Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Suggested revision: An NPOV lead instead of the clumsy POV lead.

A Good NPOV lead:

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.

The current Clumsy, POV lead:

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[reference]—within the Crimean Federal District. The political crisis surrounding the annexation is referred to as the Crimean Crisis.

There are several important differences between my proposed Good lead and the current Clumsy one: (1) The clumsy lead in its first words fronts the 'internationally recognized as part of Ukraine' aspect of the matter, which is of primary importance to anti-Russian ideologues, while the Good lead in its first words fronts the "annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation," since that is NPOV, it's what this article is ostensibly about and it's what Wikipedia style demands. (2) The Good lead bolds the title of the article in the first sentence, which is what Wikipedia style manual recommends:

Shortcut
Shortcut

. It "easily and naturally" uses the article title in the first sentence, and so bolds it, and that's what Wikipedia wants us to do ("include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English"). I'm not sure why doing this is apparently a controversy. (3) The Clumsy lead for no apparent reason decides not to state in the first sentence that the annexation took place on March 18, 2014. This forces a wordy second sentence to state this fact. The Good lead simply states March 18 in the first sentence, where that fact naturally fits. (4) The Clumsy lead's second sentence begins with the wordy "From the time of ..." while the Good lead replaces this with "Since". Also in the second sentence, the Clumsy lead includes two unattractive long dashes, while the Good lead replaces those with a single colon.Haberstr (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose – You've already proposed this above. Why did you open a new section? Is this a form of forum-shopping? Your proposed lead is no good. It is clumsy, it isn't fluent, and it does not make sense. WP:BOLDTITLE demands that we make the sentence as fluid as possible, and to do so requires that we do not bold the title. Bold titles are not required, and are in fact discouraged when they harm the fluency of the sentence. The annexation was a series of events, not one event. It was merely finished on the 18th of March 2014. There is no reason to remove "internationally recognised", and it is notable that your proposed version tries to hide the fact that Crimea is and was a part of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As usual, tendentious angry language. Calm down and assume good faith. This entry is a suggested change, under our new regime where only administrators can edit this article. It is not about "Redundant descriptors in lead," the previous article where I made reference to the Good lead. By the way, I _did_ place this entry here to prod you to tell us why you oppose Wikipedia policy and don't want the article title bolded in the lead. So your sincere argument is that the Clumsy lead is fluid and the Good lead is not? I find that incredible. On the issue of when the annexation of Crimea took place, you're simply being counter-factual. The process leading up to the annexation is one thing, but the annexation itself definitely took place on March 18, 2014, according to all RS. As for your bizarre accusation, "your proposed version tries to hide the fact that Crimea is and was a part of Ukraine," you perhaps didn't see that my version says this: "although the territory under international law continues to be an autonomous republic of Ukraine." Based on the preceding, I have to ask: did you in fact read the Good lead before you attacked it?Haberstr (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I noticed what seems to be bad faith on your part. While you attack one lead, the Good lead, for stating "March 18, 2014" as the date of annexation, you say nothing about the Clumsy lead, which states: "From the time of the annexation on 18 March 2014". So, are you sincerely opposed to stating the date of annexation as March 18, 2014, or are you just in bad faith opposed to anything I propose, even when it is exactly the same substantively as (but far less wordy than) the Clumsy lead?Haberstr (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, but by all means, keep suggesting the same thing over and over and over again, less than 24 hours after your tendentious WP:EDITWAR behavior resulted in heightened page protections. It sure makes you look like you're acting in good faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Kudzu, this is a proposed revision, directed ultimately at Wikipedia administrators, which requires a new section. Aside from attacking me for proposing a change, do you have any substantive criticisms of the Good lead compared to the Clumsy one? For example, why do you prefer "From the time of" over "Since"? Just curious to see if a real argument exists for keeping such clumsy wordiness.Haberstr (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer, what specifically is not NPOV about the proposed lead? What specifically is clumsy or convoluted about the proposed lead? Do you also oppose Wikipedia policy of bolding the article title in the first sentence? Do you also think From the time of is less clumsy and less convoluted than Since?
What is clumsy? How about the first sentence.
The internationally recognised Ukrainian territory of Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014.
Boom. Short, to the point, statement of fact, nothing confusing here. Compare with:
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...
I have to read that twice to figure out what it's saying. It's convoluted with that "although" in there. It's not exactly a run on sentence (it has that "although" in it) but it suffers from all the reasons why one would want to avoid run on sentences. The fact that the beginning clause of the next sentence ("Since the annexation...") is written as if it could fit in with the first sentence - so someone reading fast would get even more confused - doesn't help matters either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"Boom" doesn't mean best. You can have slightly longer sentences, with an although in the middle, and that's still fluid and at times elegant English. In any case, there is nothing clumsy about either first sentence, but the Clumsy lead has two flaws: it doesn't include the title of the article in the lead even though it can be done smoothly and naturally, and it doesn't front 'the annexation of Crimea', which is what the article is about (!), instead choosing for POV reasons to front "internationally recognized." I notice you haven't defended From the time of against Since. Why is that? In good faith, wouldn't you think Since is the better choice? You also have said nothing about the repetitiveness of the Clumsy lead, because it chooses not to say "March 18, 2014" in the first sentence.Haberstr (talk)
Another revealing comparison: the current, Clumsy lead waits until word 9 to state 'annexed/annexation' but the Good lead gives it to us in word 2.Haberstr (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and it's worth mentioning that the proposal itself is ... clumsy, in its obvious attempt at manipulating the audience by calling the proposer's preferred version "A Good NPOV lead" (sic) and the non-preferred version "Clumsy, non-POV lead". If you just made a minimal effort at even trying to appear neutral you'd have called it "Current" and "Proposed" and left it at that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not neutral.Haberstr (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is the self-same proposal still under discussion above. I have nothing more to add than the arguments against changes to the content of the lead in that section! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
When you say "above" why don't you provide a link? I have no idea what you're referring to, and I have asked repeatedly that you specify this accusation. Are you referring to an archived talk page? I have never proposed this revision to the talk page before, so I don't know what you're getting at. If you discover you are mistaken, then please withdraw and apologize for the accusation that I am repetitively proposing this revision.Haberstr (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revision: Current "Crimean public opinion" sub-section delays the key information and is confusing and poorly written

WP:SNOW. There's no consensus for this proposal. As that has long since been apparent, this thread has simply devolved into a war of words, and continuing this debate is a waste of everyone's time at this point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Current sub-section:

A joint survey by American government agency Broadcasting Board of Governors and polling firm Gallup was taken during April 2014.[221] It polled 500 residents of Crimea. The survey found that 82.8% of those polled believed that the results of the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, whereas 6.7% said that it did not. 73.9% of those polled said that they thought that the annexation would have a positive impact on their lives, whereas 5.5% said that it would not. 13.6% said that they did not know.[221] A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation.[222] Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise the results.[222]

Proposed sub-section:

In an April 2014 Gallup poll, 73.9% of Crimeans polled said they believed that the Russia annexation would have a positive effect on their lives, while 5.5% disagreed. Also, 82.8% said the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, while 6.7% said it did not. The poll of 500 Crimea residents was jointly conducted by Gallup and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.[221] The survey found that 82.8% of those polled believed that the results of the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, whereas 6.7% said that it did not.[221] In a Pew Research Centre poll released on 8 May 2014, 91% of Crimeans polled said they thought that the Crimean status referendum vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise its results.[222]

This sub-section is supposed to be primarily, if not almost entirely, about Crimean opinion on the annexation. That means we need to provide that information to readers as soon as possible within reason. Note how the current sub-section delays that critical information 57 words into the entry! (Most of the first 56 words contain relatively unimportant background information that obviously should be placed at the end not the beginning of the sub-section.) And, before the sub-section gets to the '73.9%' of Crimeans who felt positive about the annexation, it inserts the side-issue percentage, that 82.8% think the results of the referendum reflected Crimeans' real views. Confusing! (Not that this number is not important, but it should not be placed first, before readers find out what almost all came to the sub-section to find out.) This sub-section must be very frustrating for any normal reader to read, since he or she comes there to find out what Crimeans think of the annexation. In the proposed sub-section, the key '73.9%' number is the 7th word, not the 57th. The passage also generally improves the quality of the writing. For example, compare how long the following takes to get to what readers came for, the 91% number-- A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation.[222] Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% ... with the proposed sub-section: In a Pew Research Centre poll released on 8 May 2014, 91% ... Finally, the proposed subsection deletes the unnecessary paragraphing.Haberstr (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE – Same old PoV pushing by Haberstr. Polls require context. Taking statistics out of context is a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty and PoV pushing. That's what you propose to do. The methodology of the poll is not "unimportant". I've never read a poll report that did not put the methodology in the first few pages. The data follows the methodology. In fact, if you look at the source, that's what it does. RGloucester — ☎ 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again, I ask you to calm down and assume good faith. Seriously, "a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty"? You of course need to apologize to me for assuming bad faith. My proposed sub-section is simply the normal RS style for reporting poll results. There are millions of results, but here are a few, and note that two are from Gallup itself: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. In none of these is the background and context put first. Normal NPOV writers and editors front the critical information that readers want and place the context in the following sentences, for common-sense and reader-oriented reasons. Of course, if these were not mainstream polls by the most respected RS polling firms in the world, more context should be fronted. But there's absolutely nothing suspect or non-RS about the polls, the polling firms, or the results.Haberstr (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No one said anything was "suspect". However, all polls must be taken in context. Your "proposed" section is an attempt at PoV pushing. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that telling another user to "calm down" when that other user is obviously calm is obnoxious and may be perceived as an attempt to provoke other editors. Haberstr, please stop telling us what your perceptions of other people's mental and emotional states are. We don't care. And people might be insulted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
All my version does is re-order the content so it serves the readers well. It has nothing to do with POV, but you keep talking that up without substantiating it. You have seen the NPOV RS way of reporting polling data -- it always fronts the actual results and puts the context afterward -- but you're speechless about that, indicating that you haven't looked at those links or that you know their way and my way is the better way but are having difficulty facing that fact.Haberstr (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Support, sounds reasonable. Additionally we should add as a background the pre Crimean Crisis poll results from previous years showing clear support of majority of both Russian and Ukrainian population of Crimea for becoming part of Russia in some form again.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent suggestion.Haberstr (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: POV-pushing is seemingly all this tendentious editor does, and this "proposal" is no different. I see no reason to discuss it any further. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Tell us what specifically is POV-pushing, or we'll just put your accusations on the ad hominem pile, which is getting very tall. And I'm curious, why do you call my proposed revision a "proposal" rather than a proposal? Assume good faith!Haberstr (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As a rule, I assume good faith until given a reason to do otherwise. Fool me once... -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And now you'll have to cite that one incident when I engaged in bad faith. Alternatively, you could apologize for the accusation.Haberstr (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Couple threads up from here, champ. The one with you bragging about how you gamed the system by edit-warring over the tag. I'm sure you remember. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So now your only recourse is to lie about what I wrote up in that section.Haberstr (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Haberstr, it would be one thing if you were even a tad bit subtle, but you're not. You're not fooling anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And now you'll have to apologize for not assuming good faith. Quite a group of you has put yourselves into that category.Haberstr (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is "our"? Is it a group of some sort? Does it include me? MyMoloboaccount? These two ad hominem but very serious accusations, repeated over and over again against those who are not part of "our", have helped to make this talk page a very toxic environment. Please substantiate your accusations or apologize for having made them. On topic, which is where I always prefer to be, do you have any substantive criticisms of my revision, which provides the critical information to readers by word 7 instead of 57?Haberstr (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"our" is all the editors active on this article, including those who've told you repeatedly that your proposed changes are not constructive and your behavior disruptive. And since you're wasting your own time, as well as everyone else's, yes, "our" includes you as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is "our"? Does it include me? MyMoloboaccount? The ad hominem accusation of gaming is very serious, and making such accusations can easily turn a talk page into a very toxic place, especially for newcomers to Wikipedia. Please substantiate your accusation or apologize for having made it. On topic, do you have any substantive reasons for opposing this, frankly, innocuous but reader-friendly revision?Haberstr (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Haberstr: Why are you repeating exactly the same comment I made back in March about your use of smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of a toxic environment surrounding this article, and any other article you involve yourself in surrounding events in Ukraine? Being the elephant in the room does not make for any qualitative arguments for NPOV being compromised: it simply makes you the elephant in the room. Unsatisfied with that, you keep creating new sections to 'discuss' (and I use the term loosely) content already under discussion in active threads, thereby alienating new, good faith editors by interrupting the discussion process because you've contrived to make it as openly ridiculous as possible to try to resolve genuine concerns by completely splattering the talk page with your incessant accusations about some evil cabal silencing dissent, wrapped in ingenuous cri de coeur pleas about the injustice of it all. In short, along with every other tactic you've pulled, your strategy is pure, unadulterated gaming.
Even here, you're canvassing relentlessly by mentioning MyMoloboaccount - ultimately, asking him to risk being dragged before ARBEE along with you - or anyone who has only just skimmed under the radar for behavioural problems in the hopes of perpetuating the illusion of imbalance exactly as you've done in the past. Please note that I prefer not to rake over those matters here (the relevant details being currently exhibited on your own talk) unless you consider that these should be aired on an article talk page. You have tried to WP:BAIT editors on your own twisted target list time and time again to the end of getting it your way. You refuse to ever back away because you don't have any interest in the project (RS may change entirely on any given subject as the project evolves!), only what you believe to be "The Truth" at a given moment in time. I don't care how many times you invoke ad hominem because that's complete and utter c-r-ubbish. You have serious issues to work through in order to demonstrate that you're WP:HERE. Stop disrupting the process of good faith discussion as to how best to present content where editors are presenting genuinely well thought-out consideration to take into account, and being respectful of each other's intelligent assessment regardless of whether they favour a particular POV or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all, do you have any on-point comments on the two revisions? This is the first time I've even mentioned this proposed revision, and I have no idea why you seem to be so upset (and wordy) about it. Why not simply state why you dislike my version, and why you like the other version? Okay, on to your ad hominemn attacks. 1. If there is such a March comment, please link to it. 2. The accusation of canvassing is silly; canvassing for what, exactly? 3. Don't blame the victims: the toxic environment is being created primarily by many times repeated ad hominem attacks on me, now, but on other NPOV editors in the past. I assume you know what ad hominem means. 4. Regarding your statement, "'discuss' (and I use the term loosely)": this is an assumption of bad faith. Is there any evidence for such a corrosive, toxic-environment-creating assumption? Once again, what about my suggested revision and initial discussion indicates that I didn't and don't 'really' intend to discuss the two versions? 5. You state that this suggested revision is under active discussion in other talk sections, but it is not. 6. You have accused me of intentionally making "the discussion process ... as openly ridiculous as possible," but all I see is a straightforward, very normal suggested revision. Again, can you help me? If you were proposing to revise a paragraph, how would you word things differently? 7. You've brought up "completely splattering the talk page with your incessant accusations about some evil cabal silencing dissent," but I have not in this or the preceding subsection. 8. I consider "asking him to risk being dragged before ARBEE along with you" to be a threat against myself and MyMoloboaccount, the one person who made a non-tendentious, non-mean-spirited response to my somewhat innocuous proposed revision here. Threats against people you have a POV conflict with are not a way to create a non-toxic, welcoming environment here. 9. Assuming you have no inside administrator information, I don't appreciate the groundless public accusation that I have "just skimmed under the radar for behavioural problems." 10. So you're referring mysteriously and negatively to "those matters" which you prefer not to "rake over," I see, very subtle of you. 11. You provide no evidence for the following serious accusation: "You have tried to WP:BAIT editors." 12. You provide no evidence for the following serious accusation: "You refuse to ever back away because you don't have any interest in the project." 13. "I don't care how many times you invoke ad hominem because that's complete and utter c-r-ubbish." So, you don't think providing evidence for your accusations is important? In good faith, can you help me understand what you mean when you say that 'ad hominem' is rubbish? 14. "You have serious issues to work through in order to demonstrate that you're WP:HERE." You haven't informed me of a single one of those 'serious issues'. I have proposed a revision to the Public opinion in Crimea section. It seems fairly innocuous to me. I don't get what you're on about, frankly. 15. Why do you think the following: "Stop disrupting the process of good faith discussion as to how best to present content ..." How could my current proposal be any less disruptive? 16. Are you proposing that you and other POV editors have been respectful toward my proposed revision of the Public opinion in Crimea sub-section? Have you read their comments? ... Okay, that's enough on the irrelevant, unimportant 'talk pagey' stuff. Hopefully my proposal will receive a little more constructive criticism and/or we can just move on to other proposed revisions.Haberstr (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's move on. Your proposed revision seems about as likely to get consensus at this point as Putin is to give back Crimea. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Haberstr: The diff for your repetition was provided in the very first line. Take a look at "...the illusion of a toxic environment...". I've said my piece in spades, and you've been given the 'no consensus' response in no uncertain terms. The fact that you're so busy posting further comments apparently without having bothered to read(??!) responses to earlier comments by you is further testimony to your disruptive editing patterns. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose to both versions. The results of these polls are highly unreliable at best (for the reasons already explained on this page - see above) and therefore should not be included at all in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No, RS say that the results are reliable. You cannot prioritize your OR over RS. If Gallup did not stand behind the results, then that very prestigious and trusted organization would inform its readers of the potential unreliability in its reporting of the results. The results, by the way, also reflect RS polling going back a couple decades in Crimea.Haberstr (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear then, you believe the Crimean people's RS-confirmed opinion on the annexation to Russia does not deserve to be in this article on the Annexation of Crimea by Russia. And your reasoning is that you believe (your OR is) that the RS for those opinions are "highly unreliable," but RS polling organizations are not informing the public of that fact. I respect your right to have the preceding point of view, but it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy if such opinions had control over editing of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article.Haberstr (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Making and reporting any polls is based on the assumption that people: (a) freely express their views without fear of reprisals, and (b) they are informed on the subjects they were asked about. None of that was true during these polls according to multiple RS. I believe that results of these polls are misleading and undue on this page (the polls are currently included in several other pages and are not directly related to the military takeover, which is the subject of this page). My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, your contention is based on this being WP:DUE, whereas there has been consensus that it is not only WP:UNDUE, but is being deployed as a tactic for WP:GEVAL and unabashed POV-pushing. It would also serve in your interests to respond to queries levelled at other editors (myself) as to your lack of courtesy in even bothering to acknowledge responses, so please respond to my ping here, otherwise I can only construe as being an intentional dismissal of something it doesn't serve your interests to address. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Presumably we've had enough of this, and we can close down this discussion. I'd request that editors refrain from creating alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny. RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, who is this "we" you refer to? The writing by a small group of editors above is a striking display of mean-spiritedness and bad faith. I will bring this up at a higher level and hopefully several editors will be prodded to change their behavior toward Wikipedia civility standards. We need to make talk pages welcoming places rather than places of verbal harassment and abuse.Haberstr (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This has been explained to you already. "We" means wikipedia editors active on this page. You keep making baseless accusations and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about "mean-spiritedness" and "bad faith" - and making unfounded accusations is sanctionable - but are not bringing anything new to the table. You have been told repeatedly over and over and over and over again to cease insulting other editors or accusing them of things which aren't true. You have completely failed to listen to these requests. And then you complain that people have a hard time assuming good faith towards you? Really? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please be accurate 1: "We" does not mean Wikipedia editors active on this page. Please be accurate 2: I did bring something new to the table, a suggested edit to the public opnion surveys paragraph, for which I've received one helpful, 'normal' comment, by molobaccount. Finally, Volunteer Marek, you may benefit from reading the following essay: "Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack."[6].Haberstr (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Finally, Halberst, you may benefit from visiting Russia. I don't discuss local problems regarding California or Japan because I lack experience, why do you discuss Crimean problems? Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit-war and no discussion

An edit-war (over the inclusion of an additional infobox in a sub-section) has now forced this article into protection twice. Multiple parties on both sides have participated in the reverts, and several of them have used edit summaries charging their opponents with editing without consensus on talk – but, in all these days, not a single one of all these people, from either side of the issue, has seen fit to actually start discussing anything here. I can see no older discussion touching on this infobox issue further up on this page either.

Needless to say, this is unacceptable, and if the parties concerned don't turn up here and get their act together soon, there will be lengthy blocks on both sides the next time any reverting occurs after protection expires. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought the discussion about multiple infoboxes had already taken place. Looking through the archives, it seems I was mistaken, that was a different Ukraine related article where the same issue came up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it happened at Republic of Crimea. Someone tried to do the same thing there. RGloucester — ☎ 22:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is very strange. An IP was trying in insert a country infobox, but this article is not about the country of Crimea, but about annexation (and Crimea is not an independent country). This is an obviously wrong infobox. I am really surprised why two other contributors decided to support this IP. So, unless there are any serious objections to removing this infobox, I would suggest to remove permanent protection of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Crimea is not considered a disputed territory"

Contrary to what is currently written in the Background section Russia, at least officially, did not consider the territory of Crimea of being a subject of any dispute. Radio Liberty published a video of Putin's interview from 2008 where he explicitly states that, adding that "Russia has long recognized the borders of modern day Ukraine". Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox casulties

The infobox states that on the Russian side one "Crimean SDF trooper" was killed. What is "Crimean SDF trooper" and where is a supporting references for that identification? It is known that there were so called Russian "Kazaky" from Volgograd who were armed. Just because he was fighting on the opposite side of the Ukrainian military it does not automatically qualifies him as a member of self-defense force. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Any material not supported by reliable sources can and should be removed per WP:V. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Crimean public opinion forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/

MAR 21, 2015 @ 10:03 AM 113,824 VIEWS

new statistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.119.233.97 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussed at length above. It's not new, nor is there anything more to discuss. Please have the courtesy to read talk pages before posting comments. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I suggest a small note on the reaction of the Catholic Church. The annexation of Crimea is not yet taken into account by the Catholic hierarchy. The Latin rite Catholics of Crimea still belong to the diocese of Odessa-Simferopol which is a suffragan of the archdiocese of Lviv. The Byzantine rite Catholics belong to the Ukrainian Catholic Archiepiscopal Exarchate of Crimea, which is a suffragan of the archeparchy of Kiev. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal commentary added to text and a misreading of the source

This edit by 94.175.101.29 made two additions to the text, shown in bold below:

  1. On 6 March, Ukraine's acting President, Oleksander Turchinov, stated that "The authorities in Crimea are totally illegitimate, both the parliament and the government. They are forced to work under the barrel of a gun and all their decisions are dictated by fear and are illegal."[1] It should be noted that Oleksander Turchinov now works closely with far right neo nazi militia leader Andriy Biletsky, commander of the Azov Battalion so his opinion is biased.
  2. In December 2014, Ukraine halted all train and bus services to Crimea making life very difficult for people there.[2]

No 1, appears to be uncited personal commentary.

No 2, is a misreading of the source, which says that "Western sanctions make life difficult".

I agree with 31.49.212.71 deleting comment No 1. I have deleted comment No 2 because it is a misreading of the cited source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Crimean authorities work under barrel of a gun - Ukraine leader". Reuters. 6 March 2014. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
  2. ^ "Ukraine conflict: Crimea hit by shortages". BBC News. 8 January 2015.
@Toddy1: Yes, I followed the edits and would have done the same myself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Title

Surely Russian annexation of Crimea would be a more concise title, and closer to what most sources say. Shall we move it? bobrayner (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. This is the SECOND annexation of Crimea by Russia. The first was in the 18th century. Don't get ahead of yourself. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, because in such context, it could mean that the Russians have annexed Crimea, not that it was specifically annexed by the Russian Federation. This is the case where keeping it simple doesn't work. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Russian victory"?

The problem I personally have with this statement is that while for the Russian administration, the event has been perceived as a military operation, people in Crimea did not know that it in fact was one. On numerous eyewitness accounts, nobody knew who the "little green men" really were, the locals were only told that these men were there to "help". There also has not been any resistance from any level. I would perfectly well understand the phrase "The decisive victory of the Putin regime" were there any oppression in Crimea. But this was not the case.
Henceforth, I am going to rewrite the phrase "Russian victory" to "Decisive triumph of the Putin government", but you can revert it, and feel free to argue here. I hope will all find a suitable compromise. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Decisive triumph of the Putin government" sounds like a Pravda headline. "Russian victory" is simple, objective, and accurate. I don't see any reason to change it. And everyone knew who the "little green men", who spoke with Russian accents, used Russian military equipment, and operated with the full political support of the Russian government, really were. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "Russian victory" is really appropriate, either. There was no real confrontation. It is an odd framing of the situation that lacks nuance. It is simpler to say "Russia seized and annexed Crimea", or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, tbh, my previous statement was brought there only to get someone's attention here. It was a one minute thought too. I'm definitely not agreeing with "Russian victory", but I'm thinking there are ways to sum it up to 2-3 neutral words, like, perhaps, "Crimea becomes part of Russia"? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV description is "seized and annexed" by the RF per international law. There's no 'victory' when you send in massive military might to oust the internationally recognised nation-state that a republic was appended to. Any post-annexation charades of referendums are exactly that: revisionism. Any concepts of 'victory' are not recognised - and have never been described as such by RS - by the majority of the international community. Any contributors/editors who actually understand what NPOV means, are well aware of the fact that we follow reliable secondary sources as to how we describe any topics broached. Aside from WP:BIASED sources, the "annexation", as much as it recognises de facto transferral of centralised power, does not describe the annexation as being anything outside of a premeditated, illegal, and opportunistic military takeover. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you can't rely on "neutrality" while clearly propagating your own perspective into the situation. There is no way that any source ever consider words like "ouster", "opportunistic" and "takeover" neutral. This is your own point of view at work here, well, maybe yours and that of several other editors. And thus, it is indeed bias. By the logic of common sense. Moreover, when you're referring to 'international laws', what exactly do you mean? The UN charter? I know that document well and it doesn't mention anything on recognition of annexations, other than self-proclamation of sovereign or thought to be sovereign states. In fact, by that very document, any referendum would be considered de jure legal. Only an assembly of individuals, who think that "majority determines the outcome and the interpretation of the laws" ("might makes right", anyone?) can in fact propagate their own perspective as 'international' and as 'majoritary'. On this, I'd like to stop debating on whether or not whom went there and military took over what, please. In a nutshell, I find my last wording as neutral as possible. "becomes part". That is all the readers need to know, perhaps. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Whydoesitfeelsogood: Nope, "becomes part" is not WP:NPOV: it's WP:GEVAL. We go by how reliable secondary sources describe the circumstances. 'Becoming part of' is not in keeping with the sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Only because you think it's WP:GEVAL. Editors aren't mindless machines. Agreed with RS backup, thou. If an RS states it, then anyone please link and proof. And we'd clear. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the infobox should state "Russian victory". Articles on similar operations have such statements:

From a military point of view the Russian operation was a great success. Surprise was achieved. Deception operations were extremely successful. Western signatories of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances were made to look like the Wizard of Oz.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1, you're bringing definitively historical events to the table as precedents. This article is within the scope of WP:RECENTISM. Regardless or not of whether we all believe ourselves to have the ability to predict the outcome, there is nothing on which to base our predictions other than WP:OR... or are we heading towards WWIII/the global economic system bottoming out/the end of history? We're simply not in a position to say that we're home and hosed here. If I were to engage in personal opinion over the annexation, I could just as easily say that this is the beginning of something much, much bigger... or it could peter out and just be accepted as part of the win/lose situations that everyone makes a lot of noise about being fair or unfair, but accepted as how it panned out. Again, I'll invoke RECENTISM. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, therefore we can't approach any subject matter as if we know that the current outcome of recent events is an absolute. Given more time (a year or so), I might !vote for "Russian victory" as the outcome. At this point in time, we don't know where political (or, should I say 'economic') pressure is going to take us. On top of this, I agree with RGloucester that such wording is inappropriate: this was not a 'war' but an outright takeover. If we were dealing with the War in Donbass, the use of 'victory' as regards campaigns could be deemed to be appropriate. In this context, it simply isn't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Except those said examples don't go into listing all the details. Remove them and "Russian victory" simple could apply. Albeit with some elaboration. Regarding the military point, I don't know if you heard, but many Russians still don't think that Russia has carried out the operation. They think that it was a coordinated move between Crimea and their own government. As in, really, "Putin government victory in Crimea". I'm not joking. Neither they think that there has been any military operation or operations ever at stake. This has nothing to do with the "Result" subsection of course, I'm just implying how much divergence would both Russian and English articles have on the same event. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That the Russian government lies to its own people is nothing new. It was the same in communist times - for example Russian troops invading Czechoslovakia in 1968 were described as liberators. The Soviet Union's German ally did the same - claiming in 1939 that English had sank the passenger liner SS Athenia, when it was really sank by the German submarine U-30.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
With the minor annotation of the fact that the USSR was not only "Russia", and among the Soviet troops supporting one of regimes of Czechoslovakia were many Ukrainians, Moldavs and Poles. The bit "USSR = Russia" is exactly what the Western propaganda wants you to think. But since the English WP is a Western contribution project, there is no use debating it. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In order to better understand our Russian contributors, I read not only news from a range of democratic countries, but also news from rt.com and themoscowtimes.com. Then I become less surprised by their edits. Lklundin (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Whydoesitfeelsogood: As a new user, please allow me to provide you with a few points regarding how Wikipedia is edited:
1) Having added "Decisive triumph of the Putin government" is not an acceptable method by which to draw editor's attention. It is known as WP:GAMING and WP:POINTy. Please don't engage in such tactics: WP:BRD is used only where you believe the bold change you are making is the appropriate change you wish to make.
2) The top of talk pages carry templates indicating correct procedure for editing and discussion. As you can see by the top of this page, this article is controversial, falls under arbitration sanctions, and asks that contributors read through the archives before bringing new concerns here for discussion.
For myself, I'm content to leave the section blank (per RGloucester's edit). Regular editors have been caught up in this, and all of the other articles surrounding events in Ukraine for a long, long time. Frankly, I've had enough of renewed edit warring and having to resurrect articles, consensus, etc. from across these articles: all of these issues have been raised in spades (with supporting RS) on a massive number of talk pages. If you really want me to bring an entire page+ of articles to demonstrate the use of pejorative descriptors as being the norm, I'll do so under sufferance. Again, I suggest that you read WP:NPOV carefully. If any incident is known as a "massacre", a "military takeover" as RS WP:COMMONNAME, using WP:EUPHEMISMs is not understood to be 'neutral'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. I'll keep them in mind. Btw, imagine using an euphemism "dictator" for Putin - pretty insulting, eh? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Where is 'dictator' used in any articles involving Putin? In fact, I've had content disagreements with users trying to introduce "Putinism" as a political 'ideology' in infoboxes. If such neologisms are used, they have to be quoted and attributed in the body of an article WP:INLINE.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to clarify my edit here, "Ukrainian" can mean relating/belonging to the Ukrainian state, or it can mean relating/belonging to the Ukrainian culture or language. Given Crimea is (internationally recognised as) one but not the other, I've substituted "internationally recognised as part of Ukraine" for "internationally recognised Ukrainian territory" to avoid this ambiguity. I hope this edit won't be misconstrued, as when I made it before it was immediately reverted without explanation. - David. 203.59.165.31 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For an apt comparison, see the intro of the Åland Islands article – it describes them as a "region of Finland" (Green tickY), rather than a "Finnish region" (Red XN). 203.59.165.31 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity. The adjective is "Ukrainian". RGloucester — ☎ 14:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I've explained how there is ambiguity above – our own article Ukrainian shows that to be the case. 203.59.165.31 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There isn't any ambiguity. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Echoing RGloucester's point here: there is no ambiguity in this context. There is also absolutely no ambiguity over the fact that the international community recognises the RF's governance as being de facto... something you also took it upon yourself to remove without discussion. The point of 'bold' changes is that you follow WP:BRD, not a pattern of edit-warring your position. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, no ambiguity (for the reasons already stated). Abierma3 (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Annexation" is a patently false descriptor of this event

Amalgamation (or merger), as opposed to "Annexation" would be a more appropriate title and term of this page based on the wikipedia pages (and definitions therein) of annexation, amalgamation, and the Crimean status referendum page (which has apparently had citations regarding post facto polling by Pew and Gallup confirming the authenticity of the vote recentlly removed for some reason, regardless there is no genuine dispute to these facts)

Annexation:

(Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the forcible acquisition of a state's territory by another state.[1] Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities, barring physical size. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive euphemisms like political union/unification or reunification are sometimes seen in discourse. Annexation differs from cession and amalgamation, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, or amalgamation (where the authorities of both sides are asked if they agree with the merge), annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and legitimized via general recognition by the other international bodies (i.e. countries and intergovernmental organisations).

Amalgamation:

A merger, consolidation or amalgamation, in a political or administrative sense, is the combination of two or more political or administrative entities, such as municipalities (in other words cities, towns, etc.), counties, districts, etc., into a single entity. This term is used when the process occurs within a sovereign entity.

or (again)

amalgamation (where the authorities of both sides are asked if they agree with the merge) (~%95 of Crimeans who voted expressed the wish to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation and ~%80+ did vote) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not news

This article is undergoing WP:NOTNEWS development without even evaluating whether the sources are WP:RS. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource and should not include WP:RAWDATA.

If editors wish to add content every time there is any form of information that's only just appeared in an unassessed source, please ask for input from other editors on this talk page as to whether it's WP:DUE or biased before simply adding it. Verifiable does not equal reliable, and this article is subject to WP:RECENTISM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Crimean crisis listed at Requested moves

An editor has requested for Crimean crisis to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Crimean crisis, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Background

I should say that "Background" section (largely based on misinterpreted Russian language sources) is terrible. There was no any territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia in 1990s. The only thing that had happened was an agreement allowing the Black Sea Fleet to stay in Sevastopol. In addition, there was no strong separatist political movements in Crimea in 1990s. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This section relied a lot on Russian language sources, including primary ones. Some of them are not reliable; others do not tell at all what was claimed in text. I tried to quickly fix it. If anyone wants to improve/extend this section, please do, but using good quality English language secondary RS, please. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't taken a look at the sources yet, but Russian-language sources are permissible (although English-language sources are generally preferred) as long as they are reliable. If they're not supporting the claims in the article, that is a separate problem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. Russian language sources are permissible if reliable. However, not many people around can evaluate their reliability and even what they actually tell. Even after my last edits, a lot of refs in this section are primary sources, i.e. original documents in Russian and Ukrainian. I looked at them and found, for example, that the original document by Crimean authorities tells "as a part of Ukraine", whereas wikitext claims something different by using selective quotation out of context. There were many other obvious distortions. But it should not be me who looks at the primary sources. This should be described in reliable secondary RS that can be evaluated by any participant. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → Crimean Crisis – The current title is not concise nor easily recognisable; this is not justified by precision as the label of annexation is disputed. 'Crimean Crisis', although also biased, agrees with Wikipedia's convention of non-neutral but common names. I would certainly hope that a better neutral title be conceived, but I see no reason not to take Crimean Crisis in the stead of an equally biased title that is furthermore not concise. WanggyUFO (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal. It is your own opinion that the actual title is "not concise". Your substitution of an "equally biased title" for another is simply absurd. There's no need to create trouble where there isn't any, subsequently wasting precious time and dedication that could be much appreciated elsewhere. I could, by the way, expose a wholly oppsite argument, whereby the "label" of annexation is not disputed, not even by RU; I will not, however, due to the fact that this is not the adequate place to do so. We're an encyclopaedia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Disagree (and strongly). This is the title that confirms with Wikipedia's naming policies. And it is actually recognisable. As to bias, you yourself admit that your alternative proposal is not neutral. The current title is about as close to neutral as we can get, barring just going with straight up "occupation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As I've said before, I fail to see how it is "biased" to describe a country annexing part of another country as "annexation". Seems to me the real bias would be to use some sort of euphemism. And I'm tired of these shady old maskirovka tactics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not Tatars only were expelled

Greeks and Bulgars were also deported. Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on August 11 2015

In the "Result" part, the same source (The one about "Putin was ready to put nuclear weapons on alert in Crimea crisis") is cited twice for the same claim (The "Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including Ukrainian airports and military bases, following Putin's orders"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Crisis

Why do you archive all requests to change the word annexation in the title? Arguments are spread throughout several archives, making it impossible to keep track of what has been already said. No wonder people bring up this topic over and over, repeating themselves because you keep the talk page too clean. I'm not going to start a political debate, I just want to point something out regarding Wikipedia. This article is called annexation now. However, by moving the cursor over the corresponding articles in others languages, you can conclude without knowing any of these languages that crisis is the more common, if not the only word used in the titles of other language versions, including the Ukrainian one. Either the English article only covers the annexation part, not the whole crisis, which would be depicted elsewhere, and the links are removed, or it is advisable to reconsider the name of the article. --2.245.114.89 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because some people don't like others to read, what annexation is. Politics. — VadimVMog (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's just automatic archiving. Anyway, there's no point in having this conversation yet again. Volunteer Marek  06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It know it's automatic archiving: Sigmabot III is set to automatically archive threads that have been inactive for over 30 days. Suggestion to editors new to any article: please read the archived talk before starting a new section querying issues that have already been discussed over and over again. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Crimean opinion poll

Sources are provided, this is nothing more than a POV push. Editing from a neutral point of view (per WP:NPOV) means representing "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Type in "poll" into the talk page archive search box. Volunteer Marek  14:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
No clear consensus has been reached for deletion. We follow reliable sources not editors' own personal feelings or ideologies. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Information about the poll (one year after this referendum) is currently included in this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Tobby72, consensus does not have to be achieved for deletion.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability policy

— Ríco 06:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ongoing disruption

Please make proposed changes on talk rather than unilaterally attempting to change the article over and over and over again against consensus. If these edits involved some new element, like sources or info, that'd be one thing. But here you're just trying to restore versions/text which were previously rejected with a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

  • This edit is using Wikipedia voice to push Putin's statement as fact.
  • This edit appears to be just an attempt to remove the hated word "annexation"

The other edits are fine but it's easiest to revert back to a previous version and put back in the useful stuff. Which is what I was going to do if I hadn't been immediately reverted. Volunteer Marek  20:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate that 8 minutes may have not been enough time for you to have added anything back in or make any comment on talk, but you could have mentioned when you reverted everything that you were about to add bits back in. Never mind. Thanks for your time explaining. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Spiritofstgeorge: Would you please stop confusing WP:NPOV with WP:GEVAL. You've been working on a number of articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine using the same methodology. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am indeed trying to improve the articles. For example, where a source does not claim what it suggested of it, that source should not be used or the wording of the article should be changed to reflect what the source says. To revert my improvement is a deliberate attempt to keep a version which you know is invalid. But I will assume good faith on your part and assume that you just guessed that my edit was destructive without checking the source for yourself. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You've misunderstood the reversion. Given that all of these articles have gone through the edit wars and back, several times, the cleaning up process needs to be approached with care (i.e., WP:BRD). For better or worse, some content has remained as long standing, meaning that it was deemed to be significant enough to retain. Rather than simply deleting content and sources, a common sense approach would be to tag content with 'better source', 'failed verification', et al, then take it to the talk page and allow a little time for editors to engage. No content, other than potential BLPVIO, needs to be addressed as if it were an urgent matter. As tempting as it may be to want to get on with things, the purpose of talk pages is to hash out the content of the article. It's a laborious process, but there's no getting around it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I will raise the isues on talk first. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead is a summary of the article

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

  1. You are removing information from introduction which indicates that the use of military force and annexation have been pre-planned in advance. I disagree because this is a critically important information that should be in the lead. It should not be moved without obtaining a consensus on this talk page. Therefore, I reverted this "bold" change per WP:BRD. This should remain as it was until you obtain consensus for making such change.
  2. As about your another change [7], which source tells that these measures are related in any way to the annexation? This is completely unclear from text. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. If you believe that the fact that the annexation was planned in advance is so critical that it should be in the lead, no problem - let add words to that effect - but what we don't need is that degree of detail. I will amend the lead to include your point. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but you did not respond to point #2. Now, speaking about your "fix" [8], no, this is not good. You are telling that it was planned in advance as a fact, instead of telling very specific, factual and brief info provided in the previous version. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are now confusing me.
You complained above that "You are removing information from introduction which indicates that the use of military force and annexation have been pre-planned in advance" and now you are complaining about what I added, saying "You are telling that it was planned in advance as a fact".
Then you make the claim that the previous version was 'brief' - but the previous version would add "On 22–23 February, Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security services chiefs to discuss extrication of the deposed Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and at the end of that meeting Putin had remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia". On 23 February pro-Russian demonstrations were held in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. On 27 February" compared to my version which adds "but was pre-planned rather than a response to events. It was also".
So you complain that I added what you earlier said you wanted the lead to say and then you complain that you you wanted a 'brief' version when you are actually arguing for a longer version!!
So, taking into account that I have not deleted anything - just moved detailed information into the main part of the article - how about you actually explain a coherent reason why you think the detailed version you support is specifically needed in the lead rather than my summarising version. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The intro should be informative and objective. "Was planned in advance" is your interpretation. On the other hand, a "meeting was convened" [by certain people and on certain date] is a factual and exact information. Therefore, it should stay. This is not "my version" because it was not me who have written it. This is "stable version" you should not change without consensus if your edits cause anyone's objections, as in this case. And you still did not respond to my #2. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's deal with your first point before discussing the second. You say that the previous version "indicates that the use of military force and annexation have been pre-planned in advance." In advance of what? In advance of President Yanukovych being removed from power? Clearly not as the meeting you want mentioned in the lead happened the day after the President had been removed from power. So what we have is a chain of events in which a consequence of the decision to remove the President from power was that Putin may have decided to plan to take over Crimea. If that is what we are suggesting, that has to be placed in the context of a detailed explanation of events - precisely what the main body of the article is for. The lead should summarise the sequence of events as briefly as it can. Therefore s sentence that sums up that the sequence of events was that 'masked men without insignia took over the Supreme Council', 'installed a new government', which then 'held a referendum', which led to 'a declaration of independence' and then 'annexation' - is what is required. Not a blow by blow and detailed account - that is for the main body.
What I am looking for from you is an argument why so detailed information is necessary in the lead - it is not enough to simply reply 'because that is the way the article was before you changed it'. (Anyway back to the second hald of the FA Cup match - chat again later :) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not "detailed information" (it is very short!), but precise and self-explanatory information. I explained everything above. Let's see what others have to tell about it if anything. If you do not respond to point #2, your another change should be fixed as well.My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

So, now we are talking about #2. Here is your addition. As anyone can see, the previous paragraph (just before your insertion) tells: "On 16 September 2015 the Ukrainian parliament voted for the law that sets 20 February 2014 as the official date of the Russian temporary occupation of Crimean peninsula." So, yes, that does belong to this page ("Russian temporary occupation of Crimean peninsula"). However, your text does not mention any connection to the annexation of Crimea. Hence my objection. Perhaps they were banned because of other events? This is clearly undue on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, this phrase: "Ukraine disputes this, as it does not recognise the independence of the Republic of Crimea or the accession itself as legitimate [42]" in intro. This is not a fair summary of the Ukrainian source and should be removed or rephrased. This source only tells that Ukraine considers this annexation to be a violation of international laws and agreements (so, Ukraine simply holds essentially the same position as UN).My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

There's some weaseling and pov pushing in the next to last sentence, but other than that I don't think it's too bad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I see that the phrase 'cobbled together' is not neutral but apart from that it seems good to me. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah and in the earlier sentence I'd reword "fever pitch".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like improvement to me. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks a lot better, thanks for improving it, User:RGloucester. --Remote Helper (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Some corrections please lookup alleged in the dictionary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be clear, we can't used "alleged" per WP:ALLEGED. Regardless, the idea of these being "allegations" has passed into history. If you use sources from the present, as to opposed to those from the time at which these events took place, one will find that there could not be more clarity. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Where? Give me a present day cite!!! Your logic is the worst in case of history revision. So in 1945, as is widely recognized in the former Soviet Union, Russia invaded Poland in an attempt to free its people from the Nazi rule, correct? This is what I heard in a history lecture of a 4th grade school in Ekaterinburg in 1999. Then of course versions vary from one country to the other. Which one is the right one? THE TRUTH. There is just one fact: You were not there to see whether they were Russians or not. They are ALLEGED Russians soldiers, and I am pretty sure that there were some Russians but also Ukrainians, anyhow, in Ukraine how many people have a double citizenship?
You say that this is an annexation when according to Russia this was the result of a referendum. I think that my contradiction with you is verrrrryyyyy minor in regard. 165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
As too WP:ALLEGED: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Exactly to the point. Alleged is correct in this case. The West thinks that. Just for your info, Mr. Putin recognized that there was military personnel in Ukraine, just like there is US military personnel in Ukraine, he did not say they were a battalion or anything else. All the other statements are PURE ALLEGATIONS.
"Alleged" is not used by reliable sources, so we don't use it either. In this case "alleged" would be original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to stay polite... WILL YOU EVENTUALLY NAME YOUR SOURCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am fed up of running around the pot. If you have a reliable source then add it as a cite!!!! I could not find any non biased media that was claiming this. If not, remove the whole sentence altogether. I KNOW for a fact there is no reliable info that can state this. NO ONE KNOWS how many were Russians and how many were not. It really looks like it is so hard to change just one word for the sake of accuracy, when this scam is entirely western biased. FYI ISIS fighter were spotted who were wearing US army boots... So Wikipedia will state that US Marines are fighting with ISIS? And that was on a picture relayed by many media output, which is not hard as the SOHR is spaming.165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
The sources are already in the article. The links are in the little brackets, like this [1]. If you have problem with western sources (provided these are reliable) then I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong place. (Same is true if you have a problem with reliable Russian sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I have a problem with that source this is a paid for media that I cannot access, and it is just one source. If it is the same quality as the other I pointed, then it is just lost in translation. I have given, in my erased change, another source, where you could read the ORIGINAL statement about the presence of Russian troops.165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
BTW what do you have against "Masked troop wearing Russian made uniform" which is accurate and matches with all sources?165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium"
Because it's WP:WEASEL. (Also I don't think it matches the sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
actually all this article should be labeled WP:BULLSHIT IMHO. This is not at all weasel. The fact is that all your so called reliable source consider that when Mr. Putin said "the local militia were baked by Russian military" he said "the local militia were actually Russian military" and you continue deceiving people. Read your sources please and refer to the FACTS. He never acknowledged what FT is distorting... I will soon write an article on the non existence of the holocaust based on renown German papers, but using edition from during the nazi era. Then I will see how important the source versus the facts are. You are deceiving plenty of students in our so called democracy and this just feeds their hatred for Russians. I was hoping you had higher aspirations, i'm so sorry. I will avoid Wikipedia and tell anyone I know to avoid it. Just thought I should share this highly reliable source with you: serendipity li cda censorship_at_wikipedia htm which is blocked by WP how come!? 88.82.33.171 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
Again, WP:NOTAFORUM (and there's usually a good reason why a website is blocked on Wikipedia. And no, that's not "censorship") Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
haha! Wanna have the last word huh? Yes it is. Enough evidence. WP:NOTAFORUM applies to your comment as well, my dear. Did you consider removing this article altogether?165.225.80.80 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium

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

Was this really an Annexation?

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

Right. According to retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov, it was a plain military invasion. More relevant, if you wish to propose any specific changes to the article, then please do so while referring to reliable sources. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The main reason for the military intervention of Russia was actually to ensure the Referendum. It was not an Invasion and it was not an Annexation, its was just the Supporting of Separatism.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Er...??? Now that's what I call original research with a heavy POV slant. Reliable sources for your 'interesting' take? Added to this, please bear in mind that this is an article talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The German scholar of law Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider deny the Thesis of an Annexation Schachtschneider: There was no Annexation (German).--Xiuhcoatl Kvasir (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
You need actual reliable sources, not wacky conspiracies from far-right outlets. Volunteer Marek  09:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
correct answer. Funny: pointing on one opinion if there is far more others that say annexation: the discussion in german lists at least 25 for annexation - only within german speakers.--Caumasee (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
We, the Crimeans, call it reunification. It should be mentioned in the article as well. Francois (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe that what you are saying is best expressed by the following quotation: "Point 1. We demand the unification of all Russians in the Greater Russia, on the basis of the right of a self-determination of peoples."-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Francois. Wikipedia calls it whatever reliable sources call it. If you have a reliable source stating that many Crimeans regard what happened as reunification, then that can be added to the article. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
To qualify Spiritofstgeorge's comment a little further, it would also be dependent on whether it's deemed to be WP:DUE in the context of the article. I'd take Toddy1's insightful observation on board. Who represents the 'we'? I've seen nothing in RS to suggest that the 'annexation' is the expression of a happy, unanimous voice. Given the complexity of Crimea's history, and the displacement of the closest thing it has to an indigenous people - the Crimean Tartars - it can equally be construed to be the voice of very, very recent colonists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

WP:NOTAFORUM, give it a break already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

not to rely on Putins self-declaration

the article gives space to the declaration of putin himself (22-23 of February) when the action started certainly earlier. (If Putin says 23rd it't certainly different.) The medal mentions 20th and Die Zeit also mentiones 20th for Russian naval officers to look out for leaders on crimea: Wann die Krim-Annexion wirklich begann, Die Zeit , march 16th 2015 --Caumasee (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal Obstacles section - can anyone explain...

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_6&oldid=1136522393"