Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 23 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2014 Crimean crisis was copied or moved into Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation with this edit on 10 March 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Treaty on the Adoption of the Republic of Crimea to Russia was copied or moved into Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation with this edit on 9 April 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Critique of the Thesis of an Annexation

Two German Scholars of International Law Reinhard Merkel and Gregor Schirmer disagree with the Thesis of an Annexation.--Jonathan van Arsendom (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Another brand new account. Same old crap. Would that be the Gregor Schirmer who was one of the top dogs in the East German communist party before the fall of the Berlin Wall? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do we refer to any scholars/articles when more than 90% of the population of Crimea do not consider the Rejoin with Russia as an annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.207.74 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And you know this for a fact because... you live elsewhere and follow RT(?). This is why comments from an anonymous IP completely undermine any pretensions to speaking from authority. You've given away where you are, and it certainly isn't Crimea... and that's why we follow reliable sources instead of WP:POV opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This article reads like propaganda

The mention of the referendum as "disputed" and "unconstitutional", buried deep within the opening paragraph, makes the article look silly. You might consider balancing it by mentioning that the coup d'etat in Ukraine which provoked the secession of Crimea was also "disputed" and "unconstitutional". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Bisson (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It was indeed unconstitutional and declared invalid by United Nations General Assembly resolution, but I agree that it reads biased. Unfortunately, highly controversial subjects, such as that one, are difficult to fix in intro that must be very brief. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The main issue here is the military invasion and occupation of a part of Ukraine by Putin-Russia, universally condemned and "having no validity" in the words of a UN resolution. A faux and completely undemocratic "referendum" not recognised by the government of the country in question (Ukraine), or anyone else save the Putin regime, is not the main issue, and belongs somewhere below in the introduction, as is currently the case. --Tataral (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

2014 Russian take down of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea

RGloucester, the article is not a duplicate. The take down of Verkhovna Rada was an important operation which is an anchor of many other events surrounding the further annexation. It also was not simply an administrative action, but rather involved quite a number of military personnel. I believe the article is more important than the 2014 Simferopol incident (the article name so ambiguous) and it needs to be expanded. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The article's content is already contained here (including all the content about the "military action"), and anything that isn't here can be incorporated. There is no need for a separate duplicate article, which will simply confused the reader. That's not to mention that the title of that article is a nonsense. We don't need evermore content forks in the Ukrainian crisis topic space. This has been a real problem. I have never liked the "Simferopol incident" article, but that's not what we're discussing here. This new content fork needs to be merged. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester, I noticed that you removed the content and merged the article. There was no real discussion on the matter. I still insist that the article is important. I know you had a real bad time to fight "content forking". But first of all the article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is quite big and really needs to be split into series, second of all there will be more and more information available as the time passes on and jamming it all into one article just wont do it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

When that happens, it can be dealt with. For now, we have this article and Timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. These two articles include all the content that was at that fork, which was also at a title that was incomprehensible in English. There is no need to create duplicate articles, just like I said below that there is no reason to duplicate poll data in multiple articles. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150725201451/http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140304p2g00m0in014000c.html to http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140304p2g00m0in014000c.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150207152258/http://news.liga.net/articles/politics/1066761-blizhniy_krug_putina_kto_popal_v_novyy_spisok_sanktsiy_ssha.htm to https://news.liga.net/articles/politics/1066761-blizhniy_krug_putina_kto_popal_v_novyy_spisok_sanktsiy_ssha.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct x 1 + 404 captures only for x 1 ref, so removed and added 'cbignore'. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinion study

I have restored the sentence about the opinion study. I think it is relevant and sourced as well as confirms the widespread opinion that while the Crimean referendum was falsified the majority of the population supports the annexation. If there is a criticism of the study or other contradicting sources on the population opinion I would rather include them then exclude the study.

I have also exclude Trolls from Olgino from "see also" section as I do not see the direct relevance. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: The polls have been discussed ad infinitum if you care to check the archives here and on multiple other articles that deal with the annexation. For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming. Much as I hate to have to trawl through the multiple NPOVN, RSN and other talk pages in order to find the diffs, it looks as if I'm going to have to do so. Enough is enough is ENOUGH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. This has been discussed many times in past, see diff or Long-term pattern of tag-teaming ... -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of restoring the sentence. The poll is much more relevant than much of the article, for example, the sentence starting with the words "Another report by Evgeny Bobrov". Cause this is an actual poll, and the sentence I've mentioned as an example is just random calculations based on hearsay and speculations by some random people the author met. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• This indeed was discussed a lot. One should simply check talk page archives. There are many different opinions and no consensus for inclusion. I do not think any polls should be included here at all. The opinion polls are only informative if conducted in countries were public was informed about the subject of the poll, with the freedom of information and discussion. This is not the case in Crimea. There is no any freedom of information out there, people disappear or arbitrary arrested and convicted. And it does not really matter which organization conducted the poll. For example, the opinion polls during Scottish independence referendum, 2014 would be informative and deserve inclusion, but the polls in North Korea would not. Here is more like the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The opinion of the local population is a crucial point, whether you think they are well informed or not. Sourced information about this point should not be excluded from WP. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Crucial point" for what? For annexation? No one asked them when special forces were sent to Crimea. Yes, the opinion should be briefly noted, and it is already noted on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not where it's been POV-pushed (read as WP:COATRACK) to somehow 'prove' that it's what the people of Crimea wanted. Firstly, it wasn't a populist revolution but a military invasion which brought about the accession. If it were a populist uprising, there would be be something worth discussing... in fact, there wouldn't have been objections to the use of the poll but, rather, how to be present it. The RF instigated 'poll' was spurious enough as it stood (per My Very Best Wishes' observation). There was nothing transparent about the poll, and certainly no way of being able to vouch for its veracity. An honest, random selection of denizens feeling no pressure to respond in anything other than an honest manner to a clearly well presented series on questions immediately after the takeover? I'm sorry, but I keep having visions of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue flashing before my eyes... much like the assorted RT footage of Russian patriots assembled in the centre of Sevastopol being reused by media around the globe.

Furthermore, such content would have to be parsed in light of the German poll a year later, along with RS evaluations of the circumstances. An elaborate section dealing with this aspect alone would be WP:UNDUE. The subject of this article is about the military takeover, not post-annexation justification (which had been thoroughly evaluated by the RF well before the annexation, and orchestrated during the Sochi games as a matter of opportunism). Again, this has been discussed on various articles surrounding the subject over the last couple of years with the same contributors reintroducing the poll every few months. The attempts to reintroduce the content are pure WP:BLUDGEON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If (as you say, Iryna) it was an "invasion", that makes the response of local people irrelevant? Why?

"Furthermore, such content would have to be parsed in light of the German poll a year later" Isn't that "German poll a year later" the very thing we're discussing here now? Isn't it the one you deleted information about from the article a few days ago (on March 15)?

You complain that the "same contributors" keep returning to this topic, and that it amounts to WP:BLUDGEON. Well, I don't remember saying anything on this topic before, myself. And looking at a past discussion, I can't see that Alex Bakharev or Moscow Connection said anything either. So who are these "same contributors" who keep returning to this topic? Do you mean yourself and My very best wishes? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• First of all, the detailed results of several polls are already included where they belong, that is on the appropriate pages. As about this page, mentioning that majority of the population supported the annexation would be enough, but it is already said on this page. Placing a lot of different polls on this page is obviously undue and a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

At present, the page says vastly more about the views of politicians in other countries (including the EU, USA, China, India and Venezuela) than about what people in Crimea thought about the annexation. Why is adding sourced info about public opinion in Crimea "obviously undue"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is already a very large page, and we have a public opinion section. Can it be expanded? Yes, maybe, but not by simply including more polls, given that we already have other pages describing the same polls (link above). Now, speaking about International responses section, yes, I think they should be significantly reduced. Obviously, things like UN resolution should stay, however the opinions by an Indian politician, Assad, Polish Prime Minister and some other politicians are not only "undue", but simply do not tell anything of substance on the subject. They should be removed. Some opinions are made by political experts and present historical analogies. Those could arguably remain. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree.—Pietadè (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:My very best wishes How would you suggest that the public opinion section can be expanded, other than by including more polls? Is it necessarily a bad thing for the same information to appear in two articles? Have you read Misplaced Pages: Abundance and redundancy? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: please pay attention to what other editors are telling you, and what you can easily establish from the archived talk pages (as you've evidently

WP:COATRACK is about distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information. Are you saying that public opinion in Crimea is irrelevant to this topic? Do you want to entirely delete the current very short public opinion section? WP:BALASPS is about balancing different aspects of a topic. This is exactly the point we're talking about — whether the article strike the right balance by saying vastly more about views of politicians in faraway countries than about opinion in Crimea? I don't think so, myself, and User: My very best wishes has agreed the article may lack balance in this respect. Perhaps, Iryna, you yourself might pay just a bit more attention to what's been said right here by other editors, including User:Alex Bakharev, and User:Tobby72 and User:Moscow Connection... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Simply bringing more additional polls does not help to improve this page. I do not see any reason for this discussion. There is a lot of other things and pages to improve if someone has time. I do not. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• An endless collection of polls is meaningless. The few that are in are satisfactory. There is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to an endless number of opinion polls, some of questionable provenance. Furthermore, forking content is both unnecessary and a waste of time. We've already been through this. I can't think of any reason why this has been brought up again. There is no reason to include more polls that add nothing new to the article. Why should a new poll of less quality than the existing ones be added, given that the result was roughly the same? There can be no reason, unless certain editors are trying to set up a coat rack. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: A COATRACK is where it is evident that there are editors trying to introduce content to offset the brunt of the WP:TITLE of the article in order to create a WP:POINTy piece of WP:ADVOCACY: namely that 'but the majority wants to be attached to the RF'. That is POV pushing being brought back to the table over and over again... and using WP:CRUSH tactics to overrule consensus is a big no-no. There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing. Perhaps, you should pay attention to the fact that I've been working on this, and surrounding articles, for the last couple of years and know exactly what Tobby72 and Haberstr and, to an extent, Moscow Connection have been pushing over the years (although I don't consider Moscow Connection to be in their league of disruptive editing by any measure of the stick). Speaking of sticks, it's time for you to drop it. Striking through my comment regarding Moscow Connection with my sincerest apologies for suggesting that he is anything less than a good faith editor. We do disagree on a lot of issues regarding content, but by no means is he a tendentious editor or involved in any bad faith editing practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think if there are polls for 2014, there also should be polls for the years before and maybe later. Otherwise it looks as a manipulation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
• Low-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics