Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Observers and legitimacy

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

---

Should Can many citations of RT news (a source biased in favor of Russian government) be removed from the article entirely without explaining each particular instance removal? Volunteer Marek started an edit war by doing so. — Petr Matas 20:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Your attempt to start an rfc is ill-formatted
2. Your description of an issue is non-neutral which is NOT how you open an RFC
3. I did NOT start an edit war. As can be seen right below here, I'm the one who initiated the discussion. The edit war was began with other editors who insisted on retoring dubious information, unreliable sources, and unneeded citations
4. Your description of the issue is inaccurate. I did *not* remove RT from the article entirely. I merely removed it where 1) there were other, more reliable sources, already given (in which case I kept the text). This was the majority of my edit and 2) it was citing dubious and controversial info. I left RT in place where it was citing simple facts (current version has couple citations to it)
5. You're mixing up the usage of RT with the issue of the so-called "observers" which is a whole different kertuffle.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed straight up POV-ing of the article and misinformation. For example

[1]

and

[2]

RT and RT news is not a reliable source for anything except its own opinions. It has no place in this article citing facts. The EODE Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections is not any kind of official body of observers but a sketchy group with ties to far-right and neo-Nazi groups. Who cares what they think. If anything, if they really were "invited" by the Russian government... yeah, maybe that fact should be included, but it sure needs to be worded differently. Otherwise this is a straight up dishonest attempt at misleading the reader and trying to get them to believe that this is some legitimate independent body. The list of EODE "observers" likewise does not belong here, aside perhaps from noting, that these are people with some pretty nasty views.

Please do not restore unreliable sources, misrepresent info regarding these "observers" or otherwise try to push a POV in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the international laws, volunteer marek before trying to disruptively edit our article

"Our" article? What international laws? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RT is a reliable source. Your edits are POV. Please stop attempting to delete valuable information. It looks very strange and unconstructive when you remove a source and add {{citation needed}} instead. You should better remove all the Ukrayinska Pravda and UNIAN references. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it's not. Removing an unreliable source and replacing it by a tag is standard procedure. This gives a chance for other editors to find an actual reliable source. If they cannot do so, then the text is removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I also don't agree that RT can be considered a reliable source where Russian foreign policy is concerned. See a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159#Enquiry concerning the RT Network - "RT is not appropriate for foreign politics, international relations", "it should not be considered a RS for anything controversial." etc. Number 57 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

1. If you think they are not reliable, you should say what exactly you think is incorrect. 2. There are Ukrainska Pravda, UNIAN, and other Ukrainian sources used. No one touches them. 3. Volunteer Marek's edits across Wikipedia are so obviously POV that I think he should be banned from the topic. --Moscow Connection (talk)

As Number 57 points out above whether RT is reliable or not has been discussed at WP:RSN before. They're not reliable except for simplest facts. As to Ukrainska Pravda and UNIAN, feel free to bring that up at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a proof link, please? --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's in Number 57's comment above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion you are pointing me to can be used as a proof that RT is reliable. Because user Zavtek who expressed their own opinion that RT was unreliable happened to be a sockpuppet. Another user, not a sockpuppet, said RT could be trusted. I'm really beginning to doubt your and Number 57's good intentions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, no, no it can. The editors involved in the discussion, regardless of who this Zavtek fellah is, clearly state that RT cannot be considered reliable except for simplest facts. Are we reading the same conversation? "I'm really beginning to doubt your and Number 57's good intentions.", hey, right back at ya.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My intentions are good cause I am not changing the article, I am just restoring it to the state it was in before you came. I am not deleting sources and parts I don't like, but you do.
As for the RSN discussion, I didn't notice Bobrainer's opinion and misread JYtdog's statement. Still, JYtdog says "RT is probably fine for simple facts", "it should not be considered a RS for anything controversial". Sepsis II says "only .. if they are reporting facts which conflict with facts other RS' are reporting" (which is probably true for any source, so that's an positive opinion.
Please explain what is controversial in every statement you deleted a source from. Please list them one by one and explain what you think is incorrect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no presumption in favor of the status quo on Wikipedia, otherwise articles would never see improvement. And I could just as well argue that I am restoring to the state before somebody else came. Removing and deleting POV material cited to unreliable sources constitutes article improvement. An encyclopedia is not an accumulation of random junk. In fact, cutting junk is what an "editor" does in any publishing venture.

And again, it's not up to me to justify removal of POV and unreliable sources. How about YOU list a statement which you want to include and we discuss it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RSN heading says: Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". That means, that even biased sources like RT may be valuable in some cases. For example, RT can be used without concerns for the statement "Mikhail Malyshev said on press conference..." Conclusion: Every particular disputed source use has to be discussed separately. — Petr Matas 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true, which is why RT can be used for simple facts. Also note that in the majority of cases where I removed RT, there were other, reliable, sources already supporting the text. Hence, including RT was not even needed. There was one or two instances where controversial text was being sourced to RT alone and in those cases I either removed the text or put in a citation needed tag. Again, standard procedure. (This also addresses Moscow Connection's comment above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't address my comment. I think you deleted RT references from perfectly innocent statements, including, as you said yourself, the ones that were supported by other sources.
On the other hand, Huffington Post is not to be trusted: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 165#Huffington Post. And there's a very controversial statement sourced from it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If an "innocent statement" is already sourced to a sound, reliable source then it doesn't need an additional citation to a unreliable, controversial source such as RT. And as far as HP goes... again, are we reading the same discussion? Yes, the initiator of that thread went on a crazy rant against it but then we have comments such as: "The OP's assertion is not receiving any real support here, and I'll add my voice to the opposition. There's little prospect here of a blanket ban on HuffPo".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Little prospect of a "blanket ban". I didn't say anything about a ban on Huffington Post. I was talking about a particular controversial sentence sourced from it. See the difference?
You, on the other hand, are trying to present things like there's a ban on RT and removed references from non-controversial sentences. Why did you remove them? Was RT banned from Wikipedia?
Now, if there's no consensus, your changes must be reverted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

One more time. I removed them because RT is in general not a reliable source (except for simple facts) and the relevant text already had other, actually reliable, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not true, you also removed parts of text. Everything must be put back if there's no consensus for removal. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I also removed parts of text that could not be supported by reliable sources. But that's not what you were complaining about in the comment(s) right above: removed references from non-controversial sentences.

And no, "everything" must NOT be put back... because you feel like it. You need 1) convince people at WP:RSN that RT is in fact a reliable source (good luck with that) and 2) get consensus FOR inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything cause I'm simply revering non-consensual changes. It's you who needs to start a discussion on RSN, explaining what exactly you think is unreliable in the statements sourced from RT. Also, in order to have the right to remove RT from the article completely, you will need to get RT banned from Wikipedia. Right now, your changes must be reverted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you are inserting non-reliable sources into the article. As pointed out repeatedly, there already HAVE BEEN discussions at RSN. I'm getting a sense that what we have here is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't need to "get RT banned" from Wikipedia. I can simply remove it because it's not a reliable source and for the most part the statements which are cited to it already have other, actually reliable sources. And *you* are the one making non-consensual changes, with the difference that your changes are in contradiction of Wikipedia policy WP:RS and WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

VM removed "Mikhail Malyshev said 135 observers were registered." – a simple fact, which had three different sources. — Petr Matas 17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's ANYTHING but a "simple fact". Come on! Let's not play games. The "observers" were from a self-appointed group with ties to Neo-Nazi and far-right organizations. Apparently they were invited by the Russian government (!) although I would want to find reliable confirmation of that before putting it in. They were a collection of crazy politicians from all kinds of nasty organizations. So you can't just put that in there as if it was a "simple fact". It's not, nevermind the dubious reliability of sources.

This - the question how to convey information about these "observers" in the article - is actually a bit of a separate issue from the RT issue and should probably be discussed in the separate section. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you saying things like this? You are obviously trying to push your opinion into the article. (Actually, you don't need to push anything into it, it already represents all sides. But you want it to say only what you like it to say and nothing else. Your opinions are too strong to be able to edit neutrally.)
No, it's not a separate issue cause you deleted the list of observers and some other info related to them. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My opinions are fine and reflect what the reliable sources say. EODE has no legitimate international standing. It *is* a motley collection of right-wing extremists. There is no credibility to these guys and we shouldn't pretend that there is - THAT would be "trying to push an opinion into the article". On the other hand, if it is true that the Russian government actually invited these neo-nazi guys to observe the referendum... well, yeah, that's noteworthy and should be discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion is not going to get anywhere. No consensus. I'm reverting. Go to RSN and explain to them what exacly was incorrect in the sentences you deleted and how these sentences demonstrate that RT is unreliable and should be removed from the article completely. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There already have been discussions at RSN. How many times do I have to repeat that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been decided anything definite. Yes, in controversial case RT shoudln't be used. How is the list of observers controversial? Is there any reasonable doubt that it is correct? And why did you remove all RT references? Your edits were not constructive. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"There hasn't been decided anything definite" - no, it has been decided that RT is not a reliable source for anything except "simplest facts". "controversial case RT shoudln't be used" - especially in controversial cases, but also not generally. "How is the list of observers controversial?" - see above. Describing these guys with ties to neo-nazi and far-right groups as "international observers" who said that the "referendum was legitimate" is most certainly controversial. Listing their names without explaining who they are, to make it seem like the referendum was observed by neutral parties (who's heard of these guys???), is a sneaky way of POV pushing. There's also a question of WP:UNDUE. Who cares that some extremists certified Putin's referendum? Now, if they were asked to do so by the Russian government, that's a different story. why did you remove all RT references? - because it's not a reliable source, except for "simplest facts" and in many cases was not needed. Generally we need only one solid, reliable, citation to support something. My edits improved the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, your removed valuable info and made the article even more non-neutral than it was. You deleted references simply because you wanted to delete all references to RT. Go to RSN and we'll see what they say. But explain to them what exactly you removed and why. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First, please take a minute or two and read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Now. Let me repeat myself for umpteenth time. There already was a discussion at RSN about RT. The prevailing view was that RT is not a reliable source, except for "simplest facts". That means I don't have to "Go to RSN". That's already been done. It means that I can simply remove any instance where RT is being used to cite anything but "simplest facts". Which is what I've done. That's consensus. If you don't like it, it's up to you to change people's minds at RSN.

And what valuable - and sourced to reliable sources - info did I remove? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

marek, each people have a right to self-identification as it said in the un rules. When your Poland (or where are you from) separated from Russia, or when czech separated from Austria nobody boycotted them or recognized it illegitimate, when the west Germany in fact annexed the east Germany without any official treaties nobody recognized it illegitimare. Dont forget - annexion and rejoining are different things. Russia joined the peninsula without a one shot. And officially there were no Russian troops there except the Sevastopol forces (officially had right to base there), officially (if you are such a pedant) other troops were self-defence soldiers without Russia symbolics on the uniform. (Ps in fact if be honest we all know that that's all because the nato leaders have butthurt when they understood that they forever lost the possibility to occupy such an important point as crimea Self-determination

See WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And please sign your posts. About whole RT discussion. I'm think, that we should remove ALL sources, directly affinilated with conflicting sides (both RT & UNIAN), because they would naturally propagate positions of their owners (Russian and Ukrainian gov'ts respectively). Or at least not post their statements as pure facts, but only as "[source] reported that...". Seryo93 (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Is UNIAN a Ukrainian-government agency or is it independent? If the former is it editorially independent (not the same thing - for example PBS is a US government organization but editorially independent and probably airs stuff way more critical of US government than American non-government sources)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's owned by governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is actievly involved in current Ukrainian affairs (on pro-revolution side). Therefore, if we retain it as a RS for this article, it must be used with caution. Seryo93 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that RT is unreliable. Reliability btw refers to whether not the facts they present are accurate. It has nothing to do with the opinions they present. I notice that Larry King who worked for CNN has a show with them. I would point out that RT did not say that representatives from 135 countries monitored the election, they quoted the Crimean election official as saying that. Does anyone doubt that is what he actually said? TFD (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've said several times, the whole issue of these "observers" is really separate, but connected, to the issue of reliability of RT. The question there is how to present the facts about these "observers" in a neutral and accurate manner. You can't just quote one guy saying "there were observers", based on RT, without also mentioning WHO these observers were (a who's who of far-right extremists), how they came to "observe" (either self-appointed or invited by the Russian government, still not 100% sure) and how OTHER, actually reliable, sources describe them (as a joke, more or less). Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to take the source back to RM, consensus can and does change on top of that the discussion did not have enough editors to make a proper consensus and a couple of valid concerns were raised about the previous one. Consensus also simply can and does change. In addition the term simplest facts is a concern what one considers as simple is not necessarily what another person does and that's part of the problem the pointless slow edit war is caused by. One of you needs to be the better editor and simply take back to RM for a further discussion. If all you are interested in is helping the encyclopedia in a neutral manor then doing so causes no undue harm to the encyclopedia and is worth whilst not only on this article. Also I suggest you both remember this article is under discretionary sanctions. Blethering Scot 01:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Blethering Scot: What is RM? — Petr Matas 06:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant WP:RS noticeboard (RM for "Reliable Media"=="Reliable source"). Seryo93 (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: btw. Crimea invited OSCE observers on referendum but they're rejected offer on grounds, that they won't monitor breakaway elections without consent (request from) of central government. Seryo93 (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That part is also unclear. RIA says they invited them but OSCE turned them down. This source says they didn't, apparently because they think that real election observers such as OSCE (rather than a joke like EODE) are "NATO saboteurs" and that previous reports were incorrect. This source says that OSCE was invited, but by Ukrainian government, not the Crimean one, but when they tried to enter, they were fired upon - not clear if this was an invitation to act as observers. This source says that OSCE observers were not let in, and instead the Crimean "authorities" invited various extremist far-right politicians to act as "observers".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's controversial story. BTW: If there are Crimean "authorities", then there are Ukrainian "authorities", due to procedural violations (Con. and Supr. Courts weren't involved in impeachment proccedings at all, Rada was surrounded by armed men from Maidan Self-defence etc.). This is revolution, guys, and it naturally breaks the law (on both sides). Let's stay neutral ("and demand civility"). Seryo93 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that this issue was explained well in the article before VM came. Let's start from there and discuss what is wrong. — Petr Matas 10:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ummmmmm.... that section about the OSCE is exactly the same as "before VM came". So how am I suppose to be to blame for it? Please, drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and refrain from making baseless accusations against me. That's not very nice or honest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I say yes, they can be removed in this instance. RT is not really a good source for this information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion: I strongly emphasize You to consider re-reading WP:BALANCE and intelligently and responsibly Edit Wikipedia in the light of WP:BALANCE, and not to consider "removing" Russia Today at sight, as RT (TV network) most certainly qualifies to be in the Reflist of Wikipedia's Articles; though it is definitely not a compelling source (there is no such thing as a compelling source, if We are talking about maintaining an encyclopedia that is inclined to describe different-different point of views with a neutral point of view). If You would start removing "citations of RT news" "without explaining each particular instance removal", then You are only going to initiate WP:Edit warring, as Your moves are likely to be reverted. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, I brought the issue to RSN. Currently, all 5 editors there (excluding VM himself) oppose removing RT without explaining each particular instance. Thus, the consensus surely is NOT that RT can be removed with only saying non-RS. I am going to revert the article to the pre-VM state and then I will try to reapply subsequent undisputed edits. — Petr Matas 19:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting what I said. Right above you try to blame me for problems with a section which I didn't even edit. Now you're twisting my words at WP:RSN. It's beginning hard to assume good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry meant RS and I've responded there. Need to start proper proof reading my talkpage posts, tend to do quickly. Blethering Scot 19:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Damn, User:Poeticbent does not like major reversions. — Petr Matas 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the lack of consensus for removing has been proved, but VM still refuses to accept it. — Petr Matas 21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• What has been "proved" is a lack of consensus for *including* sketchy info and unreliable sources. "Consensus" doesn't mean "I do whatever I want as long as I find one other person to support me". It seems you're the one who's having a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

At this moment in time Marek as your last revery showed it seems you have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as much or more so than Petr. No excuses stop edit warring and discuss, there is absolutely no justification for whats been going on here.Blethering Scot 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I filed a request at WP:DRN#Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy, but they closed it immediately, because we have an RfC. I refuse to believe that no procedure for enforcing WP:BRD exists! I am so sad... — Petr Matas 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The same applies to you Petr, stop edit warring and discuss. You both have valid points but neither of you are going to achieve a thing over edit warring. You can & should reach a consensus here before continuing. Marek must provide a valid reason for removing sources, there is no excuse for not and you should stop adding them without discussing, and they should only be used non controversially with context the example given at RS is a clear case where its reliable with context.Blethering Scot 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You asked at DRN which version is correct, simply the answer is neither both should be improved on. You need to learn to work together to improve not simply edit war and blast each other, you will both as all editors do need to make concessions to make sure the article is neutral and ultimately unbiased to one side or another. Neither of you are necessarily right or wrong.Blethering Scot 22:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to point out that there had been consensus since hundreds of revisions before VM came (Oh, I did it... Sorry, I couldn't help it.), but you just convinced me, that it is silly and that we have to move on:

VM, do you still want to remove the case cited at RSN? — Petr Matas 22:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Status quo" or "last version edited by User:Petr Matas" is NOT the same thing as "consensus". If that were the case Wikipedia articles could not be improved (except with your permission I guess). That's a bit of a self serving and disingenuous interpretation of what "consensus" means. It's also a violation of WP:OWN.

I don't understand your last question? Remove what case?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am asking whether you still want to remove the following statement:

A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to monitor the referendum,

— Petr Matas 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As you state it above, yes, of course. It's a controversial statement, cited to unreliable sources. But, like I already said multiple times, the issue here is bigger/different than just the use of RT as a source. It has to do with how to neutrally present the information about the "observers" in a way which does not try to mislead the reader.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You say "as you state it". How do you propose to fix it then? — Petr Matas 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You've both had your cheap digs ok, enough. Marek I think he means should the point raised at the RS be removed, but that would be futile at present given its a valid statement and being discussed. Everything else you should discuss here, raise the points you feel need added and the source you wish to verify them and people will comment on it to decide if controversial or needed. Its the only way to proceed given there is a clear dispute here.Blethering Scot 23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean that we shouldn't discuss that case anymore? — Petr Matas 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting observation: WP:VPP#BRD enforcing — Petr Matas 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes...it was just and observation and was actually not accurate. See the response I left. Editors should be following the Bold, revert discuss cycle but more important, if this becomes a content dispute please consider WP:DRN.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way this is a very inappropriate RFC as it is a policy/guideline question. A local consensus here cannot override the larger consensus of the general community. It is also seems to be directing comments within the RFC at an editor. If you feel that the editor has edit warred report them to the proper venue. I suggest this RFC be closed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. — Petr Matas 05:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And the answer is actually yes, editors can make bold edits without explaining first, but if challenged they should discuss the changes afterwards.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Mark Miller I find the last comment rather unhelpful, given these editors are disputing the source every time hence the ongoing edit war, saying editors don't need to explain is unhelpful, they should be explaining in their edit summary exactly why they are removing in each case, not explaining in cases such as these inflame the situation not help it. Were way past normal BRD.Blethering Scot 19:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

ukrainska pravda is ukrainian-sponsored source, it cant be reliable

POV: "overwhelming humanity are loyal to the referendum"

This edit is a massive POV, OR and non sequitur. It should be reverted. — Petr Matas 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats fact It's free encyclopedia, yes? Yes. you are not its owner, yes? Yes. youre not a teacher, im not a pupil, yes? Yes. You dont have right to disrupt my well-founded words. If u wanna, prove it seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.223.199 (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• We could also write that overwhelming humanity did not accept the referendum, because 100 UN member states voted in favor of the resolution which declared it invalid, and 10 were against the resolution. Which one do you see closer to the truth? "Overwhelming humanity are loyal" or "overwhelming humanity did not accept"? — Petr Matas 06:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Voting irregularities reported in Ukrainian media

I moved this line, "There were reports of people able to vote multiple times and not having to be from Crimea to vote, with turnout exceeding 100% in some places, 123% in Sevastopol." from the lead to the procedure section as the media sources given cite a Ukrainian blogger for their claims. This seems like undue weight to me for inclusion in the article but I want to discuss it or wait for better sources before removing it entirely. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• The alleged 123% "anomaly" was debunked by reddit fairly quickly. Here's their explanation:[3]

Somebody mixed 1 724 563 and 1 563 724.
If we subtract 1563724 - 1250426 we get 313298 voters in Sevastopol.
Dividing by the population of 385462(which is inaccurate), you get 81.3%. The stated ratio is 82,71%.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any more reliable sources either so I'll remove the bit about +100% turnout rate. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorporated the explanation into the Results section. — Petr Matas 17:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of Reddit as a source is disputed. I believe that it is permissible here, because the claim is also supported independently by other reliable sources, like ITAR-TASS. — Petr Matas 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

how is using a site's comment section valid? how does this pass the WP:RS sniff test? This is invalid by any metric of wikipedia and is beyond typical wp:or--Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not say that it is a reliable source. You cannot rely on it, but what rule prevents you from including it? WP:RS says nothing about a sniff test. — Petr Matas 22:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is at least one good reason to include even such unreliable source: To attribute the original idea to its author, even if it is a semi-anonymous comments section contributor. — Petr Matas 22:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for others: We are disputing this source. — Petr Matas 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt we're going to get a more reliable source for how the error was made for the same reason we don't have reliable sources for the original error - it's not notable. Only obscure Ukrainian media and blogs commented on the ITAR-TASS error. I'd support just removing the whole thing. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The original ITAR-TASS article still contains the erroneous count. — Petr Matas 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just ignore that and use the corrected ITAR-TASS article? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We can, but many people seem worried about the 123% turnout since the calculation was published by UNIAN, one of the largest Ukrainian news agencies. — Petr Matas 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that. Well, do we really need a source to replace Reddit? I think the corrected ITAR-TASS article alone can serve as a citation to support the text as it currently stands. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't, but the question is: Does Reddit have to be removed? I think that its inclusion does no harm. — Petr Matas 00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to its inclusion but it doesn't look good to have Reddit as a citation. Perhaps we could add the explanation for the error and and use the video of the press conference together with the original and corrected ITAR-TASS reports of the press conference as supporting sources. It would be OR/synthesis but I think this is one of the those situations where we should ignore all rules and use common sense. But I want to hear Львівське thoughts on the idea before making the edit. It seems this is only getting bigger with the Guardian quoting a 'senior US administration official' who repeats the claim. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic: I think that media would verify their sources better if there was a service reporting on all proven canards. — Petr Matas 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to assume incompetence before conspiracy but this is pushing it. I think some journalists choose not to verify their sources. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The synthesis consists of the words "incorrectly" and "error" and can be easily removed: "ITAR-TASS initially reported this as 1,724,563 voters in total (which lead some people to report a 123% turnout in Sevastopol), but corrected it later." — Petr Matas 08:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'll make the edit. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Look. We do NOT use reddit comments as sources. Period. If you think we do, you need to find some other project to contribute to. On the other hand, the 123% frequency is also mentioned in this Timothy Snyder column [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk is next — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.233.244.66 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Washington News

Im so sorry, but how this link is "pure propaganda?" Or Washington News became RT subdivision?* Seryo93 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Because this was an internet rumor which was later discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

it seems these doctored Russian wire-taps will never go away --Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if this is a debunked rumor, then it's removal is fine for me. I'm not going to insist on it's re-inclusion. Seryo93 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you present the source to say was later discounted, you need to present evidence not talk.Blethering Scot 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tym. has said, that part of video was a result of audio editing, but the rest of talk has took place. Shufrych denies talk at all, so story is complicated (but well, Yatsenuk, for example, claims that he was behind Turchynov veto on repealing lang. law - even trough there is a clear evidence of opposite (his vote for repeal on VerkhRada site). I'm not pretending, that this is a debunked, I'm said "IF this is a debunked rumor". Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

if u think that RT is propaganda why washington post cant be propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.210.32 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of opinion polls

Poll by Institute for European Policy Studies

This poll has been removed. The reason given was "Institute has no web presence outside of press release, doubtful source". — Petr Matas 21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Poll by GfK

This one has been removed as well. The reason given was "no mention of this result in press release or polling data released by gfk". However, it has been published by Guardian. I don't think they would lie on this, but another source may be needed. — Petr Matas 21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote directly to GfK Ukraine and got this link: http://avaazpress.s3.amazonaws.com/558_Crimea.Referendum.Poll.GfK.pdf BTW it follows that the Guardian quote is inaccurate. I will add the relevant info to the main article shortly.— Gootcha (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gootcha, I fixed it myself according to your source. — Petr Matas 12:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources for the 135 international observers?

In the head of the article, there is the phrase "The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered." It was sourced by three links, two of which were clones of each other and said nothing of any international observers. The third source is Russia Today, a Russian-sponsored news source. Does anyone have any additional sources for the existence of these observers or should we change the sentence to something like "According to Russia Today, there were 135 ..." --Petr Hudeček (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I found some sources, which give Mikhail Malyshev as the originator of the numbers. — Petr Matas 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, I think that it's fixed now. — Petr Matas 14:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These "observers" were from the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections a group with no international standing with links to far-right and Neo-Nazi organizations. I'm still a bit on the fence as to whether this info should be included.

IF, this organization was actually invited by the Russian or the Crimean government then it does seem noteworthy that such a group would be invited to "monitor elections". However I'm not 100% if this was a case. Rather it seems like they might have just invited themselves. If that is the case, then who cares, just keep this stuff out per WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder says that they were in fact invited by Moscow [5].Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In the article you are referring to Timothy Snyder is expressing his own opinion, without providing any evidence to back up his claim. Please explain what gives any relevance to his words. I cannot see any reason to quote him in the article. - Tamas90 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Snyder's claim that the observers were far-right is clearly overblown. There are three Czech observers named in the entry. None of them is far-right (nor far-left either). Determining what proportion of observers are indeed associated with far-right parties would be an useful information. —Gootcha (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Observers section POV tag

What part is POV? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Overemphasis on "admirer of Adolf Hitler" and antisemitism on observers part. Far-right is, IMO, enough. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the most controversial section of the article and it's discussion will be quite lengthy. The controversy will be discovered through editing and we should discuss each element in a separate section. — Petr Matas 14:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Both "admirer of Adolf Hitler" and antisemitism is well sourced (see also [6]). Omitting the info would be POV.

Petr, can you keep the discussion within the same section? Claiming that the section is "most controversial" is not the same as actually explaining why it's suppose to be POV. I don't know what "controversy will be discovered through editing" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, it's well-sourced, that fallen Soviet soldiers monuments are those dedicated (by Soviet authorities) to WWII fighters against Nazi Germany, but Lvivske removes this part "to soldiers, fought against Nazi Germany" because "this labels protesters as neo-Nazi". Why we can't label protesters but should label Russia? Seryo93 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, I'd like to apologize for misunderstandings we had in the past. Seryo93 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

But we're not talking about the monuments, we're talking about the observers. We can start a different section about the monuments, but here let's stick to the topic.

And apology accepted, and please let me likewise apologize.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Accepted :). Seryo93 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If we mix all observer-related disputes in a single section, we won't get anywhere. The far-right vs. neo-nazi discussion has its section already.

There is an open POV-related dispute in the following section and more are going to come. As the tag says, it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. — Petr Matas 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

propaganda and lies

"the Hungarian neo-Nazi party Jobbik."

wtf? u call this objective, non-biased information? this is simple zionist propaganda. a lie. and article is locked so one cannot even fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.254.139 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

i tracked down the edit which added this libel as information. it was made by volunteer marek 12:50 april 4. 1st: his source cannot be considered objective or unbiased since it is from new republic. go see controversies in the wiki article of The New Republic. 2nd: moreover he is even falsifying this non-objective, biased source he added as reference: in the article Timothy Snyder wrote this: "Béla Kovács is a member of the Hungarian extreme-right party Jobbik and the treasurer of the Alliance of European National Movements.". Volunteer Marek falsified extreme-right into "Neo-Nazi". while even Jobbik being extreme-right can be disputed, it is still an utter lie to call it or its MEP a Neo-Nazi. Jobbik is 2nd-3rd largest party in Hungary with over 20% of votes in the last elections a month ago. claiming it to be a neo nazi party is a simple anti-Hungarian libel which translates into 20% of Hungarians being Neo-Nazis as well. no wonder Volunteer Marek has only a Paul Krugman phrase on his editor page - Paul Krugman is known in Hungary as someone giving space regularly in his blog to Kim Lane Scheppele a well known anti-Hungarian who in the 90s worked for SZDSZ, a party that went from being the 2nd biggest in 1990 to being hated and extinct (less than 1% on 2010 elections) for its anti-Hungarian policies.

looking more into Volunteer Marek's edits in this article i came to the conclusion that he is doing a an anti-Russian propaganda job, a crusade lacking any objectiveness. i hereby asking real editors to overview his edits and clean the article of them and ensure that it is unbiased, objective, non-propagandistic and that references arent falsified.

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.254.139 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed — Petr Matas 17:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is embarrassingly easy to find sources which call Jobbik a "neo-Nazi party" [7]. Also, if you think that being anti-Jobbik is the same as being "anti-Hungarian" then you're the one who has a problem not me. Anyway, I'm fine with "far-right". Weasel it if you must.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Would rather agree: equating one party with entire people (regardless of how party popular is) is something from not-so-old times. Seryo93 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated concerns about the observers

The concerns are currently mentioned twice in the Non-OSCE observers section, one instance should be removed. It is also useless to mention the OSCE mission there. — Petr Matas 16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

European Union, intro section, fourth paragraph

Hi all, just wanted to note that the article says: "The referendum was considered illegitimate by most countries including the European Union, United States, ....". However, the European Union isn't a country. Shouldn't it read, "The referendum was considered illegitimate by most countries including those in the European Union,..." or some variant on that? I can't change it myself because the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.200.1 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Petr Matas 17:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Overwhelming majorities in Crimea support becoming part of Russia-Pew Research Center poll

[8] Pew Research Center is a renown research institution often dealing with voting, polls and social issues. Here is the relevant part: "For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%)(...)Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula."d This is a reliable source and I think it should be included.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

yeah already added a good portion to the pro-russia unrest page, interesting numbers but confusing --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So I reviewed the article and the skew in high popularity may be because the poll only took results in Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Kerch: three very pro-russian cities. Tatars are only 7% of the population in Simferopol and 0% in Sevastopol.--Львівське (говорити) 02:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, we may add both Memorial poll (AKA 'presidential council report') and this one. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Petr Matas 06:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the observers section

Please do not make major changes to this section - such as removing sourced statements (same goes for the lede) - without discussing them first. You cannot unilaterally make big revisions (seemingly per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and then, afterward, demand that your new version for which there is no consensus has to be the starting point of any discussion. That smacks strongly of WP:GAME.

Also, it makes perfect sense to have independent assessments of turnout and voting in the lede so don't be removing that either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Differences

between the older version and the changes Petr is trying to force through [9]:

• Illarionov in the lede. I actually don't care if it's specifically Illrionov's numbers which are mentioned in the lede, but quite simply there needs to be some mention of alternative, independent estimates of frequency and outcome in the lede. This is particularly true since otherwise all we have in there is the "official" numbers sourced to Russian government propaganda outlet. See WP:WEIGHT.

Discussed in #Estimates of real support for secession. The discussion is currently not in favor of Illarionov in the lead. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The "discussion" consist mostly of User:Gootcha soapboxing and engaging in original research. Like I said, Illarionov doesn't have to be mentioned by name in the lede, but you can't just present only "official" results and source these to unreliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Inclusion of Malyshev's statement and numbers in the observers' section. Again this is cited to RT news and is also redundant with the previous sentence. The use of non-reliable sources to repeat dubious claims violates WP:BALANCE. It's trying to cram a POV down readers' throats.

Discussed in #Russian presentation of the observers, which you quit. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't quit, I suggested you combine the two paragraphs/sentences which say essentially the same thing into one. Which you haven't done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Same thing goes for the claim "RT News informed that the observers did not report any violations". Yes, yes, yes. I'm sure RT News "informed". But a Wikipedia article isn't a platform to present Kremlin views. Sure, we include info on their position but this is just over doing it.

Ditto. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Removal of quote and assessment of Harvard historian Timothy Snyder. This is being discussed above. There's neither consensus nor any policy based reason for removing this expert's and specialist's opinion. There's certainly no support for this removal.

Snyder's claim is already paraphrased with attribution in the section, according to #Timothy Snyder's claim. You are adding another direct quote. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed one of the redundant instances. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Changes in the wording which discusses the EODE. This is at best an attempt at whitewashing and WP:WEASEL. Some of these EODE sponsored observers have ties to neo-Nazi groups and that's very well documented. Who these "observers" were is pertinent and important info.

Discussed in #Far-right, neo-nazis. It has been decided that neo-nazi wording will not be used. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was decided at all. Again, you got some WP:SPA Ip account ranting and you and another user expressing your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is the charge of "neo-nazi" in the source? Quote: Enrique Ravello has belonged to the neo-Nazi CEDADE and now belongs to the extreme-right Plataforma per Catalunya. Luc Michel used to belong to the neo-Nazi Fédération d’action nationaliste et européenne and now supports a blend of fascism and Bolshevism that is also popular among Russia's Eurasianists. . Is it relevant to the article? Yes. So don't remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Original research in regard to the report on the actual frequency and voting by the President of the Russian Federation Human Rights Council, which includes removal of reliable sources and substitution of non-English sources when English ones are available. Stick to the sources and leave them in place.

Discussed in #Voter turnout, no conclusion yet. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So leave it be for now. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply copied to #Voter turnout. Please continue there. Petr Matas 05:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Dear colleague, don't you think, that English sources misrepresent (either by an accident or deliberately - I don't care about that) the original source? I can read Russian text and I can confirm: it was report by Council member (namely by Evgeny Aleksandrovich Bobrov), not by the Council itself. And council itself has confirmed, that "В связи с многочисленными ссылками СМИ на обзор "Проблемы жителей Крыма" как на официальный документ Совета при Президенте РФ по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека, выражающий оценку Советом крымского референдума, разъясняем, что он таковым не является.". Pretty what I said in thread above. I'm not opposed to it's inclusion, but we must attribute this document correctly, to avoid misleading our readers. Likewise, I'm not opposed to Snyder inclusion ("according to" is pretty correct attribution, IMO). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional edit with the latest removal:

• Removal of Illarionov from body of text as well. Why?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How come? He is there. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose that the latest Volunteer Marek's edit be assessed as a whole, as there are already talk sections for each issue. Petr Matas 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, check that all my edits since 8 April, when I changed my behavior, fall into one of the following categories:

• Small edits with low frequency
• Immediate reversions

Petr Matas 22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Colleagues, this section is about editorial process, not about content. Please return the content disputes into their already rich sections and discuss there. The dispute over the latest mutual reversions between me and VM should be resolved quickly so that we can resume the cooperation. Petr Matas 04:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, article talk pages are for discussion of content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, and a discussion about a content issue should be kept together, if possible. If you discuss all content issues mentioned in this section here, it will be a mess. However, the dispute we are having is about the process. If a more suitable place for it exists, please bring it there. Petr Matas 04:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have found it: It is WP:RfC/U. I am drafting one at User:Petr Matas/Volunteer Marek. Petr Matas 03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)