Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:52, 31 March 2015 editHaberstr (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,833 edits →"This article is currently protected from editing" tag is a reasonable replacement for the POV tag.← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:58, 31 March 2015 edit undoHaberstr (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,833 edits →Proposed revision: Current "Crimean public opinion" sub-section delays the key information and is confusing and poorly written Next edit →
Line 645:		Line 645:

	::::Couple threads up from here, champ. The one with you bragging about how you ] by edit-warring over the tag. I'm sure you remember. -] (]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)		::::Couple threads up from here, champ. The one with you bragging about how you ] by edit-warring over the tag. I'm sure you remember. -] (]) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

			:::::So now your only recourse is to lie about what I wrote up in that section.] (]) 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. ] — ] 21:32, 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. ] — ] 21:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:58, 31 March 2015

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.

Article policies

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

	Ukraine portal 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

	Russia portal 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.

Article policies

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.

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.

Using 'Annexation' in the article's title is POV - a neutral title is required

There are two sides to this controversy: the Russians say that Crimea joined Russia by a process of accession but the Ukrainians say it was annexation. That being the case, using either one of these terms in the title is taking sides. I tried having both terms in the title but that was reverted. Perhaps the solution is to find a neutral word instead? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Misplaced Pages does not regard the "according to Simon Wiesenthal... but David Irving disputes this analysis" approach as acceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Mainstream reliable sources tell us that Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem is Mainstream sources are NOT reliable... Mainstream sources claimed there was no 'Ukraine' option on a referendum ballot. Only western sources are agreed to be reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan the Formidable (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Spiritofstgeorge: Please read EB's legal definition. Annexation is not only a neutral, but an apt word/definition. It doesn't actually necessarily mean forcible, and can also assume the character of being widely accepted (by the majority of the population of Crimea, for example - assuming the referendum really did meet reasonable standards and was understood by uninvolved bodies to be a fair one).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan the Formidable (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On the point of whether there was any force involved: read all of the articles and RS surrounding the event. Was the RF military involved? Yes. Were Ukrainian bases taken over and the Ukrainian military forced to leave? Yes. Were there independent bodies overseeing the process who declared that it was really fair, terrific, and they had no doubt that it was just and aboveboard? No. Explain, then, how the use of "annexed" is Ukrainian WP:BIASed. It seems that there are a lot of sources from around the globe who think the RF were being a bit naughty. Please read WP:NPOV carefully. I think you are misunderstanding what "neutral" means. Neutral ≠ WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, the Ukrainian military were never "forced to leave", they were simply prevented from entering their bases. This is different, because forcing someone to do something is direct coercion, whereas keeping someone from reaching a goal is akin to tampering, i.e. "rigging" the process (sorry, I'm not strong on the legal terms here). It is the same with the referendum, which was not held at gunpoint, but was rather rigged and disguised as illustrating free will of the people who, for the most part, simply didn't care with what country they will be next. Russia has used neutral opinion in its favor in order to protect the Black Sea Fleet from conflicting with the soon-to-be NATO territory, nothing more. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Most Russian sources are not RS. Russia Today is not RS. Lenta, Vesti and the rest are not RS. That is why those sources that are RS are considered NPOV on Misplaced Pages, which is stating that Russia has annexed Crimea against the constitution of another sovereign country. You will find the same stance in articles pertaining to the current Russia - Ukraine conflict, such as the shootdown of MH17 (which was, according to RS, shot down by a "Buk" missle from the separatists' location), the pro-Russian unrest in Donbass (which is called a "war" according to same RS, although Russia doesn't use the same term), etc. Why are the Russian sources non-RS for the most part eludes me, TBH I've never read the consensus on that. But this is just how it is here. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is very peculiar words. All sources of one coutry declared as untermensch-sourse. There are many country , which have interest in Crimea situation. I think it is wrong to say, that one country which have interest in Crimea situation have right source and second country, which sourced say different position is not right source. Misplaced Pages is international project and not project for POV one coutry or group of coutnries. --Рулин (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not has nothing to do with its "nationality". It's determined by criteria laid out in WP:RS - namely, a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is the case however that outlets like RT, Lenta and Vesti do not satisfy criteria. To emphasize; these are not reliable sources not because they're Russian but because they do not meet the criteria for reliability. There are Russian sources out there which are reliable. Likewise, there are American, Ukrainian, etc. sources which are not.

And reliable sources refer to this as an annexation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I can only comment that it's very hard to believe that it's the reason why some people remove Russian sources from articles while leaving unprofessionally looking Ukrainian ones in. It looks more like some people for whatever reasons target Russian sources specifically. -Moscow Connection (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, Russian sources only state individuals pertaining to the majorly-Russian POV in the event, for example: Putin, Lavrov, Medvedev, etc. None of them allude to EU officials at the same time, which breaks their neutrality for being "sock puppet" outlets of government-based propaganda. Ukrainian sources, no matter the structure, depict both POVs, and even though some of them take a stance against Russia, they still reflect a little bit more than just EU or NATO's opinion. Russian sources must provide content from opposition in order to be deemed RS. Hope that is clearer. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

None of them — Just not true, Russian media depict both positions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this, and then at this. Both sources are RS, however, the first one talks about "Matviyenko vowing", while the other openly advocates that the "Russian Bill Seeks To Nullify". There is a striking difference in titles. The consensus on the matter was reached the same way, with most (not all) Russian sources backing a position unsuitable for NPOV illustration. Any suitable source would state the worldwide-acknowledged position of Russia annexing Crimea, and invading Eastern Ukraine because of NPOV. Most (not all) Russian sources deny almost every word of it, and you can't argue that Matviyenko's position in the above isn't the one coming from Putin in first place. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian newspaper is a very reliable source and had an article entitled "Red Square rally hails Vladimir Putin after Crimea accession" It does not use the word annexation anywhere in the article, but instead uses accession. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

, , , , , , all from The Guardian. On the other hand, the one link you provide is the only instance I can find where the word "accession" is used (perhaps there are a few more, but they're not as easy to find as one with "annexation").Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

To further illustrate the point, the Russian Kommersant newspaper is a RS for the most part since it contains and values opinions of all political actors, rather than those of Russia alone. Most of articles taken from there are good RS for WP. Plus, most of them don't require translation from Russian (keeping in mind that translating direct quotations in an RS might garble its reliability). My opinion: if you don't agree with said NPOV, don't edit the "hot topic" articles. I tried once, and decided to keep it to a bare minimum. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The mere fact that this discussion is taking place shows that there are divided opinions on this matter. Misplaced Pages editors are expected to seek consensus but what I am witnessing is not in the spirit of wikipedia. We should always actively seek out neutral wording when faced with an allegation of POV wording - that is not happening in this case. The two extreme positions are, perhaps, annexation and accession. Is it not possible to find some term between those two extremes? To seek out a new, consensus phrase that is clearly not POV is the true spirit of Misplaced Pages. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Annexation is not "an extreme". It is the word reported by reliable sources, and what happened is the dictionary definition of the word. It isn't "POV". It is pure reality. When one country enters another country's sovereign territory, and takes control, that's "annexation". What the Crimeans wanted is irrelevant, because they were not sovereign. Ukraine was. Ukraine considered this intervention a violation of sovereignty, and forcible. Therefore, it was an annexation. There simply is no question here that it was an "annexation". We don't use euphemisms. RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course you have just explained the Western interpretation of events. The alternative view would be that the people of Crimea declared independence from Ukraine by means of a referendum and then, in accordance with the mandate expressed in the vote, the leadership of Crimea requested that Crimea be admitted to the Russian Federation which was agreed by Russia and Crimea signing a Treaty of Accession. Misplaced Pages can't just promote the Western interpretation of events - our job is to seek to be neutral. I'm not asking for a euphemism - just a neutral term that can accommodate both interpretation of the events. For example, why could we not say 'take over' rather than either annexation or accession - it accurately describes what happened without making a judgement as to whether the actions were justified or not. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, I too didn't understand it some time back, but I do understand it now. The above description is not a "Western interpretation", it's NPOV because it relates to what worldwide sources are stating. We are talking about news agencies located not just within the NATO, but also in Africa, Asia, the Arab world, etc. This is what prevails. The neutrality is impossible to determine from the sources alone, and WP is not an inter-government organization charged with determining which POV is correct, and which isn't (because otherwise, we would end up with 3 to 5 different POVs and will be obligated to create articles for each, which contradicts the rule simplicity for the sake of encyclopedic content). Therefore, a consensus is reached to determine the NPOV, and in this case, it is what RGloucester has written exactly. We understand that the Russian version may have a different consensus (which, once again, only proves that WP is not "the judge"), but here, this is what the NPOV is and it must be respected with or against one's personal beliefs, even if they are ready to provide rare RS supporting another POV. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the "western interpretation". It is international law. The "people of Crimea" cannot declare independence from Ukraine, because the Ukrainian constitution does not give them that right. It is sovereign Ukrainian territory, under international law, and under Ukrainian law. This has been affirmed by various documents, such as the Budapest Memorandum, which Russia signed. The word "annexation" has nothing to do with whether said annexation was "justified" or not. All it means is that one state took control of another state's territory without that state's permission. Like I said before, the vast majority of Austrians supported the annexation to the German Reich. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an annexation of a sovereign state's territory, against that sovereign state's will. Again, the only sovereign entity in international law in Crimea is Ukraine. If Ukraine did not consent to the referendum, to the Russian intervention and take-over, then it is an annexation. This is what RS say. RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please accept that I am not trying to create problems here - I just feel we are confusing the terms NPOV, consensus and majority opinion. I personally have no view as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute over crimea: I just have a concern about the wikipedia project and what we are trying to do here. Quoting 'international law' is a particularly weak as an argument as international law both provides for the right to self-determination and also for the territorial integrity of states. Then we get situations like Kosovo where a majority Albanian speaking population is granted the right to secede from Serbia without Serbia's permission, but somehow that same principle in Crimea does not not apply? Somehow wikipedia must set higher standards than that which prevails in international politics. Finally a thought - there is no doubt that the clear majority of the states in the world are on one side in this debate, but Russia is not alone on the other side. Perhaps most editors want wikipedia to take the side of the majority, but I prefer to take no side...that, to me, is what NPOV means. (By the way, best wishes for Christmas!) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not taking any "side". We follow RS. That's all. RGloucester — ☎ 02:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's where we disagree - RS requires 'neutral point of view' but this article is adopting majority point of view which is not the same thing. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If one person yield the right of way to another person, somebody must end up accepting it, right? Otherwise they would be saying "after you, please" to each other until the end of their lives. On WP, a certain POV must be adopted as NPOV, and most of the time, it's the one majorly accepted. It's common logic. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that - an admission of sorts, I think. I have no doubt that most editors (myself included) believe that what has happened in Crimea is an annexation, but there is an alternative, radically different view that argues what has happened is an accession to Russia of a country that had just declared independence following a referendum. Since there are two opposing views, both supported by reliable sources, wikipedia should actively seek a neutral wording. It should not go for whatever of the two alternative positions has more support, but should aim for a compromise/neutral position. That has not been done in this case and I'm hoping that editors will accept that it should be done here - whatever our person views on this matter happen to be. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This has become too bizarre for comprehension. Please read WP:NPOV carefully. There are not two mainstream 'schools of thought' on this in reliable sources. Have you bothered to take a look at the number of sovereign states who have happily accepted Crimea as being a member of the RF? What do you think the majority of RS are saying about this other than that it was a duplicitous move on behalf of the RF, and that they do not recognise the method or outcome as being valid (only in far stronger language). On a second note, for those of us who are native English speakers, the notion of 'acquisition' of a region is preposterous. Acquisition pertains predominantly to purchases, and this particular piece of real estate was not purchased via some form of good faith vendor-purchaser contract upheld by the laws of the land. The other form 'acquisition' can be understood to be an acceptable term would be as a polite way of saying 'looted', 'pillaged', claimed as 'booty'. In fact, you're arguing for a far less neutral qualifier than 'annexation'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, I suggest we stop replying to that user. They are constantly coming up with the same topic over and over, even after I tried my best to explain everything to them. If they want to believe in something different, it's their choice. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna, I appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to engage in discussion. Personally I prefer 'Take over' of Crimea rather than 'annexation' of Crimea. Take over is a statement of fact (leaves aside the question of whether it was annexation or accession.) Cheers Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought that, by now, it would be self-evident that you won't find consensus for blatantly WP:OR and WP:POV titles by any stretch of the imagination. This is Misplaced Pages, not journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna - I have been accused of my suggestions being POV but not WP:OR before. Could I just point out that suggestion 'takeover' would not be OR since that was used in sources (eg, the Washington Post . It is clear that any suggestion other than the disputed 'annexation' word will be rejected. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "annexation" is not disputed, and "takeover" is both an absolutely unacceptable euphemism, and also a colloquialism. I hope you realise that the piece you cited is an opinion piece by a commentator, and hence not RS per WP:SOAP. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the word 'annexation is disputed - that's why I started this discussion. Since the word is disputed, I am suggesting that it would be better to use a term that is accurate and clear but not loaded with additional meaning. I am open to a range of suggestions as to what a suitable alternative word or phrase may be - take over was just a suggestion to illustrate the possibility of an alternative. Perhaps a better suggestion would be 'Acquisition' rather than 'Annexation'. Acquisition is used in reliable sources such as the Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That newspaper headline is satire. You don't see the irony in "Crimea Could Prove Expensive Acquisition for Russia"? Didn't you read what Iryna said above? Notice that the first sentence of the article says "annexing the breakaway region". There is no suitable word, other than "annexation". "Annexation" is not disputed. No additional meaning exists. Please find something better to do with your time. No one is interested in engaging in WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Two options. Either if the term "annexation" is neutral, we should remove the paragraph, where it's said that Russian government denies annexation (since if it's a legal term for any unilateral territorial acquirements, Russian government just denies the meaning of the word, and it's absurd), or if the term means "illegal acquisition" (according to the international law) or "acquisition by force", then, of course, it's not neutral, because there has to be a reliable source to constatate an annexation, and such a source can be only an international legal organization (like the UN or the UN International court). Also if "annexation" is a neutral term, we have to remove the words like "forcible" from the definition in this article: Annexation. SkipTheRules (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV properly, as well as the discussion on this page, SkipTheRules. We use reliable sources for article titles and content. This is not the same as writing neutrally on any given topic. The mildest term used by reliable sources is "annexed": Misplaced Pages does not refactor the sources to make them neutral in the manner you seem to have understood. If the majority of RS were calling it a state-sponsored terrorist invasion, that would be the correct form to present as both title and within the content. It's interesting that you should pop in to comment at this stage when you evidently haven't read the article. The word 'forcible' was removed quite some time ago. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is insultive

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

If you think the article should be renamed, please use the procedure at WP:RM.

If you want a forum to discuss your views, please find another website. Wikipedi policy says that "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda".-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He is not discussing his own views, and I agree with him/her that the present name violates NPOV. Please assume good faith, be polite, and stop mis-characterizing what other editors are contributing. Misplaced Pages needs to encourage and appreciate contributions from editors, especially new ones.Haberstr (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The present name was agreed by consensus. You can request a move through proper channels if you want. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is not relevant to my comment. Please criticize editors when they are impolite, assume bad faith, and mischaracterize other editors. We need to assume good faith and make Misplaced Pages a welcoming and polite place.Haberstr (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The title was not agreed by consensus. It was forced on the rest of us by the majority.Haberstr (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making random and baseless accusations against other editors. Both Toddy1 and Kudzu1 were acting in good faith and made their responses in as polite terms as possible under the circumstances. And while we're on the topic what makes Misplaced Pages such an unwelcoming people, it's all the crazy people running around, trying to use the encyclopedia as a platform for their POV, that one constantly has to deal with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Toddy cites Misplaced Pages policy that it is "not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" in response to Viktor simply suggesting that the article have a different title. Where in what Viktor wrote is there anything even the slightest bit inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages talk page?Haberstr (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

POV Bias 1: Non-sourced conjecture in paragraph 2 of lead removed and then restored.

Volunteer Marek, aside from mischaracterizing and assuming bad faith in my edit (his edit summary was "please refrain from using what appear to be purposefully misleading edit summaries"), also reverted my edit, which was summarized as follows: "Removed un-evidenced conjecture at beginning of paragraph 2." Well, the fact is that the material was un-sourced, and so I removed it. I hope all will agree that that my NPOV edit should be restored and the un-evidenced conjecture removed.

Here is the sentence before I edited it, and note there is no source at its end: The annexation took place in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution, and was part of a wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine, which was also marked by Russian military intervention.

Here is the sentence after I edited it: The annexation took place at the end of a process sparked by the February 2014 overthrow of the Ukrainian government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is this? Also, I don't agree with your "NPOV edit", which removes crucial context and negatively characterizes the Ukrainian parliament's deposition of Viktor Yanukovych. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Haberstr, firstly a reminder to sign your comments. Secondly, you have refactored an NPOV rendering of events according to RS to a POV 'overthrow of the Ukrainian government'... and that is most definitely not according RS. Stop playing at WP:JUNTA JUNTA introductions of WP:TROJANs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, Russian military intervention in Crimea was eventually confirmed officially, by the Russian President Putin himself. Aside from 17 April 2014 "Direct Line" confirmation (which is already present in the body of article) I would like to present another confirmation that "I will be frank; we used our Armed Forces to block Ukrainian units stationed in Crimea, but not to force anyone to take part in the elections". Does such blocking of foreign military units qualify as intervention? Certainly. Therefore, remark that "..., which was also marked by Russian military intervention" should be restored. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was blatant POV pushing. Your edit summary made it sound like you were removing some minor "un-evidenced conjecture". Don't do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This was about Haberstr's edit? Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we be serious? POV pushing

Ok. Changing "Crimea was annexed" to "Crimea rejoined Russia" is pretty bad POV. Changing "Crimea was annexed" to "Crimea was annexed after declaring independence" is just the WP:BADFAITH WP:WEASEL version of the same thing. Crimea is a piece of land next to the Black Sea. Crimea didn't decide crap. Even the people in Crimea didn't decide anything. This is a thinly veiled attempt at portraying the "referendum" that was held as legit and widely recognized. It wasn't, at least that's not how reliable sources describe it.

Please stop it. It's tiresome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Even the people in Crimea didn't decide anything". - that's a bold claim to make. Everything we heard about Crimeans says they support reunification with Russia, there's only a minor disagreement on whether this support is overwhelming or not. What are your sources? 93.81.101.46 (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Source is being misrepresented because only the part which is favorable to a particular POV is being cherry picked from it. The source also discusses the fact that Crimean Tatars were most likely under or non-represented in the poll and that a possible reason for the responses is simply that people were afraid to openly tell some strangers on the phone what they really think. If I was living in Crimea and somebody I didn't know called me up asking what I thought of the new situation, *I* would also say "oh it's just awesome! Never better!".

This is again, cherry picking to push POV. And it's not just cherry picking from within a source, but also cherry picking from the set of sources that are available. There are dozens of articles out there about the deteriorating political, personal and economic situation in Crimea (particularly for the Tatars) as well as worsening level of oppression - but somehow someone went out there and found just this one particular article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. --Seryo93 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked this above and I ask this again here. You think that this survey is cherry picked? Then add some other surveys to counterbalance it, not articles, not opinions, not subjective estimations, but other statistical surveys. And btw, what *YOU*, or any professional pole think about whether or not Russians are free to express their opinion on the phone is the last thing the wikipedia needs. 93.81.101.46 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

dear colleague, please refrain from making personal attacks. It will "help" as much as "bear service". --Seryo93 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, remarks about "Orwellian atmosphere" were made by Taras Berezovets of "Free Crimea" (organisation, which asked GfK to conduct that survey), but not by GfK themselves. I think, we may add both a survey and Berezovets comment, both attributed, to present "both sides of a story". Would that be a good solution? --Seryo93 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

Here is (English) report by Igor Sutyagin with Tables of Russian military units operating at the Ukrainian territory and other related info. Here is his interview in Russian. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Xinhua News Agency (China)
China Daily (China)
Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (uses both terms)
Russian Speakers in Post-Soviet Latvia: Discursive Identity Strategies, upcoming academic monograph (University of Edinburgh):
Kyiv Post (Ukraine)
Diplomaatia (Estonian paper, arguing against the Russian legal position, nevertheless using the term "incorporation")
Deutsche Welle (Germany) (uses both terms)
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Germany)
CBS (USA) (uses both terms)
InSerbia (Serbia)
National Post (Canada) (uses both terms)
The Interpreter Mag (USA, Russia-focused think tank) (uses both terms, defines "annexation" as "forcible incorporation")
BBC (UK) (uses both terms)
The Independent (UK) (uses both terms)
The Hindu (India) (uses both terms)
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (USA) (uses both terms)
Turkish Weekly (Turkey)
The Crimea Question (book published by Harvard University, USA)

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

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

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

The quoted Polish source says The incorporation (...) qualifies as annexation, which isn't "incorporation" rather than "annexation". Isn't your quotation a little creative?Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't use WP:EUPHEMISMs. The proposed title is not neutral, nor is it descriptive. It is simply an attempt to weasel out of the facts. RGloucester — ☎ 00:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Crimea was annexed by Russia. I would say I don't understand why this language is somehow controversial, except that I know annexation is technically against international law, so the Kremlin avoids using that term like the plague and has been endeavoring to reframe it as something more benign for the past year. And I'd rather not change the wording to a more pleasant-sounding euphemism just because Vladimir Putin is concerned about his reputation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I support Esn; "incorporation" is neutral. (We should avoid all types of propaganda here.) --Tosha (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How, precisely, is 'incorporation' neutral, Tosha? It wasn't a quiet incident in which citizens decided to have an impromptu poll and decide that they wanted to go and play with the RF instead of Ukraine now: it was a military invasion and unequivocally called such by the majority of the global community. I don't think you quite comprehend what WP:NPOV actually means. If an historical incident is widely discussed in the mainstream as being a "massacre", the WP:COMMONNAME defines the WP:TITLE of the article. We don't modify "massacre" to "some people who happen to be part of a sovereign state or ethnic group were killed a bit (but, giving the alleged killers the benefit of the doubt, it probably wasn't intentionally malicious.)".

The content of the article, itself, is further defined by the mainstream representation in the media and scholarly research. We don't make decisions based on WP:GEVAL, nor do we accommodate other narratives using euphemisms because we don't wish to sound a tad rude. I'm not even vaguely swayed by Esn's arguments because he's been able to find a handful of articles where 'incorporation' was used, or both terms were used when we have hundreds upon hundreds of RS who called it an 'invasion', as well as these articles and analyses of what happened deeming it to be a legal violation of international law, with no bones made about how this euphemistic 'incorporation' occurred. As it stands, using the term 'annexation' is the neutral compromise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally Esn, your choice of sources 'demonstrating' the use of 'incorporation' over 'annexation' are truly weak:
"The incorporation of the Crimean Peninsula, which forms part of Ukraine’s territory, into the Russian Federation qualifies as annexation – reads an opinion by the Legal Advisory Committee to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. In international law, annexation is as an illegal acquisition of the territory of another state by the threat or use of military force.

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

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

Moreover, due to the special legal status of the principles of international law that have been violated, the Russian Federation has breached its commitments under law to the entire international community. This community has an international legal obligation not to recognise the illegal situation that has been created by the illegal use of force in the form of armed aggression, and its consequences." It seems to me that that one reference alone blows your contention right out of the water. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Potemkin told Catherine that the Crimean Tatars would be "happy" to become part of Russia. Nevertheless, he had no trouble referring to the "incorporation" of Crimea into the Empire as an "annexation". I wonder, what's the problem, here? This event was the definition of what an "annexation" is. One can mince words all one likes, but when one takes the territory of another sovereign country without that country's consent, that's annexation. Especially, of course, when one has agreed to protect that country's territorial integrity. There is not even any room for debate. Even if the referendum had been carried out in a free and fair manner, it still would've been illegal in both international law and under the Ukrainian constitution. It still would've been annexation under such circumstances, unless Ukraine gave consent to said referendum and the subsequent loss of Crimea. There is no need for euphemisms. This is a classic disinformation tactic. Redefining words, mincing words, changing from opinion to opinion on what exactly happened in Crimea. If one does these enough times, truth becomes obscured, to the point where there seems as if there is no truth. In such an obscurity, surely Russia cannot be at fault. Surely this was a mere "incorporation", because that's a "neutral" term for what happened, given that we cannot actually know what happened...surely. At that rate, it might be just as well to start writing things like "Crimea Incident". RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Harpy and RGloucester, we have three terms reunification, incorporation and annexation. Your arguments are against reunification, and I agree that reunification is not completely netral, BUT the same is true for annexation. The term incorporation on the other hand should satisfy all---I did not see an argument against it. --Tosha (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a euphemism. It doesn't describe what actually happened. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, for wikipedia it would be much better if we avoid any type of propaganda here. I hope you see that the term annexation is onesided---it means we should not use this. (I am not a friend of Putin, I am a friend of wikipedia). --Tosha (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Annexation" is indeed one-sided, in that Russia unilaterally decided to take over part of its neighbor's territory. If the shoe fits... -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And not even just any neighbor, but a neighbor whose sovereignty it had explicitly promised to respect. Lklundin (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lklundin and Kudzu1 this is not right place for the political discussion. Clearly not everybody shares your oppinion and these people might be majority. It does not mean that we should decide things as majority wants, we need to do it right. I still do not see a reason against "incorporation". Some people argue this move was 100% constitutional, some people say that it was an armed intervention, why do we take one side and ignore the other. --Tosha (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no one that believes that this is was "100% constitutional", as that's very easy to prove false. What "some people argue" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what RS say. RS refer to this as an annexation. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about a specific suggestion related to the article, so the discussion is on topic. There are enough sources to justify a title starting with 'Invasion' but with the subsequent charade, 'Annexation' is more apt. Even if you just don't like it. Lklundin (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tosha, as you mentioned me in your original query, I'm going to chime in and agree entirely with every one of the rebuttals posted in answer to your "incorporation" argument. Yes, this is a political question guided by what reliable sources say. Again, you need to understand that WP:NPOV is not a simplistic policy, and is not designed to represent everyone's linear narrative of what occurred. If the finger is pointed at illegal, military invasion, there are no grey areas to be addressed, discussed, or compromised on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Suggested reading for you would be WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okey :)

RGloucester says: There is no one that believes that this is was "100% constitutional" --- this is planly wrong, you can not say for all --- I am sure you did not ask Putin :)
Iryna Harpy it is not my "incorporation" argument, see above, but I support it. Also you are talking about "reliable sources" I guess you mean western media (say BBC) which can not be called neutral, but still, even these sourses sometime use term "incorporation", on the other side you see "incorporation" and "reunification", so it seems like right term.

I still do not see a reason against "incorporation" exept just don't like it. --Tosha (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of reasons have been given. You're just NOT LISTENING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there are two problems with such renaming. Fist, many sources for renaming by Esn in fact tells something opposite. Consider this BBC article included by Esn above. It starts from this (in bold):"The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.". So, this is actually a source against renaming. Secondly, incorporation can mean a lot of different things. Only annexation means forcible acquisition of a state's territory by another state, and that is exactly what had happened. Even Putin openly admitted that Russian army took over the Crimea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The same can be said of the majority of the sources (other than the Russian and the Chinese source he offers). The moment you look into the text (including the downloadable paper from the Max Planck Institute) the sources agree on its being a military takeover and the RF toying with legal jargon. The fact that a couple of other descriptors exist (and there's no reason per RS not to use 'forcible military takeover of Crimea' as the TITLE) is simply cherry picking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please try to be neutral: remove media of NATO countries + Ukraine on one side and Russian media on the other side. Say in China and India --- most of time I see "incorporation". --Tosha (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the heck are we still discussing this? There is no consensus to move the page. Obviously. Let's move on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only is there consensus, it's clearly based on policy and common sense, therefore is non-negotiable. Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy and Kudzu1, essentially you claim that English wikipedia should not have netral point of view. I do not agree.--Tosha (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Too bad. Misplaced Pages is not compulsory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

POV blanking

Please explain how the additions specifically violate Misplaced Pages policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

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

===Crimean public opinion===

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

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

== Ukrainian response ==

Explanation of my changes to Novaya Gazeta paragraph in introduction

This is the earlier paragraph:

In February 2015, the leading independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents which showed that Russia's government developed a strategy for invading and breaking up Ukraine even before Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power. The documents outline plans for annexation of Crimea and the southeastern portions of the country, very closely describing the events that actually followed after Yanukovych's fall. The documents also describe plans for a public relations campaign which would seek to justify Russian aggression.

This is how it looks after I changed it (changed sections in bold):

In February 2015, the leading independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents, allegedly written by oligarch Konstantin Malofayev and others, which provided the Russian government with a strategy in the event of Viktor Yanukovych's removal from power and the break-up of Ukraine, which were considered likely. The documents outline plans for annexation of Crimea and the eastern portions of the country, closely describing the events that actually followed after Yanukovych's fall. The documents also describe plans for a public relations campaign which would seek to justify Russian actions.

I have carefully read the sources (in particular McClatchy DC and the original Novaya Gazeta article), and the sources do not allege that the Russian government authored the plan; this is a clear example of WP:SYNTH, so I removed it. It says that the plan was "presented" to the government and that a well-known oligarch is likely among the authors (that particular oligarch has since started a court case against the newspaper).

Neither does it speak of plans to justify Russian "aggression" - this term is never used.

Most importantly, the report does not say that Russia planned to initiate the invasion and break up of Ukraine before Yanukovitch's downfall (which the earlier wording suggested), but that it was considered likely that Yanukovitch would be overthrown and that this would cause "centrifugal forces" within the country to increase, and that Russia should then intervene and try to create a situation that would lead to "political and moral legitimacy" for those forces in Crimea and southeastern Ukraine seeking integration with Russia. The particular methods (military, political, economic) are not specified.

This is an encyclopedia and we must stick strictly to what is published in the sources, without adding any of our own interpretation.

I have changed "southeastern" to "eastern" and "very closely" to "closely" because Kharkov was discussed as the region to be joined to Russia along with Crimea, which did not happen.

Here is a translation of one segment of the alleged document:

Текущие события в Киеве убедительно показывают, что время пребывания Януковича у власти может закончиться в любую минуту. Таким образом, времени на адекватную реакцию у России становится все меньше. Количество погибших в беспорядках в столице Украины прямо свидетельствует о неотвратимости гражданской войны и невозможности консенсуса, с сохранением за Януковичем поста президента. В этих условиях представляется правильным сыграть на центробежных устремлениях различных регионов страны, с целью, в той или иной форме, инициировать присоединение ее восточных областей к России. Доминантными регионами для приложения усилий должны стать Крым и Харьковская область, в которых уже существуют достаточно сильные группы поддержки идеи максимальной интеграции с РФ. Разумеется, Россия, взяв на себя поддержку Крыма и нескольких восточных территорий, будет вынуждена принять на себя весьма обременительные в ее теперешнем положении — бюджетные расходы.

The ongoing events in Kiev convincingly show that Yanukovitch's time in power can end at any minute. In this way, there is less and less time for an adequate reaction by Russia. The number of dead in the chaos engulfing Ukraine's capital is direct evidence of the unavoidability of civil war and impossibility of consensus, or of the presidential post surviving Yanukovitch. In these circumstances, it would be proper to make a play on the centrifugal tendencies of various regions of the country, with the goal of (in one way or another) initiating the incorporation of its eastern regions into Russia. The primary regions for directing energies ought to be Crimea and the Kharkov region, in which there already exist strong groups supporting the idea of a maximal integration with the Russian Federation. Of course, once Russia accepts the duty of supporting Crimea and several eastern territories, it will be required to take upon itself budgetary expenditures that are rather serious from its current standpoint.

Esn (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I also wish to add a further comment. In the original Novaya Gazeta article, nowhere is it mentioned that Crimea and the Eastern regions should break away through war or violence - instead, it is stated that they should hold referendums, demand federalization, etc. and that this should be accompanied by a PR campaign supporting their actions. Esn (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this brings us back to the question of whether the document belongs in the lead. Yes, there were RS reporting that it had been found by Novaya Gazeta, but there's been no follow up since the initial reports as to the veracity of the documents. Considering that the existence of such documents would have been considered a revelation the media would have wanted to follow, any noises about it have disappeared. Given the lack of reportage, confirmation that the documents are authentic, etc., I'd suggest that this content doesn't belong in the lead. I have no problems with a mention in the body, but feel that it's WP:UNDUE as it currently stands. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna Harpy on this and support Esn's changes to the language. I think it's notable, but it doesn't need to be in the intro, and I find the report much less interesting than the new state TV documentary in which Putin admits his immediate goal after Yanukovych's fall was snatching up Crimea and claiming it for Russia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to include Putin's statements from the film in the lead if they are given in their full context without hyperbole or WP:SYNTH. I don't have any further comments yet as I haven't seen the film (supposedly, the Russians are working on subtitled versions in various languages). Esn (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna. It does not belong in the lead. Find it a home in the body. RGloucester — ☎ 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "back to the question", Iryna Harpy? Since Volunteer Marek added it 5 days ago, I don't think this passage has been discussed or modified by anyone until I made the attempt today. Was there a discussion I missed? In any case, where do you propose to place this? I think the most natural alternative placement could be between the first and second paragraphs of the current "history" section (to place the alleged events in their chronological order). Esn (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see why I need to qualify this, Esn. The various articles on events in Ukraine become a bit of a blur when it comes to questions of use and reuse of sources. You'll find that it was the subject of dispute here for the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article (where I believe the question of its being in the lead needs to be revisited)... and, yes, I'd agree that the most logical place would be to make it the second paragraph in the history section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I've gone ahead and modified it in the other article as well. Esn (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Platzeck and Jack F. Matlock

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

Kasparov is relevant because he is a major opposition figure. The other two are not particularly notable. Lots of people have said lots of stuff about this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Buzz105, more than likely the quotes were removed in order to make sure the sub-section stayed unbalanced anti-Russian POV. And no, Volunteer Marek, Kasparov is an exceedingly minor opposition figure. But, he says things the anti-Russian narrative wants, so he stays I guess.Haberstr (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no "anti-Russian narrative" nor is the sub section "anti-Russian". If you can't tell the difference between not wanting to include Krelimin propaganda and being "anti-Russian" then it's YOU who has a problem, not others. Stop it with the personal attacks and hyperbolic language.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Does this imply that Platzeck and Matlock are Kremlin propagandists? :) Buzz105 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But that's par for the course here. Check out the comparison of Crimea to Dachau concentration camp further down!Haberstr (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Undoing multiple edits from anon IP (who needs to do better), with very poor language and disruption of perfectly OK links (with a couple of my own edits as collateral damage)

I am answering here to this entry on my talk page, since it (only) concerns this article:

This article is rated high-importance (in the context of Russia and of Ukraine). So the edits have to be held to a higher-than-normal standard, and they can certainly not be barely intelligible. Secondly and especially because this is a high-importance article, editors need to be aware of the basic mechanics of Misplaced Pages, so that existing links are not disrupted. So to the anonymous editor: Please undo your revert, do the effort of understanding Misplaced Pages's referencing and then make sure to contribute in passable English. You could also consider contributing in your own language, and then appeal for translators to help with the English version. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think most of that might be included if properly written. In addition to the language, the problem is POV-pushing. For example, simply telling that majority of police officers and Ukrainian military decided to stay in Crimea implies that they supported annexation (no, this is something debatable). Quoting an admiral in the way he was quoted makes an impression (although this is not explicitly said) that the military forces he is talking about were the only Russian forces employed in Crimea. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, once a reader actually parses the text, I can believe there is POV-pushing in there. As for the quoted retired admiral, I made that edit and I was careful to use the verb 'included', specifically to avoid the impression that Russia's deployment of troops in Crimea was limited to the quoted landings. And I still think some actual numbers are useful - not to mention that three landings of long distance air transporters like IL-76 weren't just moving personnel from the Sevastopol naval base around in Crimea. But these are small details in the big scheme of things. (PS. While in active duty, Admiral Igor Kasatonov appears to have participated in joint Russian/NATO excercises. I think it will be a while until the next time the Russian admiralty will do that). Lklundin (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

But after looking at their next edits, such as this, it becomes clear: the user is simply WP:NOTHERE. Not only they introduce intentionally broken English and poor sourcing, but referring to the 1954 transfer of Crimea (when Crimea was officially transferred to Ukraine) is an argument in favor of an opposite position (that it belonged to the Ukraine). My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and reintroduced my quote of Igor Kasatonov. If someone can make it even clearer that those troop deployments did not constitute the entirety of the invasion force, then go boldly ahead. Lklundin (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What about "takeover"?

One reason to be leery of using the term "annexation" is that it makes a factual claim that is disputed. Annexation is a legal step. The United States takes the position that Russia's "attempted" annexation was illegal and the current situation amounts to a military "occupation." Of course, "occupation" is also a disputed term. "Incorporation," as suggested below, is simply awkward. So why not "takeover"? NPguy (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's less precise, so I don't think it's preferable to "annexation". And, only speaking for myself here, I see zero need to compromise on this issue. The title is fine as it is; I'd probably prefer 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea or Annexation of Crimea by Russia, but so it goes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that pretty much speaks for me as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reminder about discretionary sanctions

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

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

All of these edit summaries are accurate. Unlike yours and Tobby's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

There's plenty explanation on talk, contrary to your assertion. Also, please see the section right above this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I ask, why is the opinion of the Crimean people on the 'annexation of Crimea' deliberately excluded from this 187,000 byte entry on the 'annexation of Crimea'? That's an insane level of censorship and anti-Crimean bias.Haberstr (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also this Forbes article, which basically does a summary of polls held among Crimeans, and shows that the majority of them support the accession to Russia. So I believe this section is no longer WP:CHERRY, and can be included. Buzz105 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Information about polls in Crimea definitely needs to be included. Phil070707 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

With a long explanation of the Russian tradition of pools, ignored by some Western idealists.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this kind of information belongs in the article. The polls were conducted under the occupation of a harsh authoritarian regime that does not tolerate dissent.

An analogous case would be the reports of foreign Nazi-sympathisers who visited Dachau, and said how well-treated the inmates were. Misplaced Pages does not put such propaganda in the article on Dachau. So why should similar rubbish be put here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Putin's regime is not comparable to Hitler's. The fact that Forbes and other Western sources refer to the polls says that the polls are not thoroughly unreliable. The polls should thus be mentioned, if there are any reliable sources claiming the polls are not reliable, then obviously this information should also be mentioned somewhere in the article. Phil070707 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The main difference between Putin and Hitler is that the former is still in power, while the latter is dead. But a comparison between Putin in 2015 and Hitler some time in the late 1930'es (where the mentioned foreign visits to Dachau took place) could indeed be interesting. So while one should keep Godwin in mind while discussing, I would not be so dismissive. Lklundin (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also this source which explains the atmosphere in which these kinds of polls take place. Even if the poll is conducted by a reputable institution - all that that institution's reputation ensures is that the results aren't faked and that the sample is random (which actually isn't even the case with this particular poll) - they can't ensure that the respondents answer honestly or without fear. You take a poll in North Korea, I'm sure 99.99% of respondents will say how great it is. Hence this is UNDUE and it is POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all your interpretation that has no relevance here. I've specifically requested for sources that would argue the polls are unreliable. So far none of you has presented anything of the kind. I wonder, why?Adding information published in Forbes is definitely not "POV pushing". Phil070707 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not just my interpretation and it is of relevance. It's from a reliable source and it explains why this is WP:UNDUE. And your very short edit history, account which was just created, looks eerily familiar. Do I really need to waste my time filing an SPI?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

is source which explains the atmosphere in which these kinds of polls take place There is no mention of this poll in the dramatic personal statement of unknown author, who btw implies that majority of population supports being part of Russia again. I am afraid your source doesn't support anything you stated VM--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

Generally speaking, to use SPI (most probably sock puppet investigations) is your right. You DO NOT have a right to perform brainless "revenge reverts" , of my other edits just because I've dared to question your conduct or views here. THAT's what is really "eery". Phil070707 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

NOW you're gonna start pretending that you're unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages terms and policies like SPI? A little too late for that, as a quick look at your edit history makes clear.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is pure WP:SYNTH: using information from source 1 to make OR conclusions about source 2 (and by the way, even this article states that many Crimeans continue to support Russia despite all the odds). I don't understand how can this be UNDUE, since the article only includes the opinions of Russia, Ukraine, and the West, as if Crimea was just a stolen Macguffin that has no opinion of its own (the position of Crimean tatars and Mustafa Dzhemilev may be included as well, I see nothing wrong with that). Buzz105 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Placing results of the polls (as they were) would imply that results of these polls can be interpreted similar to the polls conducted during Scottish independence referendum, 2014, for example. This is not the case for a number of reasons described in many publications. For example, there was no free community discussion of various "pro" and "contra" in Crimea. Moreover, all polls in support of policies by Russian authorities are so unreliable that they became a matter of novels by satirists. Someones calls over the phone and tells: "Hello, Vladimir Petrov, we need to know your opinion. Do you support policies by Putin?" Many journalists have noted that people are afraid to talk. So yes, the numbers provided by these polls are misleading.My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can present sources that explicitly state the polls are unreliable, this all remains your original research and is of no value for Misplaced Pages. Phil070707 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It is simple. WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much occasion to find common cause with certain editors who seem to always take up the Kremlin line on Ukraine-related content, but in this case, I have no objection to including the poll(s), provided the information is presented in a neutral, objective manner. We do have reliable sources reporting on the survey, and our efforts to interpret it are original research (even if the notion that Crimeans may be scared to tell an unknown pollster that they are unhappy with their new Russian overlords hardly seems novel). A small section seems warranted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only this is "undue on this" page (agree with RGlouchester) because it was already mentioned in Crimean status referendum, 2014 where such data belong, but there is something fishy in this data. According to this, "63.8% of Crimeans would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status" This is more than 100%! My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"This is more than 100%!" It was a multiple choices poll, and the very issue and the choice you talk about is explained in the very first sentence of the report:For instance, the majority of Crimeans would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia (63.8%), and at the same time – to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights (53.8%)-it simply means they would like to both secede and remain an autonomous republic within Russia.Overall there is nothing wrong or unreliable about stating what reliable sources even before the conflict stated:majority of Crimeans(both Russians and Ukrainian minority) wanted to become part of Russia again.Not my personal view, fact reported by multiple sources, including Western and Ukrainian ones--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu1, what "Kremlin line" are you referring to? Do you have one specific example of an instance where I tried to insert the 'Kremlin line' into a Misplaced Pages article? Please note that balance when matters are RS disputed and evidence is weak or contradictory is the Misplaced Pages line. Thank you for your support on this specific instance, and be bold and make the change in the entry that you think is needed. Do you now start to understand what we discussed earlier, about the massive and very un-Wikipedian POV predominating in this entry?Haberstr (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take my conditional support on this particular matter for what it is and don't try your luck any further. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You made an ad hominem attack on me. I suggest you either apologize or attempt to substantiate it. If you are unable to do so, you will at least have learned something about NPOV editing by looking at my edits.Haberstr (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

All I've learned, or rather been reminded, is what a smug, insufferable partisan you are. I will apologize to you when you deserve an apology. For now, I'm not holding my breath. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What if Russia organises a referendum in Warsaw some day? Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

My heading is factual description of this: 'Why is the Crimean people's point of view on the annexation deliberately being excluded from this entry? The further fact that so many in this space actually are arguing to exclude the Crimean people's point of view, as expressed in RS opinion polls, is a further outrage. Do you have anything to say on the actual issue, excluding RS-sourced sentences on what the Crimeans think of unification with Russia, both at the time of and at the one-year anniversary of the event? Finally, please stop the practice, for pointers ask Volunteer Marek, of mischaracterizing the points of view of everyone who you disagree with. Yes, we all know you can magically cite irrelevant WP subsections and pretend they apply to some unrelated behavior. On one of those countless cites: this section, which appears to have incited a great deal of on-point comment, is not replicating an active section above.Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: You are engaged in exactly the same activities as is Haberstr. The threaded discussion was underway in an active section above. All you've done is reiterate your same POV arguments (claiming that they're not your POV but some fiddled form of 'The Truth' according to your WP:OR) again = WP:POINTy / WP:DE / WP:TE because you, too, you don't like the consensus understanding of the relevance of these polls. They've been identified as WP:UNDUE. Isn't it just a crying shame that, according to you, the majority of editors are obviously wrong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:, please stop mischaracterizing @MyMoloboaccount: in the same manner as you mischaracterize me. The core issue here is simple: He/she wants to include the poll results, as reported in countless RS. That's all. Now, how is that desire 'POV'? Don't just make ad hominem attacks, substantiate them. If you can't substantiate your attack, it may be a mischaracterization. Things really don't need to become so heated, you can simply state your disagreement on the relevance of the poll, and cite your RS sources or common Misplaced Pages practice. Take it easy and stop piling up WP cites as if they mean something in the English language. If you can't express your point of view in straightforward English, a WP cite is not a persuasive substitute.Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Haberstr: Fine, I'll give it to you in plain English - both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. That is not a mischaracterisation, it's a statement of fact. How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. This is not the first time you've accused being uncivil (in fact, you've done so over and over and over again, as well as accusing many other editors of the same), but it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here, and in the archives of many, many articles surrounding events in Ukraine, demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oh yeah, they're loving it there!

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

Forbes is serious and reliable newspaper. If you believe otherwise, please raise it at WP:RSN.

Yes, but that's just one sourceWe have several polls and sources confirming this.

It's contradicted by other sourcesAlso are you claiming that majority of Crimeans don't support being part of Russia? The sources you provided don't say that at all in the first place.I am not aware of any reliable polls showing majority of Crimeans are not supportive of being part of Russian state. Feel free to provide them.

it's trivial to find sources which discuss the repression of the Crimean TatarsCrimean Tatars are a very small minority in Crimea, whose main population are Russians. Are you claiming that majority of population is made out of Crimean Tatars? I think you confused two different topics.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Molobo, I fear that your knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is sparing. I'd ask you to read WP:NEWSORG. Forbes is an RS, and no one here would dispute that. However, opinion pieces that appear in reliable publications are never acceptable for statements of fact. They are only useable for the purpose of describing the opinion of the author, nothing more. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:SOAPbox for op-ed writers. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes article is not an op-ed but it _is_ a blog based at Forbes rather than reporting by Forbes itself. More important, though, the blog reporter cites two RS sources which can and should be included in the 'annexation' article (bold and cite links added):

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

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

Haberstr (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly a reliable source, but it is an opinion piece by a Forbes "contributor", and shouldn't be assigned undue weight. It seems as if some editors here are casting about for excuses to trumpet these poll results (as if the fact of their existence overrides national and international laws, conventions, and agreements), while others look for ways to discredit or explain them away. As I said in the above section, I have no objection to a section on the polling data being included, with reliable sources cited, due weight given, and no excessive editorializing. But then we're left with the question: who the hell is going to write it that way? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the BBG/Gallup poll is already in the article, and has been. I added it to the Crimean public opinion section. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is good, but the GfK poll should probably be included in that section as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

forbes article on the will of the crimeans

e.g. -

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/

can/should this be built in? This article seems a little... slanted.

50.252.249.155 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)rpt78

Redundant descriptors in lead.

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

In this instance, it certainly has nothing to do with the halo effect, but is a reflection of multiple RS as to the predominant global view as to the illegal, military nature of the annexation in peacetime. Annexations are not always constitutionally 'illegal', but are associated with wartime incursions as well as globally recognised treaties after wars. We're not exactly looking at ancient history, or even the period of the expansion of Empires. In this case, we're discussing the 21st century and a complex system of treaties and protocols. According to the overwhelming number of RS on the subject, the nature of the annexation has been internationally condemned in no uncertain terms, therefore removing a salient section of content is the antithesis of WP:NPOV.

According to your rationale, it's a "no one knows who's right and who's wrong" situation. Well, no, the 'truth' is that we have literally thousands of RS attesting to the breach of international law on behalf of the RF (i.e., the RF is absolutely and undeniably in the 'wrong'... and that is what our policy on NPOV tells us to describe. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, it is edited in a contentious, POV manner, and the effort for the halo effect is obvious. NPOV editors, normal Misplaced Pages editors, can't do anything about it because the anti-Russia editors are too numerous here.Haberstr (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Haberstr, I'll try this again being courteous: please stop using these pages to whine about there being a WP:CABAL. If you truly believe this to be genuinely the case, open an ANI and name your suspects. All it does it create a highly unpleasant atmosphere and a sense of tension where good faith, inexperienced contributors are afraid to state their piece for fear of reprisal, and inexperienced users who aren't familiar enough with policy and guidelines who do or say something silly end up believing the hype because regular editors have grown weary and short tempered. You're so obsessed with your own POV that you can't even believe that editors who don't agree with you could possibly be neutral. Please stop intentionally promoting this toxic atmosphere. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not denying the truth of it being illegal, I'm disagreeing that it is a salient piece of information worthy of the lead. To my mind at least, such descriptors are implied by the context and thus repeating them is much like adding the description of 'real' before food in my above example. Having said that, if it is only me who feels that way then we will have to agree to disagree and it ought to stay since consensus is against me. Hollth (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand what your concern is, Hollth, but I've simply expressed why I don't consider it to be redundant. As to whether it is the general consensus (based on reasonable and rational arguments) isn't up to me to decide. The thread is still new, so there may be more (reasonable) arguments for and against. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Before:

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

After:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haberstr (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the title cannot be bolded, per WP:BOLDTITLE:

If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it:
The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)
Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy:
The Mississippi River floods in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

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

The phrase the title cannot be bolded is a very contentious comment. Misplaced Pages policy states very clearly that if the article's title does lend itself to being inserted into the opening sentence, then it can be. So, let's see if we can construct a lead that allows the article title in very naturally and easily. I believe I have contributed such a nice, natural lead above. And, of course, if we can get rid of the current blatant 'halo effect' POV lead, all the better, right? Right?Haberstr (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It cannot be without redundancy and lack of fluency. Halt. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out any redundancy in my suggested lead? No? Also, I'm sorry but "Halt." is quite a bizarre way to 'converse' with other Misplaced Pages editors. No, instead we discuss and persuade politely. Yes, you may be in the military, but such commands will be ignored here.Haberstr (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Strangely enough, I was thinking over Hollth's concern overnight, and was swayed towards discarding it. Now that I've seen examples of alternative proposals, however, I consider them to be exercises in avoiding high profile criticism which overlooks the purpose served by the LEAD per MOS:INTRO.

International recognition is probably one of the most salient aspects surrounding the annexation, therefore to omit it from the lead would be remiss. The controversy and repercussions have by no means just quietly gone away. Nor is 'halo effect' relevant here. Our obligation to reflect RS, and the proposals read as an attempt to dodge what RS have been talking about since the beginning. Per VM, encyclopaedic articles are written on the premise that the reader is not familiar with the subject matter, therefore to remove a primary feature relevant to the TITLE cannot be construed as an NPOV variant on the purpose of the lead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that with the alternative proposals my criticism disappears. RGloucester's wording is much better, although I suggest grouping Russia's de facto jurisdiction of Crimea and it legally being Ukrainian since those ideas group together more.

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

I would be happy more than happy with the either, since they're only really stylistic differences. User:hollth (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate why "internationally recognized" is important. Annexation don't have to be forceful and unilateral. In fact, that's why we've decided on this very word in the title, rather than "occupation" or something like that. Under some circumstances annexations can be agreed to by both parties. Amicably, like say with the annexation of Louisiana by the US, or not so amicably, as with the annexation of California. In both those cases though, there was no annexation of territory which the other side and rest of the world saw as still its own. This isn't the case here. Putin grabbed the territory of a sovereign country and that territory was and still is internationally recognized as part of that country. So it's not just that since the annexation the international community continues to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine, it's that at the moment it was seized, it was internationally recognized as part of Ukraine (and not, for example "independent" or whatever bullshit was cooked up to justify it). In other words in violation of international law. So no, it's not a redundancy, it's precision and accuracy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite. Frankly, I'm extremely weary of the POV pushes for some purported form of 'neutrality' which actually ends up misrepresenting what RS say. There have been so many 'compromise' terms and presentations foisted on editors that we've simply started to turn our interpretation of the sources into pap in order to accommodate everyone who complains about the representation of the Russian Federation and its actions as being "Russophobic" and "not fair/neutral". In which case, let's just scrap those damned corrupt Western sources and reiterate what RT has to say on the matter. After all, RT is all about goodness and niceness and truth, revealing the corrupt West for what it is, ergo the RF are the good guys, while the West are the bad guys. I mean, look, RT interviewed Aaron Swartz; Russia is protecting Edward Snowden; etc. = they have no agenda and are doing it all out of the goodness of their deep, humanitarian hearts... and those insightful interviews with Russian dissidents by RT are... er... oh, where are they?

Apologies all, but I've had enough of kowtowing to pressure from people who are completely naive (that's a euphemism, folks) about the socio-economic order of the world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That Crimea continues to be internationally recognised as part of Ukraine is retained in all the alternative forms presented. I would say it is inferred that Crimea was recognised as Ukrainian before the annexation by using 'continues' rather than 'is' and the lack of any information that indicates the international recognition has changed. Had the recognition not been in favour of Ukraine at the moment of the annexation it would be noted in the lead. Hollth (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is contingent on semantics, Hollth. The content of the article is not based on inference but, rather, on that which is presented to the reader. For the purposes of an encyclopaedic article, 'implied'/'inference' is too abstract an interpretation to expect an uninformed reader to decipher. Encyclopaedic articles should not anticipate that the reader to delve into the subtext. We can't assume that the average reader understands that there are treaties determined by international policies and laws. Nevertheless, I'm amenable to the use of 'continues to be' understood (in globally accepted legal terminology applied to sovereignty) as being the sovereign territory of Ukraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone in this thread demanding we abandon Western sources in favor of RT and similar media outlets. No need to exaggerate other editors' concerns like that. The thing about the internationally recognised part is that it is an unneeded precision which suggests a certain "X vs. the World" approach: If country X does something to country Y that goes against supposed international standards, then something negative is being hinted at, which is not really required in the (first paragraph of) the lead section. No euphemism here; it's just that this part of the article can certainly live without it. But quite honestly I have no solid opinion on the matter, so whether this part stays or not is of no importance to me. I just think that all editors are allowed to remove content that was not supported by any consensus without being reverted by someone, eventually forcing them to come here where they should expect some resident editor to show up then throw around all kinds of WP abbreviations, often misusing them (unintentionally), to validate certain controversial edits. This isn't how the BRD process works around here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Iryna I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but, in comparing the current to the alternatives, I disagree. One wouldn't assume nuclear weapons were used because there is nothing stating otherwise, so I cannot see how one would assume that Crimea was recognised as anything other than Ukrainian at, before or anytime after the annexation simply because there is nothing to the contrary. The second clause, in all the alternatives, explicitly states that Crimea continues to be internationally recognised as Ukrainian, which ought to be sufficient. After all, what is there to make one think otherwise? Hollth (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That isn't actually the issue as regards a WP:LEAD. I've read the lead (yet again) suppressing the 'internationally recognised'. Upon removing the qualifier, in its current format, and the way in which the text flows the second paragraph, it serves as a dedication of the circumstances of the annexation according to the RF rationale, de-emphasising what RS have been focussing on as being the high profile, salient issue.

Fitzcarmalan, you've also appeared to misunderstood the difference between a "straw man" argument and my throwing a weary hissy-fit (I'm not concerned as to which areas of Misplaced Pages you dedicate most of your time to, I've been involved with all articles surrounding developments in Ukraine over the past year and a half, therefore am highly aware of who the regulars are).

As regards how BRD works, please take a look at the history of the article and tell me how many of the contributors developing this article even bother to follow it. It's a high traffic article following BRRRR. I'm sure you have enough experience with working on contentious articles to be aware of the under-utilisation of talk pages, which is why I've been encouraging Hollth to engage and speak up since s/he opened their account recently. Hollth is the genuine article when it comes to being a good faith editor... and BRD is being adhered to. No one has been denied their right to edit boldly. By the same token, discussion is vital. I am making my arguments for what I understand to be genuinely NPOV. If you are utterly convinced that this part of the article isn't necessary, please make a case for it rather than use it as an opportunity to critique editors consistently working on this subject area for not following policies and guidelines to a T. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Iryna. From your first paragraph I suspect we are not on the same page. I thought we had established the alternative forms to be superior to the one I had first proposed and that we were now discussing whether the current lead was better or worse than one of those? Hollth (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

took place on March 18, 2014 is a simplification, it was a series of events.

If something isn't internationally recognised did it take place in the same way as something internationally recognised? Compare After the establishment of the state of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital city, not took place.Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it took place on March 18 according to RS. It is simple but not a simplification. Think of it this way: before that date Crimea was not part of Russia. On that date it became part of Russia. (Yes, the process leading up to annexation took place over many weeks or months.) In fact, for a few days before March 18, Crimea was a de facto independent state, but that fact is not allowed into the POV version of the story.Haberstr (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page indicates conclusively...

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

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

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

No need. I've already done so as the assertions were based on a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. The only issue being genuinely discussed in good faith (aside from the POV pushing of a couple of editors who are making a concerted effort to create the appearance of a lack on consensus by using this talk page to be WP:POINTy), revolves around whether the use of 'internationally recognised' is undue in the lead. The use of this tag as a 'badge of shame' is unacceptable, and the tag is irresponsible per the POV template: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the public." Considering the amount of discussion surrounding the content (as attested to by the talk page and the talk page archives), 'disputes' have been addressed by the use of quality RS and appropriate presentation of language and content.

At best, the only tag applicable is the POV-lead template. Even there, I'm not replacing the nonsensical one at this point. The discussion has only just begun, and it isn't over the substance of the lead, merely something which isn't so obtrusive that it merits the tag. If some form of agreement hasn't been reached in a day or so, I'm quite prepared to tag the lead myself at that point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The annexation and military intervention

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

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

Mustafa Dzhemilev isn't Russia

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

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

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

So glad you are happy with it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The tag basically indicates that there are problems with (some of) the editors, thus they're not allowed to edit until they can get their shit together. Page protection takes no position on the merits of the content dispute. Swarm 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the policy is not directed at any specific editor or group of editors. No editors except administrators can edit the page, so all of us are restricted. Although page protection takes no position on the merits of the content dispute, as you said, it does basically recognize that there is a content dispute. Thousands of Misplaced Pages readers, uninitiated into the nuances of Misplaced Pages tagging, will just think 'problem page' when they see the current tag. Good, except too bad they can't be told what the problem is, POV.Haberstr (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a breathtaking display of bad faith. One wonders whether it wasn't Haberstr's goal all along to get this sort of tag placed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a bold and mean-spirited accusation. Do you have a shred of evidence for it? Or is this just more of the mean-spirited 'discussion' that people feel free to unleash here? As I said above, I am happy there is now some sort of tag above this article, though if we were following proper 'your momma's Misplaced Pages' policy it would be a POV tag. That's obviously not bad faith.Haberstr (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious WP:GAME behavior, as Marek observes. In your estimation, you "won" the edit war you started, because you got a shame tag like the one you were pushing (never mind the real live admin saying explicitly here that it's not an endorsement of you or anyone else). And now you're back here gloating about it. You have a problem with me calling your bad faith actions what they are, huh? Too bad for you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your accusation of bad faith, which is what WP:GAME behavior requires? Please substantiate your accusation or apologize. Yes, I was somewhat happy there is some sort of tag. So what, where's the bad faith? How is me being somewhat happy that something happened evidence for me causing something to happen? If I'm happy that my football team won a game is that evidence that I caused my football team to win? Please, help me out here, I want to get inside your convoluted thinking, if that's what it is, a bit more. Hopefully, in the end, you and Volunteer will recognize the inappropriateness of and lack of evidence for your accusation and apologize.Haberstr (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You edit-warred over a tag, causing the page to be protected to prevent you from continuing to edit-war over a tag, and now you're gloating about how there's a tag and it makes the article look bad, just like you wanted. The bad faith is quite evident. I'm not going to say sorry for calling you on your shit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit-war over a tag, a group of editors edit-warred and violated Misplaced Pages by removing a tag. It takes more than one to edit war. So, are you now accusing Volunteer Marek and Gloucester of bringing on the current tag? The Misplaced Pages administrator could have also chosen to sanction individual editors, or to do nothing. How was Volunteer Marek to know that he/she would impose this 'no editing' tag? Yes, I'm happy that there is some sort of tag. Again, so what, where is the bad faith? You're not calling me on anything, you just seem to be angry that something good happened for the NPOV side. And, you're assuming bad faith in violation of explicit Misplaced Pages policy.Haberstr (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

My purpose was obviously to tag the page as POV. Normally, after that, Misplaced Pages procedure is to have a good faith discussion on the talk page on how we can change this heavily biased article into an NPOV one. Obviously the POV editors here don't want the article to be NPOV, so normal procedure was not followed and the tag was immediately deleted rather than discussed. In that context, I'm happy the article has some sort of tag at its top, to indicate it is a problem page.Haberstr (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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—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 Misplaced Pages style demands. (2) The Good lead bolds the title of the article in the first sentence, which is what Misplaced Pages style manual recommends:

Shortcut

WP:BEGIN

Shortcut

WP:BOLDTITLE

. It "easily and naturally" uses the article title in the first sentence, and so bolds it, and that's what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Oppose. The new proposal is neither NPOV nor is it non-clumsy. In fact, it's more clumsy and convoluted than the original.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Current sub-section:

A joint survey by American government agency Broadcasting Board of Governors and polling firm Gallup was taken during April 2014. 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. A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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: , , , , . 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)

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)

Categories: