paper from the Max Planck Institute) the sources agree on its being a military takeover and the RF toying with legal jargon. The fact that a couple of other descriptors exist (and there's no reason per RS not to use 'forcible military takeover of Crimea' as the TITLE) is simply cherry picking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Please try to be neutral: remove media of NATO countries + Ukraine on one side and Russian media on the other side. Say in China and India --- most of time I see "incorporation". --Tosha (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Why the heck are we still discussing this? There is no consensus to move the page. Obviously. Let's move on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Not only is there consensus, it's clearly based on policy and common sense, therefore is non-negotiable. Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy and Kudzu1, essentially you claim that English wikipedia should not have netral point of view. I do not agree.--Tosha (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Too bad. Wikipedia is not compulsory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The annexation and military intervention

The military intervention preceded the annexation, so maybe rather The military intervention of Russia and annexation.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that it's logical to present the events chronologically. I've changed the sentence to read "The military intervention and annexation by Russia". Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mustafa Dzhemilev isn't Russia

Mustafa Dzhemilev is quoted in a wrong place. Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest outrage: excluding opinion polls that show Crimeans overwhelmingly support unification with Russia

'Why is the Crimean people's point of view on the annexation deliberately being excluded from this entry? talk: I don't see why this poll is being removed. The attitude of local population should be noted, no matter personal opinions of editors. In any case I added previous poll from 2008 which is also relevant ... That seems to beg for an explanation, but Moloboaccount's insertion was reverted without explanation by talk. I provided a plausible explanation when I restored the Crimean people's point of view. talk: The poll is being removed purely for POV reasons: because it indicates the unification with Russia was very popular. But, perhaps I was wrong? Finally, words from Team Ukraine (;->). ... talk: no it's being removed because it's cherry picked, hence WP:UNDUE and even then the context isn't being provided. I disagree and I'll stick with my first opinion as most plausibl. The concept of 'cherry picked' indicates there is a larger set of NPOV data from which these ostensibly 'POV' facts (the polling results) are being picked? But those larger results simply do not exist. Crimeans overwhelmingly did support and now support unification with Russia. The break down by ethnicity should and can be provided. That fact is extremely important, RS and NPOV, even if it does not support the anti-Russia narrative, and nothing can be added to make it even more NPOV fair. Finally, there is certainly nothing WP:UNDUE since the censored sentences were the only instance in the entire 187,267 byte entry when Crimeans' scientifically polled point of view _had_ been allowed.Haberstr (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty explanation on talk, contrary to your assertion. Also, please see the section right above this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Again I ask, why is the opinion of the Crimean people on the 'annexation of Crimea' deliberately excluded from this 187,000 byte entry on the 'annexation of Crimea'? That's an insane level of censorship and anti-Crimean bias.Haberstr (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There's also this Forbes article, which basically does a summary of polls held among Crimeans, and shows that the majority of them support the accession to Russia. So I believe this section is no longer WP:CHERRY, and can be included. Buzz105 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Information about polls in Crimea definitely needs to be included. Phil070707 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
With a long explanation of the Russian tradition of pools, ignored by some Western idealists.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this kind of information belongs in the article. The polls were conducted under the occupation of a harsh authoritarian regime that does not tolerate dissent.
An analogous case would be the reports of foreign Nazi-sympathisers who visited Dachau, and said how well-treated the inmates were. Wikipedia does not put such propaganda in the article on Dachau. So why should similar rubbish be put here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Putin's regime is not comparable to Hitler's. The fact that Forbes and other Western sources refer to the polls says that the polls are not thoroughly unreliable. The polls should thus be mentioned, if there are any reliable sources claiming the polls are not reliable, then obviously this information should also be mentioned somewhere in the article. Phil070707 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The main difference between Putin and Hitler is that the former is still in power, while the latter is dead. But a comparison between Putin in 2015 and Hitler some time in the late 1930'es (where the mentioned foreign visits to Dachau took place) could indeed be interesting. So while one should keep Godwin in mind while discussing, I would not be so dismissive. Lklundin (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There's also this source which explains the atmosphere in which these kinds of polls take place. Even if the poll is conducted by a reputable institution - all that that institution's reputation ensures is that the results aren't faked and that the sample is random (which actually isn't even the case with this particular poll) - they can't ensure that the respondents answer honestly or without fear. You take a poll in North Korea, I'm sure 99.99% of respondents will say how great it is. Hence this is UNDUE and it is POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This is all your interpretation that has no relevance here. I've specifically requested for sources that would argue the polls are unreliable. So far none of you has presented anything of the kind. I wonder, why?Adding information published in Forbes is definitely not "POV pushing". Phil070707 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not just my interpretation and it is of relevance. It's from a reliable source and it explains why this is WP:UNDUE. And your very short edit history, account which was just created, looks eerily familiar. Do I really need to waste my time filing an SPI?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
is source which explains the atmosphere in which these kinds of polls take place There is no mention of this poll in the dramatic personal statement of unknown author, who btw implies that majority of population supports being part of Russia again. I am afraid your source doesn't support anything you stated VM--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC).
Generally speaking, to use SPI (most probably sock puppet investigations) is your right. You DO NOT have a right to perform brainless "revenge reverts" [31], [32] of my other edits just because I've dared to question your conduct or views here. THAT's what is really "eery". Phil070707 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
NOW you're gonna start pretending that you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia terms and policies like SPI? A little too late for that, as a quick look at your edit history makes clear.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This is pure WP:SYNTH: using information from source 1 to make OR conclusions about source 2 (and by the way, even this article states that many Crimeans continue to support Russia despite all the odds). I don't understand how can this be UNDUE, since the article only includes the opinions of Russia, Ukraine, and the West, as if Crimea was just a stolen Macguffin that has no opinion of its own (the position of Crimean tatars and Mustafa Dzhemilev may be included as well, I see nothing wrong with that). Buzz105 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Placing results of the polls (as they were) would imply that results of these polls can be interpreted similar to the polls conducted during Scottish independence referendum, 2014, for example. This is not the case for a number of reasons described in many publications. For example, there was no free community discussion of various "pro" and "contra" in Crimea. Moreover, all polls in support of policies by Russian authorities are so unreliable that they became a matter of novels by satirists. Someones calls over the phone and tells: "Hello, Vladimir Petrov, we need to know your opinion. Do you support policies by Putin?" Many journalists have noted that people are afraid to talk. So yes, the numbers provided by these polls are misleading.My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Unless you can present sources that explicitly state the polls are unreliable, this all remains your original research and is of no value for Wikipedia. Phil070707 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It is simple. WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have much occasion to find common cause with certain editors who seem to always take up the Kremlin line on Ukraine-related content, but in this case, I have no objection to including the poll(s), provided the information is presented in a neutral, objective manner. We do have reliable sources reporting on the survey, and our efforts to interpret it are original research (even if the notion that Crimeans may be scared to tell an unknown pollster that they are unhappy with their new Russian overlords hardly seems novel). A small section seems warranted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Not only this is "undue on this" page (agree with RGlouchester) because it was already mentioned in Crimean status referendum, 2014 where such data belong, but there is something fishy in this data. According to this, "63.8% of Crimeans would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status" This is more than 100%! My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"This is more than 100%!" It was a multiple choices poll, and the very issue and the choice you talk about is explained in the very first sentence of the report:For instance, the majority of Crimeans would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia (63.8%), and at the same time – to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights (53.8%)-it simply means they would like to both secede and remain an autonomous republic within Russia.Overall there is nothing wrong or unreliable about stating what reliable sources even before the conflict stated:majority of Crimeans(both Russians and Ukrainian minority) wanted to become part of Russia again.Not my personal view, fact reported by multiple sources, including Western and Ukrainian ones--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Kudzu1, what "Kremlin line" are you referring to? Do you have one specific example of an instance where I tried to insert the 'Kremlin line' into a Wikipedia article? Please note that balance when matters are RS disputed and evidence is weak or contradictory is the Wikipedia line. Thank you for your support on this specific instance, and be bold and make the change in the entry that you think is needed. Do you now start to understand what we discussed earlier, about the massive and very un-Wikipedian POV predominating in this entry?Haberstr (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you take my conditional support on this particular matter for what it is and don't try your luck any further. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You made an ad hominem attack on me. I suggest you either apologize or attempt to substantiate it. If you are unable to do so, you will at least have learned something about NPOV editing by looking at my edits.Haberstr (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
All I've learned, or rather been reminded, is what a smug, insufferable partisan you are. I will apologize to you when you deserve an apology. For now, I'm not holding my breath. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
What if Russia organises a referendum in Warsaw some day? Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Haberstr: Firstly, stop using section headers designed explicitly to generate a sense of hysteria about purported 'suppression' of your personal version of "The Truth" (i.e., "Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.")! Secondly, you've started a new section regarding content already being discussed in an active section above. That is nothing short of WP:POINTy editing practice. What to do when you don't like what consensus on an active thread isn't going your way? Start all over again and pretend that you're bringing a new argument to the table = WP:TE / WP:DE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My heading is factual description of this: 'Why is the Crimean people's point of view on the annexation deliberately being excluded from this entry? The further fact that so many in this space actually are arguing to exclude the Crimean people's point of view, as expressed in RS opinion polls, is a further outrage. Do you have anything to say on the actual issue, excluding RS-sourced sentences on what the Crimeans think of unification with Russia, both at the time of and at the one-year anniversary of the event? Finally, please stop the practice, for pointers ask Volunteer Marek, of mischaracterizing the points of view of everyone who you disagree with. Yes, we all know you can magically cite irrelevant WP subsections and pretend they apply to some unrelated behavior. On one of those countless cites: this section, which appears to have incited a great deal of on-point comment, is not replicating an active section above.Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@MyMoloboaccount: You are engaged in exactly the same activities as is Haberstr. The threaded discussion was underway in an active section above. All you've done is reiterate your same POV arguments (claiming that they're not your POV but some fiddled form of 'The Truth' according to your WP:OR) again = WP:POINTy / WP:DE / WP:TE because you, too, you don't like the consensus understanding of the relevance of these polls. They've been identified as WP:UNDUE. Isn't it just a crying shame that, according to you, the majority of editors are obviously wrong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:, please stop mischaracterizing @MyMoloboaccount: in the same manner as you mischaracterize me. The core issue here is simple: He/she wants to include the poll results, as reported in countless RS. That's all. Now, how is that desire 'POV'? Don't just make ad hominem attacks, substantiate them. If you can't substantiate your attack, it may be a mischaracterization. Things really don't need to become so heated, you can simply state your disagreement on the relevance of the poll, and cite your RS sources or common Wikipedia practice. Take it easy and stop piling up WP cites as if they mean something in the English language. If you can't express your point of view in straightforward English, a WP cite is not a persuasive substitute.Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Haberstr: Fine, I'll give it to you in plain English - both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. That is not a mischaracterisation, it's a statement of fact. How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. This is not the first time you've accused being uncivil (in fact, you've done so over and over and over again, as well as accusing many other editors of the same), but it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here, and in the archives of many, many articles surrounding events in Ukraine, demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Forbes:One year after the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in the Black Sea, poll after poll shows that the locals there are in agreement life with Russia is better than life with Ukraine.

Forbes is a reliable, mainstream newsource and its newest article clearly mentions the polls and public attitude in Crimea as supportive to integration with Russia [33] One year after the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in the Black Sea, poll after poll shows that the locals there — be they Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or Tatars are mostly all in agreement: life with Russia is better than life with Ukraine. We now have several sources from mainstream and reliable sources stating that Crimean population supports Russia and being part of Russian. The attitude of local population is relevant and notable and needs to be included in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just one source - and that source is just an opinion column. It's contradicted by other sources. It's nice that Mr. Rapoza feels this way, but why should we care? In particular it's trivial to find sources which discuss the repression of the Crimean Tatars. You've brought up Amnesty International before, so here you go:

Oh yeah, they're loving it there!

Now. Can we go back to being serious?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Forbes is serious and reliable newspaper. If you believe otherwise, please raise it at WP:RSN.
Yes, but that's just one sourceWe have several polls and sources confirming this.
It's contradicted by other sourcesAlso are you claiming that majority of Crimeans don't support being part of Russia? The sources you provided don't say that at all in the first place.I am not aware of any reliable polls showing majority of Crimeans are not supportive of being part of Russian state. Feel free to provide them.
it's trivial to find sources which discuss the repression of the Crimean TatarsCrimean Tatars are a very small minority in Crimea, whose main population are Russians. Are you claiming that majority of population is made out of Crimean Tatars? I think you confused two different topics.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Molobo, I fear that your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is sparing. I'd ask you to read WP:NEWSORG. Forbes is an RS, and no one here would dispute that. However, opinion pieces that appear in reliable publications are never acceptable for statements of fact. They are only useable for the purpose of describing the opinion of the author, nothing more. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPbox for op-ed writers. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The Forbes article is not an op-ed but it _is_ a blog based at Forbes rather than reporting by Forbes itself. More important, though, the blog reporter cites two RS sources which can and should be included in the 'annexation' article (bold and cite links added):

In June 2014, a Gallup poll with the Broadcasting Board of Governors [34] [PDF] asked Crimeans if the results in the March 16, 2014 referendum to secede reflected the views of the people. A total of 82.8% of Crimeans said yes. When broken down by ethnicity, 93.6% of ethnic Russians said they believed the vote to secede was legitimate, while 68.4% of Ukrainians felt so. Moreover, when asked if joining Russia will ultimately make life better for them and their family, 73.9% said yes while 5.5% said no.

In February 2015, a poll by German polling firm GfK [35] [PDF] revealed that attitudes have not changed. When asked “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?”, a total of 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% answered “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% said they didn’t know, and another 2% said no. Three percent did not specify their position.

Haberstr (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Clearly a reliable source, but it is an opinion piece by a Forbes "contributor", and shouldn't be assigned undue weight. It seems as if some editors here are casting about for excuses to trumpet these poll results (as if the fact of their existence overrides national and international laws, conventions, and agreements), while others look for ways to discredit or explain them away. As I said in the above section, I have no objection to a section on the polling data being included, with reliable sources cited, due weight given, and no excessive editorializing. But then we're left with the question: who the hell is going to write it that way? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, the BBG/Gallup poll is already in the article, and has been. I added it to the Crimean public opinion section. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is good, but the GfK poll should probably be included in that section as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
forbes article on the will of the crimeans
e.g. -
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/
can/should this be built in? This article seems a little... slanted.
50.252.249.155 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)rpt78

It is insultive

According to NPOV, the article must be renamed to "Accetion of Crimea by the Russian Federation" Viktor Š 21:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think the article should be renamed, please use the procedure at WP:RM.
If you want a forum to discuss your views, please find another website. Wikipedi policy says that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda".-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
He is not discussing his own views, and I agree with him/her that the present name violates NPOV. Please assume good faith, be polite, and stop mis-characterizing what other editors are contributing. Wikipedia needs to encourage and appreciate contributions from editors, especially new ones.Haberstr (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The present name was agreed by consensus. You can request a move through proper channels if you want. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is not relevant to my comment. Please criticize editors when they are impolite, assume bad faith, and mischaracterize other editors. We need to assume good faith and make Wikipedia a welcoming and polite place.Haberstr (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The title was not agreed by consensus. It was forced on the rest of us by the majority.Haberstr (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop making random and baseless accusations against other editors. Both Toddy1 and Kudzu1 were acting in good faith and made their responses in as polite terms as possible under the circumstances. And while we're on the topic what makes Wikipedia such an unwelcoming people, it's all the crazy people running around, trying to use the encyclopedia as a platform for their POV, that one constantly has to deal with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Toddy cites Wikipedia policy that it is "not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" in response to Viktor simply suggesting that the article have a different title. Where in what Viktor wrote is there anything even the slightest bit inappropriate for a Wikipedia talk page?Haberstr (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"This article is currently protected from editing" tag is a reasonable replacement for the POV tag.

Thanks for everyone's efforts to put something at the top of this article implicitly recognizing the anti-Wikipedia POV bias of this article. It should of course be a POV tag, but the current tag indicates there are problems with the article, which is much better than nothing.Haberstr (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So glad you are happy with it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The tag basically indicates that there are problems with (some of) the editors, thus they're not allowed to edit until they can get their shit together. Page protection takes no position on the merits of the content dispute. Swarm we ♥ our hive 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the policy is not directed at any specific editor or group of editors. No editors except administrators can edit the page, so all of us are restricted. Although page protection takes no position on the merits of the content dispute, as you said, it does basically recognize that there is a content dispute. Thousands of Wikipedia readers, uninitiated into the nuances of Wikipedia tagging, will just think 'problem page' when they see the current tag. Good, except too bad they can't be told what the problem is, POV.Haberstr (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a breathtaking display of bad faith. One wonders whether it wasn't Haberstr's goal all along to get this sort of tag placed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a bold and mean-spirited accusation. Do you have a shred of evidence for it? Or is this just more of the mean-spirited 'discussion' that people feel free to unleash here? As I said above, I am happy there is now some sort of tag above this article, though if we were following proper 'your momma's Wikipedia' policy it would be a POV tag. That's obviously not bad faith.Haberstr (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It's obvious WP:GAME behavior, as Marek observes. In your estimation, you "won" the edit war you started, because you got a shame tag like the one you were pushing (never mind the real live admin saying explicitly here that it's not an endorsement of you or anyone else). And now you're back here gloating about it. You have a problem with me calling your bad faith actions what they are, huh? Too bad for you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for your accusation of bad faith, which is what WP:GAME behavior requires? Please substantiate your accusation or apologize. Yes, I was somewhat happy there is some sort of tag. So what, where's the bad faith? How is me being somewhat happy that something happened evidence for me causing something to happen? If I'm happy that my football team won a game is that evidence that I caused my football team to win? Please, help me out here, I want to get inside your convoluted thinking, if that's what it is, a bit more. Hopefully, in the end, you and Volunteer will recognize the inappropriateness of and lack of evidence for your accusation and apologize.Haberstr (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You edit-warred over a tag, causing the page to be protected to prevent you from continuing to edit-war over a tag, and now you're gloating about how there's a tag and it makes the article look bad, just like you wanted. The bad faith is quite evident. I'm not going to say sorry for calling you on your shit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't edit-war over a tag, a group of editors edit-warred and violated Wikipedia by removing a tag. It takes more than one to edit war. So, are you now accusing Volunteer Marek and Gloucester of bringing on the current tag? The Wikipedia administrator could have also chosen to sanction individual editors, or to do nothing. How was Volunteer Marek to know that he/she would impose this 'no editing' tag? Yes, I'm happy that there is some sort of tag. Again, so what, where is the bad faith? You're not calling me on anything, you just seem to be angry that something good happened for the NPOV side. And, you're assuming bad faith in violation of explicit Wikipedia policy.Haberstr (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how it was your spate of edit warring which led to article protection, your above statement seems like getting the page protected and tagged was your purpose from the get go. This is extremely bad faithed behavior, and of course disruptive. Please stop trying to WP:GAME the rules.Volunteer Marek (talk)

My purpose was obviously to tag the page as POV. Normally, after that, Wikipedia procedure is to have a good faith discussion on the talk page on how we can change this heavily biased article into an NPOV one. Obviously the POV editors here don't want the article to be NPOV, so normal procedure was not followed and the tag was immediately deleted rather than discussed. In that context, I'm happy the article has some sort of tag at its top, to indicate it is a problem page.Haberstr (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You've managed to hit some kind of trifecta here. You're not only acting in bad faith, you are simultaneously accusing other editors of assuming bad faith, and demanding that they apologize for your own disruptive behavior. By all means, continue... Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Redundant descriptors in lead.

Since I know this is a contentious area to edit I'll explain my reasoning in more detail here. The descriptors in the sentence where all true, however, as most would be aware one can still be non neutral using only the truth. By including things like 'internationally recognised' it hints at that side being in the right (it's basically a halo effect, a bit like marketing 'real food' makes it seem better than 'food'). I would not mind having such descriptors were they necessary, but they are completely redundant. Of course Crimea was internationally recognised as part of Ukraine, that's what it means to annex. Of course the referendum is unconstitutional, that is what it means for it to be disputed. Every annexation, breakaway state etc. is illegal and unconstitutional and so forth, otherwise they wouldn't be annexations or breakaway states. For that reason I think it is undue to include those descriptors in the lead (despite being true) and thus a very subtle form of non-neutral POV. I forgot to log in prior to editing so it is pending. I'll let others decide if it ought to stay instead of judging myself. Hopefully my reasoning doesn't just make sense in my own headHollth (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In this instance, it certainly has nothing to do with the halo effect, but is a reflection of multiple RS as to the predominant global view as to the illegal, military nature of the annexation in peacetime. Annexations are not always constitutionally 'illegal', but are associated with wartime incursions as well as globally recognised treaties after wars. We're not exactly looking at ancient history, or even the period of the expansion of Empires. In this case, we're discussing the 21st century and a complex system of treaties and protocols. According to the overwhelming number of RS on the subject, the nature of the annexation has been internationally condemned in no uncertain terms, therefore removing a salient section of content is the antithesis of WP:NPOV.
According to your rationale, it's a "no one knows who's right and who's wrong" situation. Well, no, the 'truth' is that we have literally thousands of RS attesting to the breach of international law on behalf of the RF (i.e., the RF is absolutely and undeniably in the 'wrong'... and that is what our policy on NPOV tells us to describe. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, it is edited in a contentious, POV manner, and the effort for the halo effect is obvious. NPOV editors, normal Wikipedia editors, can't do anything about it because the anti-Russia editors are too numerous here.Haberstr (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Haberstr, I'll try this again being courteous: please stop using these pages to whine about there being a WP:CABAL. If you truly believe this to be genuinely the case, open an ANI and name your suspects. All it does it create a highly unpleasant atmosphere and a sense of tension where good faith, inexperienced contributors are afraid to state their piece for fear of reprisal, and inexperienced users who aren't familiar enough with policy and guidelines who do or say something silly end up believing the hype because regular editors have grown weary and short tempered. You're so obsessed with your own POV that you can't even believe that editors who don't agree with you could possibly be neutral. Please stop intentionally promoting this toxic atmosphere. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not denying the truth of it being illegal, I'm disagreeing that it is a salient piece of information worthy of the lead. To my mind at least, such descriptors are implied by the context and thus repeating them is much like adding the description of 'real' before food in my above example. Having said that, if it is only me who feels that way then we will have to agree to disagree and it ought to stay since consensus is against me. Hollth (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand what your concern is, Hollth, but I've simply expressed why I don't consider it to be redundant. As to whether it is the general consensus (based on reasonable and rational arguments) isn't up to me to decide. The thread is still new, so there may be more (reasonable) arguments for and against. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If an edit is controversial and contains loaded terms, then editors are perfectly within their rights to revert so it can be subsequently discussed here. I believe Hollth should just go for it whenever s/he wants, really, and reverting them was completely unnecessary. This appears to be the edit in question, for those who were unaware:

Before:

The Russian Federation annexed the territory of Crimea from Ukrainian in March 2014. From the time of the annexation on 18 March 2014, Russia has de facto administered the territory as two federal subjects within the Crimean Federal District; the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. The political crisis surrounding the annexation is referred to as the Crimean Crisis.

After:

The internationally recognised Ukrainian territory of Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014. From the time of the annexation on 18 March 2014, Russia has de facto administered the territory as two federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol—within the Crimean Federal District. The political crisis surrounding the annexation is referred to as the Crimean Crisis.

I will let others judge, not me. Regardless of the NPOV aspect of Hollth's concerns, both versions, in my opinion, may have deviated from MoS guidelines concerning bold titles in the lead. If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence... Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English. I believe it should go like this:

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation from Ukraine took place in March 2014. From the time of the annexation on 18 March 2014, Russia has de facto administered the territory as two federal subjects within the Crimean Federal District; the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. The political crisis between Russia and Ukraine surrounding the annexation is referred to as the Crimean Crisis.

Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I support your NPOV lead. It is fairly similar to the NPOV lead I inserted a few days ago. However, I would modify as follows. I don't believe the reference to the Crimean Crisis needs to be placed in the lead, nor do I think it needs to be in bold:

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation took place on March 18, 2014, although the territory under international law continues to be an autonomous republic of Ukraine. Since the annexation, Russia has de facto administered the territory as two federal subjects within the Crimean Federal District: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

Haberstr (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the title cannot be bolded, per WP:BOLDTITLE:

If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it:

The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy:

The Mississippi River floods in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

Please do not destroy the lead to bold the title. It is against the MoS and against common sense. RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The phrase the title cannot be bolded is a very contentious comment. Wikipedia policy states very clearly that if the article's title does lend itself to being inserted into the opening sentence, then it can be. So, let's see if we can construct a lead that allows the article title in very naturally and easily. I believe I have contributed such a nice, natural lead above. And, of course, if we can get rid of the current blatant 'halo effect' POV lead, all the better, right? Right?Haberstr (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It cannot be without redundancy and lack of fluency. Halt. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you point out any redundancy in my suggested lead? No? Also, I'm sorry but "Halt." is quite a bizarre way to 'converse' with other Wikipedia editors. No, instead we discuss and persuade politely. Yes, you may be in the military, but such commands will be ignored here.Haberstr (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the phrase "internationally recognize", keep in mind that the purpose of the article is to inform readers, not to push somebody's pet views. It *is* significant and informative that the territory was and is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. With all the disinformation and spin out there, it's certainly informative to include this at a very or no cost in terms of readability. Sure, people who are involved in this topic area may think "of course it's internationally recognized as Ukraine!" but I'm not so sure that your average reader will know that (actually I'm not so sure about some of the editors either...)Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I was thinking over Hollth's concern overnight, and was swayed towards discarding it. Now that I've seen examples of alternative proposals, however, I consider them to be exercises in avoiding high profile criticism which overlooks the purpose served by the LEAD per MOS:INTRO.
International recognition is probably one of the most salient aspects surrounding the annexation, therefore to omit it from the lead would be remiss. The controversy and repercussions have by no means just quietly gone away. Nor is 'halo effect' relevant here. Our obligation to reflect RS, and the proposals read as an attempt to dodge what RS have been talking about since the beginning. Per VM, encyclopaedic articles are written on the premise that the reader is not familiar with the subject matter, therefore to remove a primary feature relevant to the TITLE cannot be construed as an NPOV variant on the purpose of the lead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree that with the alternative proposals my criticism disappears. RGloucester's wording is much better, although I suggest grouping Russia's de facto jurisdiction of Crimea and it legally being Ukrainian since those ideas group together more.

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation took place on March 18, 2014. Under international law Crimea continues to be an autonomous republic of Ukraine, although since the annexation, Russia has de facto administered the territory as two federal subjects: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

I would be happy more than happy with the either, since they're only really stylistic differences. User:hollth (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me reiterate why "internationally recognized" is important. Annexation don't have to be forceful and unilateral. In fact, that's why we've decided on this very word in the title, rather than "occupation" or something like that. Under some circumstances annexations can be agreed to by both parties. Amicably, like say with the annexation of Louisiana by the US, or not so amicably, as with the annexation of California. In both those cases though, there was no annexation of territory which the other side and rest of the world saw as still its own. This isn't the case here. Putin grabbed the territory of a sovereign country and that territory was and still is internationally recognized as part of that country. So it's not just that since the annexation the international community continues to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine, it's that at the moment it was seized, it was internationally recognized as part of Ukraine (and not, for example "independent" or whatever bullshit was cooked up to justify it). In other words in violation of international law. So no, it's not a redundancy, it's precision and accuracy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite. Frankly, I'm extremely weary of the POV pushes for some purported form of 'neutrality' which actually ends up misrepresenting what RS say. There have been so many 'compromise' terms and presentations foisted on editors that we've simply started to turn our interpretation of the sources into pap in order to accommodate everyone who complains about the representation of the Russian Federation and its actions as being "Russophobic" and "not fair/neutral". In which case, let's just scrap those damned corrupt Western sources and reiterate what RT has to say on the matter. After all, RT is all about goodness and niceness and truth, revealing the corrupt West for what it is, ergo the RF are the good guys, while the West are the bad guys. I mean, look, RT interviewed Aaron Swartz; Russia is protecting Edward Snowden; etc. = they have no agenda and are doing it all out of the goodness of their deep, humanitarian hearts... and those insightful interviews with Russian dissidents by RT are... er... oh, where are they?
Apologies all, but I've had enough of kowtowing to pressure from people who are completely naive (that's a euphemism, folks) about the socio-economic order of the world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That Crimea continues to be internationally recognised as part of Ukraine is retained in all the alternative forms presented. I would say it is inferred that Crimea was recognised as Ukrainian before the annexation by using 'continues' rather than 'is' and the lack of any information that indicates the international recognition has changed. Had the recognition not been in favour of Ukraine at the moment of the annexation it would be noted in the lead. Hollth (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is contingent on semantics, Hollth. The content of the article is not based on inference but, rather, on that which is presented to the reader. For the purposes of an encyclopaedic article, 'implied'/'inference' is too abstract an interpretation to expect an uninformed reader to decipher. Encyclopaedic articles should not anticipate that the reader to delve into the subtext. We can't assume that the average reader understands that there are treaties determined by international policies and laws. Nevertheless, I'm amenable to the use of 'continues to be' understood (in globally accepted legal terminology applied to sovereignty) as being the sovereign territory of Ukraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall anyone in this thread demanding we abandon Western sources in favor of RT and similar media outlets. No need to exaggerate other editors' concerns like that. The thing about the internationally recognised part is that it is an unneeded precision which suggests a certain "X vs. the World" approach: If country X does something to country Y that goes against supposed international standards, then something negative is being hinted at, which is not really required in the (first paragraph of) the lead section. No euphemism here; it's just that this part of the article can certainly live without it. But quite honestly I have no solid opinion on the matter, so whether this part stays or not is of no importance to me. I just think that all editors are allowed to remove content that was not supported by any consensus without being reverted by someone, eventually forcing them to come here where they should expect some resident editor to show up then throw around all kinds of WP abbreviations, often misusing them (unintentionally), to validate certain controversial edits. This isn't how the BRD process works around here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Iryna I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but, in comparing the current to the alternatives, I disagree. One wouldn't assume nuclear weapons were used because there is nothing stating otherwise, so I cannot see how one would assume that Crimea was recognised as anything other than Ukrainian at, before or anytime after the annexation simply because there is nothing to the contrary. The second clause, in all the alternatives, explicitly states that Crimea continues to be internationally recognised as Ukrainian, which ought to be sufficient. After all, what is there to make one think otherwise? Hollth (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That isn't actually the issue as regards a WP:LEAD. I've read the lead (yet again) suppressing the 'internationally recognised'. Upon removing the qualifier, in its current format, and the way in which the text flows the second paragraph, it serves as a dedication of the circumstances of the annexation according to the RF rationale, de-emphasising what RS have been focussing on as being the high profile, salient issue.
Fitzcarmalan, you've also appeared to misunderstood the difference between a "straw man" argument and my throwing a weary hissy-fit (I'm not concerned as to which areas of Wikipedia you dedicate most of your time to, I've been involved with all articles surrounding developments in Ukraine over the past year and a half, therefore am highly aware of who the regulars are).
As regards how BRD works, please take a look at the history of the article and tell me how many of the contributors developing this article even bother to follow it. It's a high traffic article following BRRRR. I'm sure you have enough experience with working on contentious articles to be aware of the under-utilisation of talk pages, which is why I've been encouraging Hollth to engage and speak up since s/he opened their account recently. Hollth is the genuine article when it comes to being a good faith editor... and BRD is being adhered to. No one has been denied their right to edit boldly. By the same token, discussion is vital. I am making my arguments for what I understand to be genuinely NPOV. If you are utterly convinced that this part of the article isn't necessary, please make a case for it rather than use it as an opportunity to critique editors consistently working on this subject area for not following policies and guidelines to a T. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words Iryna. From your first paragraph I suspect we are not on the same page. I thought we had established the alternative forms to be superior to the one I had first proposed and that we were now discussing whether the current lead was better or worse than one of those? Hollth (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
took place on March 18, 2014 is a simplification, it was a series of events.
If something isn't internationally recognised did it take place in the same way as something internationally recognised? Compare After the establishment of the state of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital city, not took place.Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it took place on March 18 according to RS. It is simple but not a simplification. Think of it this way: before that date Crimea was not part of Russia. On that date it became part of Russia. (Yes, the process leading up to annexation took place over many weeks or months.) In fact, for a few days before March 18, Crimea was a de facto independent state, but that fact is not allowed into the POV version of the story.Haberstr (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It did if you control the language. Do you?Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Hollth. I hope you don't feel that the discussion you initiated is simply being ignored. That's certainly not the case. As you can see, other arguments have been brought up as to why the structure of the lead shouldn't be changed or, at the least, needs to be rewritten to accommodate particular features of the annexation in an explicit manner. Whether or not this is best placed as the opening sentence is something worthy of further collaborative discussion. Unfortunately, such discussion has been 'interrupted' in a rather dramatic manner. Knowing the other editors who began to engage prior the talk page being sidetracked, they'll all be happy to continue deliberations once things have quietened down, and provocation doesn't incite knee-jerk reactions. Hopefully, you'll bear with this issue being put on short term hold until it can be discussed civilly. I realise that, for an inexperienced editor, this would be a daunting experience. Cheers for (the very short term) now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_5&oldid=1142390352"