Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum/Archive 6

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

Illarionov

Continuation of #Estimates of real support for secession

Why exactly is he being removed from lead? Like, what policy or reason?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: WP:WEIGHT. You stated yourself that you will not insist on Illarionov, if there is some alternative, which is Chiygoz now. Petr Matas 05:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I said that he doesn't have to be mentioned by name, that's different. Why shouldn't he be included? We could combine the two sentences into one if that helps.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Illarionov's opinion itself probably is notable, but not because it is his opinion, but because many people share his opinion. However, we don't have a source for that. Each such controversial opinion has to be attributed, exactly as the official results are attributed. The Mejlis Deputy Chairman's (Chiygoz) opinion is notable, Illarionov's is not. Petr Matas 05:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you lost me. First you say his opinion is probably notable, then you say it's not. ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: I meant that you'll probably find someone, who says something similar, but whose opinion is notable, unlike the Illarionov's. Petr Matas 07:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is Illarionov's opinion "non-notable"??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Not enough for inclusion in the lead. This has already been explained in #Estimates of real support for secession. Chiygoz will have to suffice. Petr Matas 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Not enough for inclusion in the lead. Why not?
This has already been explained in #Estimates of real support for secession - No, it has been asserted there, much in the same way you're just asserting it here. By a single purpose newly created account, mostly likely a sock puppet. Your only argument against Illarionov in that section is that... his numbers don't agree with your original research. That's the opposite of following Wikipedia policies.
Chiygoz will have to suffice - not unless you actually give some kind of policy-based reason or support for why Illarionov - definitely an expert on the area (former economic policy advisor to Putin!) - is "not notable".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
My proposal is to combine Chiygoz and Illarionov in a following sentence

The Mejlis Deputy Chairman Akhtem Chiygoz argued that peak voter turnout in the referendum among Crimeans could only be a 30–40 percent,[ref] whilst former Russian government adviser Andrey Illarionov, stated that the support for the reunification of Crimea with Russia was about 34 percent, citing results of previous polls over past three years.[ref]

Seryo93 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that won't harm, although I would prefer Chiygoz alone as better representing the western views. Please do not remove Illarionov from the article body. Petr Matas 05:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with that too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So why did Illarionov end up in the lead? Furthermore, it cannot be said that he is "citing results of previous polls over past three years" because he is not, as Petr Matas demonstrated. Gootcha (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't know how to prove that the consensus is against. Petr Matas 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Official results are false

This article implies that the official results are legitimate. They are not. Russia claimed 97% of Crimeans voted for annexation on a turnout of 83%. The Russian Presidential Council revealed that the percentages were actually 50% of 30% turnout. Remembering that most opponents of the Russian invasion boycotted a vote organized by the supporters of invasion, that suggests strong opposition to annexation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ This should be noted in the article.101.98.136.213 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


First of all, this is already mentioned in the sections "Alternative estimates of results" and "Aftermath". Secondly, you misunderstood (it's funny). The Council is made of human rights activists. The members aren't working for the Russian government, they aren't some "insiders who knew the results". :) They aren't "Putin supporters" even. The advising/counseling organization was created cause probably the President of Russia wanted to know the opinion of prominent activists criticizing the Russian government (just guessing). --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Sorry I assumed you misunderstood. You didn't. The source you used actually says it. :) It's the blog [or whatever this is] writer who misunderstood. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Read The Washington Post. And, as The Washington Post says, the report wasn't removed, it's still here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit 609356766 by Volunteer Marek

This edit does not correspond to the current consensus, because it contains the following changes, vast majority of them was done repeatedly by this editor and therefore constitutes edit warring:

Petr Matas 16:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry. I meant to copy-paste the sentence suggested by Seryo93 above but I clicked on an older version to get the ref for the Illarionov portion of the quote and ended up clicking save on that version. I'll put in the right thing in there now.
Of course I still disagree about the other aspects.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem and sorry for this accusation of bad faith. Petr Matas 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Reinsertion of the "15–30%" expression" - why is this removed? i see no reason why it should be censored, can someone explain? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That discussion belongs to a different talk section. Petr Matas 11:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I fixed this for clarity. 2nd paragraph - this is simply more short and easily understandable text. 3rd paragraph. The justification by presidium of the council was not the reason for referendum. This is a controversial matter that can be discussed in the body of the page, but does not belong to intro, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This was a POV edit that practically made the article lie that both choices were the same.
As for the second part, it just should be rewritten closer to the source. (But I'm arfaid you'll like it even less.) The source says: "Crimeans, As a result of the unconstitutional seizure of power in Ukraine by radical nationalists with the support of armed gangs, peace and tranquility in Crimea is in jeopardy." That was the justification for the referendum. Here's a better source in English: [1]. I found it when I searched the net for the part I translated. There's more of the original statement carefully translated into English.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
More from the statement: "Ukraine is descending into complete chaos, anarchy and economic catastrophe. [...] Following the fundamental principles of democracy, the presidium of the Crimean parliament believes that the only possible way out of the current situation is to apply the principles of direct rule of the people. We are convinced that only a referendum on the improvement of the status of the autonomy and expansion of its powers will allow the people of Crimea to determine the future of the autonomy on their own without external pressure or diktat." --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
ad 2nd paragraph: By restoring the 1992 constitution, Crimea would stay formally within Ukraine, therefore the edit is wrong. Petr Matas 23:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
No, my edit was not wrong. It tells: "All of the choices available on the ballot would have resulted in de facto separation of Crimea from Ukraine." Yes, it would. This has been described/discussed in numerous sources. For example, here (I am using Russian language sources), it was explained that "Однако если посмотреть на проект 1992 года ... Там предусмотрено предоставление Крыму всех прав независимого административно-территориального образования в составе Украины, наделенного широкими полномочиями определять свою судьбу и устанавливать отношения с любыми странами, в том числе с Россией... поскольку пророссийский парламент уже заявил, что хочет вернуть Крым в состав России, этот второй вариант лишь предусматривает несколько более продолжительный процесс передачи полуострова под контроль России." My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the point of view and what source you use (for example the ballot choice itself speaks about Crimea's status as part of Ukraine). We have to balance them. Is there anything, that you consider wrong, in the original version of the paragraph? Petr Matas 00:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
ad 3rd paragraph: Here the article is not trying to assess if the referendum is justified or not. It just reports on what reasons the referendum organizers give. Their validity is irrelevant here. I think that the answer to the question "Why did you organize the plebiscite?" is one of the most important pieces of information in the article and should stay in the lead section. Petr Matas 23:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
As you write, the true reason for the referendum could be different, but I think that the strongest statement, that you can find reliable sources for, would be "XY speculates that the organizers' true reason was ...". Petr Matas 23:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The current version creates wrong impression that it was a legitimate decision by legitimate representatives. However, this is something highly controversial, because the building of the Council has been occupied by Russian special forces who controlled everything out there. I think this can and should be described in the body of article, but hardly belongs to introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see why it could create this impression. But the representatives were indeed legitimate. (If by "the representatives" you mean the Supreme Council of Crimea. It was absolutely legitimate, it was the same council, nothing changed. It was dissolved by the Rada much later, on 15 March 2014, one day before the referendum.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The article implies that on the day of the first decision to hold the referendum (27 February), the parliament was already occupied by armed forces. Petr Matas 11:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
By "why it could create this impression" I mean that the lead says several times that "the referendum was regarded as illegitimate by most countries". It mentions "a resolution declaring the referendum invalid", etc. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The speed of the whole procedure is not mentioned?

One of the most obvious elements of that referendum seen from a democratic point of view was the speed of the process. This International law professor calls it "hastly improvised" and I think this fact should be pointed out.--Anidaat (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed by this edit. Does anyone have any good reference for it (no opinion pieces, please)? Petr Matas 11:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!--Anidaat (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Demography changes in the past

I disagree with this edit, because it hides the fact that Crimean Tatars were a majority 200 years ago and were displaced and finally deported by Russians. In my opinion, the displacement of Greeks by Tatars before all that is not relevant to this article, because the Greeks are not involved in the conflict between Tatars and Russians. Petr Matas 08:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Piledhighandeep: Do you mean that a significant part (how large?) of the current Crimea population identify themselves with the people once displaced by Crimean Tatars? Petr Matas 08:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC). Update: Petr Matas 08:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Petr Matas: Thanks for opening a discussion. I believe that the recent deportation and oppression of Crimean Tatars, which affected some still alive today, is important. More ancient history is story-telling, and is dangerous. 250 years ago Muslim Crimean Tatars may have been a majority, but even if that is true, they were a majority ruling over an oppressed native minority (namely the indigenous Orthodox Christians, some Greek-speaking, some no-longer so) that they themselves had conquered 200 years prior (see Rumeíka). Much of the Orthodox population identifies in some way with the former Orthodox states of the Crimea that were conquered by, and persecuted by, the Muslim Crimean Tatars, especially today with the resurgence of interest in religiosity. It is very very hard to 'fairly' present the ancient history of conflicts, so I don't think such ancient history should be presented here. If we look for "who started it," we can go back in our retelling of an ancient tit-for-tat conflict to whatever arbitrary date we want such that the desired group "started" it. Similarly, these discussions about "who was there first" and "who is native" (and therefore somehow deserves even more recognition than their current non-majority status would otherwise entail) are easily manipulated by again choosing when to 'start the clock.' In any case, the Encyclopedia Britannica article on slavery states, "Approximately 75 percent of the Crimean population consisted of slaves or freedmen." (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fJSmVGPTL0YJ:www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) The Crimean Tatars' slaves (and freed slaves) were of course Christian (mostly Slav, hence the name), so if we are counting all humans (rather than simply the ruling 'citizens'), it is not even clear that the Muslim Crimean Tatars were a majority of residents of the Crimea, before their slave state began to fall. Introducing such distant history into this article's morality tale is, I believe, inappropriate. I realize that recent news articles have been dabbling in history, the media always does, but news is not scholarship, and it is possible that those articles have a POV. Piledhighandeep (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but I think that the background section should note that there were dramatic changes in the past 200 years (or maybe even more?), although no details are needed. This is not to show who was there first or who started it. It is just to illustrate the region's volatility. I'll try an edit. Petr Matas 11:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Considering that Russian authorities accidentally published, then retracted 15% support for union with the Russian Federation, along with voting irregularities of 104% turnout in "official" results, the legend "Subdivisions of Crimea colored according to referendum results" should be titled "Subdivisions of Crimea colored according to alleged referendum results". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Poll by GFK Ukraine - 93% support annexation

"A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it." UNIAN: http://www.unian.info/politics/1040281-poll-82-of-crimeans-support-annexation.html#

pls put this under the post referendum polls section. so thats it. anyone seriously believed that russians had to falsify this referendum? we saw how crimeans greeted russian soldiers last year - with kisses and flowers cheering. remember what the BBC reported said on the referendum day: they couldnt find any person against annexation, every person they interviewed was pro-russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.82.51 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Voter support lower than in Falklands(99.8%) or Gibraltar(98.48%)

In Crimean the voter support was 96.77% for joining Russia. This is lower than voter support in Falklands(99.8%) and Gibraltar(98.48%) in similar referendums about their national status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that 99.8% support can be obtained by democratic means. 97% may be possible in a country lacking independent media, but I would not call such country democratic. Petr Matas 03:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's a pretty serious accusation against the British government. Shii (tock) 01:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Shii: Maybe 99.8% is possible with an electorate of 1,650 voters. Petr Matas 01:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
And also lower than some other referendums. Do you really think anything hinges on this fact? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Please define similar. Russia isn't UK, ask the reachest Russian people, who transfer their money to the UK, send their children to UK schools and universities. Who didn't participate in Gibraltar or Falkland Islands like Tatars didn't?Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't be so sure. The 2008 Razumkov Centre poll suggests that 14% of Tatars were even in favor of joining Russia. Propaganda works quite well in East Europe. Petr Matas 14:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Population of Crimea: 2million Population of Gibraltar: 30thousand Population of the Falklands: 3thousand When you have a much lower population, a vote with over 90% in favor is very possible, but a lot less likely when the population reaches the millions. Ezza1995 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Public opinion poll, 16–22 January 2015

Regarding this edit, everything has been discussed here, and here, and evidently no consensus was reached. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

FPÖ - Freedom Party of Austria

I find at least part of article to be biased because defining the Freedom Party of Austria "far-right" is falsifying the truth. The FPÖ is a traditional libertarian type of party which turned to right-wing populism in the 80's-90's. Famous and reliable German Newspaper Die Zeit, for instance, defines the FPÖ as simply populist/right-wing populist]][1]. I can provide many other sources to prove my point. The source in the article is a piece of the New York Times that puts a whole bunch of political parties together (including the FPÖ) and calls them far-right. The New York Tines is hardly a reliable source when it comes to European Politics. What is lamentable more than anything else is the fact that the article calls the heir of Belgium's Vlaams Blok simply "nationalist" and does not put any adjective at all next to France's Front National: both parties are notoriously racist, far right, and xenophobic. I think that part of the article is pushing POV, trying to make it look like only far-right folks in Europe stand behind the Crimean People, which is obviously untrue. I propose to either eliminate the part that says "far-right" or substitute it with "right-wing populist". Any civil, non-threatening comment will be appreciated. --Mondschein English (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be interested in this: I will go ahead and edit the article and if someone has something against it, please, feel free to chime in. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Original research

Total registered voters calculation and rounding

In the Results section table, the Crimea total registered voters is calculated as Total votes cast (sourced) divided by Turnout (sourced). The result is almost identical to the number of registered voters from February (sourced), which is out of date however. The question is, whether such calculation is permissible under WP:CALC, and if yes, whether the result has to be rounded to reflect the fact, that the turnout is given with a 3 significant digits precision, to avoid false precision.

Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014/Archive 2#Original research. — Petr Matas 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


I don't think that we have reached consensus for the archived discussion yet. I would like to hear Aleksandr Grigoryev's opinion. — Petr Matas 05:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The guy from Lvov? Lol, they hate east ukraine and crimea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.217.149 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The guy is from the glorious city of Lviv. And does not hate east Ukraine or Crimea, but such non-adequates like yourself. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Petr Matas, I appreciate your gesture. But we still did not confirm where the total numbers of voters came from in the article. According to Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars only 30% of voters participated. So, statement from the Sevastopol city administration is seriously challenged and qualifies for POV or neutrality fail. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The official numbers are well-sourced and therefore should be included into the article. The Mejlis claim is well-sourced too and should be included as well. The numbers in the table come from the following sources:
  • Crimea total registered voters: Calculated as Total votes cast (official number) / Turnout (official number). The result is almost identical to the official number of registered voters from February. The question is, whether such calculation is permissible under WP:CALC, and if yes, whether the result has to be rounded to reflect the fact, that the turnout is given with a 3 significant digits precision.
  • Sevastopol total votes cast and total registered voters: These come from the Sevastopol city administration, so they are well-sourced and correspond to the official February figure as well. However, a simple calculation confirms with a 99.7% confidence, that at least one of these numbers does not come from the original vote count sums, but it is rather calculated using the turnout percentage rounded to 89.5%. This proof is an original research and I don't know how to deal with it. This is discussed in the next subsection.
— Petr Matas 13:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
As there is no consensus on applicability of WP:CALC, I am going to restore the notice on calculated values to let the reader decide for himself. — Petr Matas 08:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Remark: @Petr Matas, use {{DNAU}} to avoid archiving by the bot. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • What is going on here? This is not understandable. Petr Matas, please explain the RfC! Thank you. Red Slash 00:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your notice, Red Slash, I have added an explanation to the top. — Petr Matas 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think such calculation is permissible and not WP:OR because it is simple math, but maybe prefix it with "approx." or something because it is clear that 83.1% is rounded assuming all other figures are accurate. Biglobster (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Proof that vote counts have been reverse calculated

The Sevastopol total votes cast and total registered voters are both sourced and the latter corresponds to the official February figure as well. However, a simple calculation confirms with a 99.7% confidence, that at least one of these numbers does not come from the original vote count sums, but it is rather calculated using the turnout percentage rounded to 89.5%. The same occurs for the Sevastopol "Join Russia" vote count, which is precisely 95.6% of the total votes cast. This proof is an original research and I wonder whether we can make any use of it.

Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014/Archive 2#Sevastopol registered voters count. — Petr Matas 16:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Odd

  • Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?

How is this choice not "the status quo"? Even if it wasn't, voters would have still voted for it if they thought this would be the result. I don't get what this is implying. It seems the allegation of no choice was an early presumption based on what would have happened if they had voted for this rather than an allegation of lack of options. Also, calling it "controversial" over that is quite POV. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum

Extended content
how much does putin pays wikipedia?
I wonder why this article is failing to mention some important factors, I guess Putin pays good money to wikipedia.

1. The Crimean parliament did recognized the new Ukrainian governement. Only after the parlament was seized by russian special units, and the governor was replaced with new one, only then the parliament claimed it doesn't recognize the new Ukrainian governement. 2.Before the referendum the peninsula was overran by russian soldiers, and the referendum itself was conducted in fact under occupation of foreigner military.

Now you would have to agree that things like that are important, and should be mentioned in the article, right? But they aren't... why? I guess Putin pays some good money to wikipedia to write his propaganda nonsense.94.139.128.68 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Respecting the purpose of article talk pages

Would contributors please be aware that this is an article talk page, not a forum or blog. Please read WP:TPNO and kindly respect Wikipedia's protocols. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crimean status referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean status referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean status referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A few issues to be addressed.

In the Polling sub-section of Background section:

- I think that the post-referendum information should be moved to another section. They do not pertain to the Background section

- A table shows some results to a question that is not clearly stated. It is related to the statement that "UNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200:", but this table may be confusing when not having a question included.

- The table I refer above doesn't give much interesting information, with results covering a short period of time only. This could be summarized.

- Still referring to "UNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200:", it is to be noted that this series of polls also included a question about the statut of Crimea, and the possibility of joining the Russian Federation. This is interesting and could be included in the article. I have compiled the data below:

Answers to the question: "There are different opinions about what status would be optimal for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Which of the following options is the most appropriate for your views? "In your opinion, Crimea should be: ...?"

2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2011 Q3 2011 Q4
Independent State 9 10 10 10 8 7 8.3 11.0
Autonomous Subject of the Russian Federation 46 43 44 42 48 45 44.7 41.0
Autonomous Region Of Ukraine 33 33 33 33 33 37 33.8 31.6
Standard region of Ukraine 6 7 7 6 6 5 3.8 6.1
A region, which is directly subordinate to the President of Ukraine 0 1 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.0
Difficult to answer 6 6 6 7 5 6 (7.3) (8.3)

Note: the survey actually included 3 answer variation possibilities for "Autonomous Region Of Ukraine".

Oriclay 13:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

a referendum is called a will according to the Law

according to the Russian Law ? Ukraine Law? Or a referendum was not, but was a poll? a referendum has never been, was a poll! the city of Sevastopol has never been a part of the Crimea either in the times of the USSR or in Ukraine, why it was annexed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.108.50 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And why did people vote the way they did?? Voter Opinion section needed.

This article has the big gaping hole of not explaining why people voted the way they did. Why did people vote to stay with Ukraine, or with Russia? It needs to go a little further than saying "the Ukranian Revolution" and "ethnic Russians". Were they afraid of Ukraine? Did they think they'd benefit from being a part of Russia? This needs to be an entire section, like "Voter Opinion" or something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NittyG (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Stay with Ukraine", no, they in fact would have been fully independent. Even politically. Just read what the Constitution of Crimea of that time said. 109.252.90.66 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

sources regarding administration?

There are a lot of holes and unsourced claims regarding the administration of the referendum and its proceedings e.g. where it was organized, who were allowed to vote. Any sources that goes into detail on the process would be apricated.--Jakey222 (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What happened to source?

What happened to https://www.referendum2014.ru ? It is now a car repair company? AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Biased name and lead

Perhaps 2014 rigged Crimean status referendum https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/04/14/UN-report-Russia-rigged-Crimea-vote/4511397498675/ ? Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The lead and infobox quote obviouly false results without expressing any doubts.Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This title is not consistent with all other election/referendum articles, no matter how rigged or clean they were, example 1927 Liberian general election. Mellk (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
You mean probably 'is consistent'.
Usage of criminal language makes editors co-responsible.Xx236 (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are trying to say, what are you trying to accuse me of? WP:CRITERIA for titles includes consistency, so what other articles have such a title? Mellk (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Referendum results in infobox

Even votes where everyone agrees we’re fraudulent have their results displayed. Not liking the results doesn’t mean you remove them from the infobox

Infoboxes also need to comply with WP:NPOV, and it cannot do so if it presents these results as undisputed fact. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the platypus. Presenting the results in an infobox, removed from the context of a discussion of their legitimacy, is misleading. Bondegezou (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I do not see any precedent on this with any other election/referendum articles, including the most rigged ones. Let's also remember that this referendum was organized by Russia, and the legitimacy itself is mostly dismissed, it is not just the results that are disputed. Mellk (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk: Policy doesn't permit us to use the failure of other articles to comply with NPOV to justify this articles failure to comply - NPOV cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Instead, those articles should be fixed as well. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Showing what the official results are is not a violation of NPOV. Mellk (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
If articles for sham or rigged elections are like this, a classic example is 1927 Liberian general election, why do you think this is the case? Mellk (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Showing what the official results are is not a violation, if we make it clear that they are disputed and don't place WP:UNDUE emphasis on them. It's not possible to do this with the infobox, which is why we refer the reader to the results section which shows these official results in context.
If you think that the 1927 Liberian general election doesn't comply with NPOV, then I would suggest starting a discussion there; it isn't relevant to whether this article complies with NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
No, I do not think that article has a problem with NPOV, just like I do not think an infobox in this article showing the official results has a problem with NPOV. What I was trying to say was that there is probably a reason why in general this is not seen as a problem. Mellk (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
What is the reason? If the infobox gives readers the impression that these results are legitimate and undisputed, then there is an NPOV problem. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It can be argued that the article itself gives an impression of legitimacy. Mellk (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying? BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal Sorry if you did not understand where I am getting at. However I do not see consensus for your change. Also I do not see that this issue has been raised before, it seems no one had an issue with the infobox the past 8 years until now (correct me if I am wrong on this). But if another editor agrees that an infobox with official results is some kind of NPOV violation, then you can restore it. Regards. Mellk (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Another editor did, Bondegezou, which is why I see a consensus for the change. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
An IP reverted you, then you restored this. Still, at this stage, I think it is too early. It would be better to work out a compromise version in the meantime. So, I would suggest restoring the infobox how it was but making it clearer it is according to official results such as when it mentions each region. Does that work for you? Mellk (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I also want to add that as it was a Moscow-organized referendum, Moscow gave the results, so even if it was completely rigged, the article is still about a Moscow-organized referendum. The "disputed" outcome implies there are competing tallies or something. Mellk (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
There are competing tallies (see this article) and even without competing tallies the results are disputed; independent reliable sources believe that Russia lied about the figures, even if they don't have the real figures.
I think having the official results so prominently, even with a small note that they are disputed, would provide WP:UNDUE emphasis on those results, but I have added a wikilink to the results section. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not a tally. This is already mentioned in the alternative estimates section (because it is an estimate) and is from an official report[2]. The issue is not about whether the numbers of the official results are true or not, otherwise by this logic, we should not have any such infobox for any Russian election articles which all involve ballot stuffing, inflated numbers etc. Mellk (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I've restored the official results. This information is what readers expect to find in infoboxes for elections and referendums, even for disputed or fraudulent ones. Instead, we need to figure out how to present the information in the appropriate context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is non-negotiable; even if readers expect this information in the infobox it can't be in there unless we can make it clear that it was disputed or fraudulent. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

UNDP polls

The UNDP polling data removed in the recent revision is easy to corroborate as coming from the actual UNDP in Crimea website, called the 'Crimea integration and development programme'. A look at the internet archive shows that the site dates back to 2002. https://web.archive.org/web/20020601000000*/undp.crimea.ua And a quick search of the official UNDP domain returns numerous documents which link back to undp.crimea.ua, clearly showing that it was an official UNDP website.

You can find this domain being referenced in numerous official documents from the UNDP website, for example here are some: http://content-ext.undp.org/aplaws_publications/3307336/UNDP_Ukraine_web.pdf (Page 15 and 16) https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/644 (Emails of numerous UNDP officials listed as @undp.crimea.ua) https://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_file.cfm?doc_id=19245 (Page 11, website clearly listed as official CIDP website)

A Google search returns 250 results for the domain from UNDP.org https://www.google.com/search?q=from%3Aundp.org+%22undp.crimea.ua%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsbssc3ny-7F2iIj_NHO0UwDJZ9NvQ%3A1666967000770&ei=2OVbY_DJLqj31sQPk7isqAg&ved=0ahUKEwjwlbv_j4P7AhWou5UCHRMcC4UQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=from%3Aundp.org+%22undp.crimea.ua%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQA0oECEEYAUoECEYYAFCRkAtY9bgLYJa-C2gBcAB4AIABcIgB5QmSAQQxNy4xmAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp


The polling data therefore comes from an actual UNDP mission and removing it just because the site has since become defunct is wrong. I have restored it given that I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this was an official UNDP poll. 190.246.100.4 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no proof of this being related to UN.
The current website is taken over by squatters. http://www.undp.crimea.ua/
This seems like complete nonsense. If there is no link to UN.ORG - i suggest deletion. 144.121.77.154 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

@BilledMammal: Using an RfC for 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine as evidence of consensus for THIS article comes across as disingenuous. You tried to make the same edit a while ago without consensus and now trying to brute force it. OK, not good. Mellk (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

How is it disingenuous? I had forgotten about the previous discussion, but it died out without coming to a conclusion either way. BilledMammal (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Because this is an RfC about 2022 "referendums" and not this vote. The outcome of that RfC did not apply to this article. If I am wrong, can you point out where in the RfC it mentions the infobox of this article too? Mellk (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That's an argument why the RFC is irrelevant - one I disagree with, given the very clear parallels between the this referendum and those referendums - not why raising it is disingenuous. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but it is quite clear that the RfC applies to the 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine article only. Yes there are parallels, but the RfC explicitly applies to the infobox of one article. Specifically: Should we include the below infobox's within the article to show the referendum results? It is not possible to use that RfC to say it "demonstrates a consensus" for this article. Mellk (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Why do you believe there would be a different result if an RfC was held here? As far as I can tell all the relevant facts are the same, and if that is the case then it would be a waste of the communities time to hold another RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't find the "there would probably be consensus for this change" argument to be convincing. Is that part of the policies? Mellk (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Mellk, if you read the Rfc, you will see that nearly all that was said applies also to this article. I don't think anybody should restore the infoboxes without explaining the differences between the referendum covered in this article and that in the other one. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was specifically about those four infoboxes in that specific article. Nowhere in that RfC does it mention the infobox in THIS article. Just because you think a RfC should apply to another article that is not covered, does not mean it does apply. Claiming it shows consensus for this article comes across as disingenuous. If your best argument is someone has to explain the differences between the referendum covered in this article and that in the other one, then this will have to go to a noticeboard instead because quite frankly, it is ridiculous. The title of the RfC is literally: RfC on the inclusion of the below infobox's for the results of the referendum. Mellk (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I did not say that the RfC should apply here, but I said that what was said in that RfC can be applied to this article. From the closer's comment: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does say that we should include only the most important information in the infobox. And the outcome of a rigged referendum is surely not the most important information. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I was more referring to BilledMammal's edit summary. The first two sources cited in this article highlight the results [3][4]. Even after the plot was revealed it is still mentioned in the same way.[5]. Point is, coverage differed significantly in RS. Such figures were not mentioned in RS for 2022 for obvious reasons. Mellk (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
My edit summary said, correctly, that there was a consensus against the arguments used here - not that the RfC directly applied. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
In other words, you claimed to have consensus? Mellk (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The situation is almost identical; it's a rigged Russian election held in Ukraine, that resulted in Russia annexing a part of Ukraine in a move that almost no other nation recognizes. Further, almost all the arguments made in the RfC there are applicable here - and indeed many of the arguments made in that RfC were made in the previous discussion here.
If you can't see any reason that the result here would be different, why is it worth spending the time of the community to hold another RfC? BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
You could have done this without referencing a different RfC for a different article as showing consensus for this article. As I mentioned above, coverage was different in RS, and an argument for not including such an infobox would be if RS did not give any attention to such results. In the case of this article, it does not apply. Mellk (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing a sampling of the sources included most of them don't include the results. Of those that do they don't give any credence to the results and instead put them in the context of "Russia claims" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
So the results are attributed to the officials. Does not sound unique in this case. Mellk (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
MOS says, "the most important". That RS gave attention to it, doesn't mean that RS presented it as "most important". Now, in 2023, there are not only news sources, but also academic books covering these events. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
This is basically with any election, where the "most important information" is who won, not what the exact figure of the win was (which here would be the result of annexation anyway). In this case, it is still highlighted, rather than omitted in the other case. Mellk (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion has already become rather long, but I didn't read any reason based on WP guidelines why the infobox should be included. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the purpose is to summarize the key facts, in a way that does not simply supplement them. It does not specifically refer to the "most important information". This would include the claimed results which show the outcome of annexation, as given prominence in the sources. Mellk (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Did I understand you correctly that you think the annexation was the "outcome" of the referendum ? Rsk6400 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I did not say what I think was the outcome, I said the claimed results show an outcome of annexation. The only argument presented here is "it was rigged so it cannot be mentioned in an infobox" which is not mentioned in any guideline. The key arguments for not including an infobox in 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine consisted of there being consensus that the infoboxes were not informative in that article and that the results were not given any prominence in RS. MOS:INFOBOXUSE says that the use of an in infobox in an article is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. So referring to a consensus of a different article is completely irrelevant. No reason to sidetrack. Mellk (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, Mellk, but how experienced editors interpret WP guidelines in a similar case is NOT irrelevant. That was my first point. What you quoted above ("it was rigged, so ...") has not been said here. My second point is that the "results" of a rigged referendum are not important enough to be mentioned in an infobox. The most important thing (that it was manipulated in many ways) should be placed most prominently. Feel free to start just another RfC or to seek other ways of conflict resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You keep mentioning the "most important thing" but this is not mentioned in the guideline. In addition, mentioning a past RfC for a different article is not a replacement for writing your own arguments. Mellk (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Mellk, this discussion now really has gone on long enough. I quoted "most important" from the closer's comment. The MOS says "key facts", and it also says "exclude any unnecessary content". Rsk6400 (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You are not obliged to respond. But for future, linking a different RfC or simply just repeating the closing comment (which does not apply here) instead of writing an argument is best avoided. At the moment you have not given a good argument, but I do not expect it to be improved upon. Mellk (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Polls by UNDP ?

I just removed the polls based on http://www.undp.crimea.ua/. That server is not reachable any more and doesn't look like a server of the United Nations Development Programme. Why should a UN agency having the task of helping development conduct polls on a question like that ? Ukraine is a sovereign member of the UN, its borders are internationally accepted, even Russia signed various treaties accepting Ukraine's borders - in that situation no UN agency would even think of conducting such a poll. Why should a UN agency use a server in the domain crimea.ua ? The poll was removed by an IP on May 22 with the edit summary, Removing data not proven to be from UN. The website where it's hosted is defunct and seems fake. It was restored by Masebrock on July 20 with the edit summary, The [International Republican Institute]] is a non-profit funded by the US government. It's not "fake". from which I conclude that there was a misunderstanding, since nobody ever claimed that the International Republican Institute was fake. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The source is available on the Internet Archive. Link rot is not an acceptable reason to remove a source.
2. undp.crimea.ua was indeed an official website of the UN Development Programme. It is referenced on numerous official documents hosted directly on the UNDP website, such as [[6]] (page 15-16). Masebrock (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
My apologies for the confusion regarding the International Republican Institute comment. That was a misunderstanding on my part. Masebrock (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight section tag

The overall gestalt impression between the subsection and the following one doesn’t quite give an impression of WP:DUEness. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, official Russian sources shoudn’t be extensively used to present apparent “detailed results” of a sham referendum. We should only present them cited by and as presented by reliable sources.
On top of that, a lot of these articles about 2014 originally necessarily relied extensively on journalistic sources. Much of that should be replaced by more academic sources reflecting the current consensus with years of retrospection and the elimination of serious false balance problems with news reports of the time.  —Michael Z. 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

UNDP survey

The survey has been edited, deleted and restored many, many times. It’s also sources with dead links to a website that can’t be verified as belonging to UNDP when searching their official websites. I have written UNDP to investigate and contact Wiki if they confirm that the information is doctored to settle this once and for all. 22cate00 (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The veracity of the website was confirmed in a previous discussion. It was a genuine UNDP site, as is confirmed by UNDP documents like this linking to it (see page 15). Number 57 12:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.zeit.de/2015/15/rechtspopulismus-oesterreich-fpoe
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Crimean_status_referendum/Archive_6&oldid=1211659819"