Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bias Concerns

I'm not necessarily opposed to including something about the monitors' political affiliations given that most of them wouldn't be considered mainstream but I think it's problematic to imply that neo-nazis and communists are sympathetic towards Russia without some pretty strong sources to back that up. The information about political affiliation should be presented neutrally so readers can decide whether they think such people would be biased towards Russia. Given that there were 135 observers (according to RT), information about individual observers seems like undue weight but I'd support a more general statement about the observers. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right, but as of now, all observers refered to in the Monitors section are problematic in my opinion. I hoped that either many others with no problems will be added or some problems will be found for a vast majority of them. — Petr Matas 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the entire "bias concerns" section needs to be deleted as it is original research. Here's an example using the first name on the list; lets assume for the moment that it is an undisputed and properly cited fact that Charalampos Angourakis is a Representative from the Communist Party of Greece. Wikipedia can not say that is a "concern" unless there is a reliable source to be cited that says it is a concern. It doesn't matter if half of the observers are known to be personal friends of Vladimir Putin, we cannot say that is a "concern" unless a reliable source says it first. - Hoplon (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's not say that it is a concern, but the contents of the table are sourced, so I think that we should keep at least the table. — Petr Matas 20:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the number of international observers, I don't think any individual observer's political affiliation or history is notable. Consider - what does observer Johan Bäckman's activist past say about the referendum? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. But a list of affiliations of all observers mentioned by this RT (pro-Kremlin) article will be interesting. — Petr Matas 00:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The only way I can understand this being relevant to the article is if these affiliations affect the credibility of the international observers. We cannot make that argument ourselves, we need a source. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. — Petr Matas 06:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think their affiliation matters considerably. If the validity of these monitors is based on their credibility, then it matters greatly if Russia collected a bunch of random malcontents, and blocked OSCE accredited observers, in order to have a group that was more pliable. It seems that objective observers were blocked from monitoring the elections, and a selected group was admitted. How much we value the viewpoint of the monitors goes to the essence of them being monitors at all, so yes the background of the monitors is what decides their relevance and credibility. Furthermore, we do not "need a source to say they a concern", thats neither here nor there. Does it meet notability criteria? yes, this is notable, relevant, an important part of the article. ITs up to wikipedia readers to decide whether its a concern or not to them. The article does not make up people's minds for them by telling them what is right, wrong, or credible, wikipedia gives the facts of the situation and readers make up their own minds. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Before including facts so readers can "make up their own minds" those facts have be to be determined to be relevant. In this case relevancy depends on the idea or concern that any individual monitor's political beliefs or affiliations affects his ability to be a referendum monitor. But Wikipedia can't state that a neo-nazi or a communist or Vladimir Putin's best friend is unfit to be an observer unless there is a source to back that up. If the Crimean authorities only invited "malcontents" or Russophiles to be observers that would be relevant but we'd need a source for that and even then going into detail about individual monitors would be undue weight. Per WP:BRD, the usual practice is to edit, revert and discuss; leaving the article in the state it was before the edit until some sort of consensus is reached. Given that Petr Matas re-added the section after a revert and he has since agreed, I'm going to remove the affiliations section although please don't take this an attempt to close discussion on the matter. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

↓ (moved from User:Petr Matas)

"But Wikipedia can't state that a neo-nazi or a communist or Vladimir Putin's best friend is unfit to be an observer unless there is a source to back that up." That assertion was not made: nowhere did it say that they were unfit to be an observer, the material did not say that anywhere You removed all this material, which should still be there. I object to its removal, since understanding the background of the observers is important to being able to judge their credibility. Ottawakismet (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation requested - Crimean monitors affiliation

Sure, absolutely fair request. The source has been added to the referendum page. Canada banned him from entering the country for his hate views (hate speech is prohibited in Canada, though not in the United States as much) I found a second article from a high quality news source (macleans), which adds more information. x http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10630-canada-ejects-serbian-american-scholar-stops-speech-at-university http://www.macleans.ca/education/university/guest-ubc-lecturer-denied-entry-to-canada/ http://ubyssey.ca/news/serbian-speaker-accused-of-hate-speech/ This is an exerpt from the first source:

IRGC is shocked that the University of British Columbia would allow Srdjan [sic] Trifkovic, who has repeatedly and openly denied the Srebrenica genocide to speak at this respectable academic institution. A historical revisionist like Trifkovic should not be allowed to lecture in an academic context. His version of events in the Balkans is inaccurate (as proven by his denial of the Srebrenica genocide) and the Serbian Students’ Association should not be allowed to pass him off as a reliable source.

Denial of genocide is widely considered to constitute a form of racist hate propaganda that is incompatible with Canadian values. Recently, the Parliament of Canada has recognized the Bosnian Genocide that took place in the enclave of Srebrenica in July 1995.

Thanks for sending me the note, always better for things to show their sources.Ottawakismet (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

↑ (moved from User:Petr Matas)

• Here is a source, for the concerns. Quote: No major international organizations are monitoring today’s vote, after “self-defense groups” prevented their entry. A number of self-proclaimed observers, mostly far-right European politicians from across Europe, are in Crimea, with one saying “What is sauce for Kosovo’s goose is certainly sauce for Crimea’s gander.” — Petr Matas 19:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Communists are far-right now? Far be it for me to question the guardian so I won't challenge that description but the source doesn't report on any concerns. Again, it can't be implied that far-right Europeans are unsuited to perform the duties of a referendum observer simply because of their political beliefs. The refusal to allow OSCE military observers is already covered in the article. OSCE referendum monitors were (informally) invited by Crimean PM Aksyonov but declined as the article says. A number of media reports I've read recently seem to conflate the OSCE's military and referendum monitors but that doesn't mean we have to. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I'd support the inclusion of "No major international organizations sent observers" but I'd prefer more sources and a citation needed tag to encourage other editors to find them. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (more info here) sent an observer mission and I think the CIS can be described as a "major international organization". Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other sources reporting the involvement of the CIS IPA and nothing is reported concerning Crimea on the CIS IPA website so I expect the www.contact.az article was mistaken or badly translated so disregard that. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, no one needs to have "raised concerns" in print for the material to be relevant, its relevant regardless. Secondly, I have added those who objected to the validity of the observers. The OSCE, and others have printed concerns about the validity of the observers, though someone took that down. Ottawakismet (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider - why do you think this is relevant? Is it not because you think these affiliations affect the credibility of the international observers? That may very well be true but we cannot make that argument ourselves, we can only report on a notable source that makes that argument. If OSCE has "printed concerns about the validity of the observers" then by all means that should be added but, considering that there were 135 international observers, going into detail about individual monitors would be undue weight. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I see Ottawakismet re-added the disputed section. Per WP:CON, as consensus has not been reached, and considering the agreement of Petr Matas and Hoplon, I will revert the edit. Please continue to discuss the matter on the talk page and do not take unilateral action. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"The OSCE, and others have printed concerns about the validity of the observers, though someone took that down"

I reverted your original edit and I reverted your new edit for the same reason (found in the edit summary) - it wasn't in the source. The first part about the OSCE considering the referendum illegal is already covered in the "background" and doesn't belong under "Monitors" because they weren't monitoring. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments, but still I would prefer to keep the section to encourage others to improve it and provide sources. At least for a few days. — Petr Matas 04:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For the third time - given that there were 135 international observers, details about individual observers is not notable. Only general statements about the observers is notable and that doesn't require its own section. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this source? No national or objective international monitors were allowed to observe conditions of the referendum. — Petr Matas 05:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It can't support a statement of fact because it's an opinion piece. At most, we could write in the "Monitors" section:

Some media commentators questioned the objectivity of the international monitors.

But that's just gonna stick out like a sore thumb. Most readers will wonder why their objectivity is questioned. As the source doesn't give a reason why, we can't speculate that it has to do with political affiliations or anything else. The notion that "No national or objective international monitors were allowed" is refuted by better sources in the article which notes an invitation to the OSCE. This further undermines the credibility of the source. Given the sole weak source, it doesn't belong in the lead. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to recall those references, which dicuss the Czech observers under EODE, but now I see that the news are written in a way that it seems that they question the observers objectivity, but in fact they don't. — Petr Matas 06:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

However, Lidovky.cz questions credibility of Stanislav Berkovec, because he claimed that he paid the trip cost himself, while the Czech trio including him was paid by EODE. Quote: Zarážející je ale ještě další rozpor v popisu této pozorovatelské mise. Zatímco Šarapatka připustil, že měl celou cestu "gratis" včetně letenek, Berkovec v rozhovoru tvrdil, že si vše financoval sám. "Cesta se uskutečnila na mé vlastní náklady," uvedl. — Petr Matas 08:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, Petr, but you have to keep in mind two things - relevancy and notability. Regarding relevancy, political affiliations are only relevant if they affect the credibility of the observers and the source has to explicitly report that. Regarding notability, given that there were 135 international observers, details about individual observers are not notable. Therefore, only general statements detailing concerns about the objectivity/credibility of the group of international observers could be both notable and relevant. It would be WP:SYNTHESIS to use a number of sources detailing concerns about individual observers to support a general statement about the observers. Perhaps if there were only 10-20 observers in total we could overlook WP:SYNTHESIS but as it is Berkovec, Angourakis, Trifkovic, and several others does not constitute a significant fraction of the 135-member observer team. I don't want to be rude by bolding what I wrote but I've repeated myself multiple times. If you disagree with what I said about relevancy or notability then please discuss that with me but please don't fill the talk page with information about individual members until we've discussed the notability and relevancy of concerns about individual members. Thank you. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I got it, Stephen. No more sources without general statements. — Petr Matas 19:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I found an op-ed where the authors writes, "At least many of the monitors were no doubt biased" and precedes that with the description of the EODE as a "hardly a non-partisan organization." Ironically, he comes to this conclusion by citing the EODE wikipedia article that Petr Matas himself recently created. That worked out well, I guess. Together with the previously discussed Huff Post opinion peice, we can confidently include a general statement of concern about the international observers. I think we have Petr Matas to thank for this more than anyone ;) Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Individual affiliation reports again

According to the consensus above, reports on individual observer affiliations are not notable and should be removed. — Petr Matas 08:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please explain why you reinserted reports on individual observers again. See current consensus above. Petr Matas 18:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

First, that discussion appears to be old, so I didn't see it. Second, I do not see "Consensus" there. Third, this info is well sourced, relevant and provides necessary context. To exclude it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Restoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Stephen J Sharpe, please explain it again for Volunteer Marek. People also seem to reinsert various names frequently. How about putting all int'l observers, that we know about, with their neutrally stated affiliations (MEP or what political party) into a table on the right? Petr Matas 05:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, "explain it again" to me. Explain why well sourced and very relevant info is being removed over and over again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it's a question of relevancy - the political affiliations of individual observers could only be relevant to the article if said affiliations affected their ability to perform as objective observers. Wikipedia can not, on it's authority, determine that neo-nazis or communists or other non-mainstream politicians are less capable of observing a referendum than liberals or conservatives. Before anything else, we need reputable sources that report such concerns or explitcly make that argument and the only thing we could find was this somewhat obsure op-ed but perhaps better sources have been found since then. Secondly, there's the question of notability - given that there were 135 international observers, the political affiliations of individual observers does not seem notable. Given the consensus from the previous discussion and considering WP:BRD I'm going to remove the information on individual members but please don't take this an attempt to close discussion on the matter. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How is their political affiliation NOT relevant? And relevancy is established by sources. If sources deem it relevant to discuss their political affiliations, then it's relevant. And they do. Furthermore, it's not like we're talking about political affiliations like "slightly right of center vs. slightly left of center". We're talking about the "far-right" affiliation. That by itself makes it notable and relevant exactly because these aren't usually the kind of political affiliations associated with election observers.

Wikipedia can not, on it's authority, determine that neo-nazis or communists or other non-mainstream politicians are less capable of observing a referendum than liberals or conservatives. - Wikipedia is not making that determination.

That whole thing about these supposed "135 international observers"... well, that's sort of the problem right there. But with including this dubious claim. Some pro-Russian official made it so, since apparently we have to repeat mindlessly everything that pro-Russian officials claim, we put it in the article. But independent sources don't talk about these supposed "135 international observers". They talk about the observers who were actually identified, and all of these happen to be these far-right guys.

It's simply NOT true that the digitaljournal.com is the only source which mentions these guys affiliation. For freak's sake, there's a reliable source entitled "Far-Right Forces are Influencing Russia's Actions in Crimea" right at the end of the text you removed! And that's not an "obscure source" either. Please be more careful with making claims which are just not accurate.

There was no consensus in the previous discussion. And per BRD I'm gonna restore the info, since it's well sourced, notable and relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Stephen did not say that their political affiliation is not relevant, but that the relevancy is the first condition to check, and I think that Stephen can agree that it is fulfilled. Concerning the notability, AFAIK, we don't have any source, which says that majority of observers known by name are far right or that the actual number was significantly lower than 135. Therefore, individual observer affiliations are not notable. The statement, that some were far right, sufficiently summarizes what the sources say. Concerning the concensus, the previous discussion ended in a disputation between me and Stephen, who convinced me that he is right. By the way, I think that there is exactly one notable observer, the leader of the mission Mateusz Piskorski. Petr Matas 15:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If the political affiliation is relevant and mentioned in sources, what's the problem?

The text does not say "majority", it says "many" which is inline with the sources.

And we actually DON'T have a source to the effect that the "actual number" was 135. We have a claim by the Russian propaganda outlet that there were 135. The existence of the claim and the factual accuracy of the claim are two different things. That's why arguing that "there were 135 of them and we don't have a source which enumerates the far-right affiliation of each one of these 135 so we need to remove the sources which do mention the political affiliation of the most prominent ones" is bunk. We DON'T KNOW if there were 135. We do know that there were some far-right wingnuts there though.

I do think Piskorski should be put back in. But several others are certainly notable, Luc Michel for example.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand BRD. As it states, "While discussing the disputed content, neither editor should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached". As Petr Matas and myself have some concerns with the edits, please refrain from reinserting them while discussion is ongoing. Simply put, sources do not determine relevancy for a Wikipedia article - if reliable sources noted the sexual orientations of the observers we would not feel compelled to report them. There has to be a connection between the information and the article and the only conceivable connection between the political beliefs of the observers and the referendum is that their beliefs make them less capable or credible as observers. Wikipedia can not make that argument - it can only report on sources that do. The New Republic op-ed "Far-Right Forces are Influencing Russia's Actions in Crimea" does not explicitly make that argument - it simply notes that invitations were sent to some far-right politicians. Let me emphasize that - simply noting the political beliefs of an observer does not imply that the observer is less credible; consider, if the same article noted that a certain observer had liberal political beliefs would you assume that the author was making an argument that liberals are not credible? Furthermore, even if we established the relevancy of an observer's political beliefs, it would still be undue weight because any single observer is an insignificant part of the larger observer team. I'm sure that we can find more sources that report on such concerns so I support keeping a general statement about observer political affiliations and I support a statement concerning the EODE head, Mateusz Piskorski, because of his position. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, with regard to WP:BRD, they keep changing that page and can't make up their mind about what it actually is. The part you quote was actually only added a few months ago, it wasn't there before, and I'm very much tempted to go there and remove that ill-thought out nonsense. This is a good part of the reason why BRD is neither a Wikipedia policy nor a guideline. It's just an essay. Don't over rate it. Anyway, even putting that aside, the injunction to "don't revert while discussion is ongoing" applies to ALL sides. Contrary to a common, but erroneous, belief "BRD" does not stand for "Me gets to be Bold and Revert you, while you have to Discuss stuff on talk page until I feel like allowing you to make an edit". If there's to be no reverting while discussion is ongoing, why am I being reverted? That stuff was in the article before. (This is actually why that sentence IS ill-thought out nonsense)

And actually if reliable sources did note the sexual orientation of the observers when discussing them then yeah, we would mention it. But of course they don't, because it is not relevant. See? It works.

There has to be a connection between the information and the article and the only conceivable connection between the political beliefs of the observers and the referendum is that their beliefs make them less capable or credible as observers. - this is original research. Both in general (no such policy or guideline) and in particular (irrelevant to this discussion). It's original research intended to justify removing well sourced text rather than insert badly sourced text, but original research none the less.

Furthermore, even if we established the relevancy of an observer's political beliefs, it would still be undue weight because any single observer is an insignificant part of the larger observer team. - this is also wrong headed original research. A single observer is notable and mentioning them does not violate WP:UNDUE IF sources talk about him or her. It doesn't matter if there were two observers or a thousand. If sources discuss one person in particular then yes, that person is relevant and notable. Sources determine whether someone is notable and relevant not some invented-on-the-spot criteria by Wikipedia editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a slight correction: Piskorski is the head of the observer team, Michel is the head of EODE. Petr Matas 15:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh... in regard to this edit summary [1]. "2:1" isn't consensus. Read WP:CONSENSUS again. It ain't "consensus" because consensus isn't voting. And it isn't consensus cuz your sample size is too small. Also there was another user(s) who agreed with me here, so it's not even 2:1.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is commonly referred to by editors and as a new editor I am inclined to trust a popular essay over my own intuitions or that of another editor. In the lead of the essay it states, "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." This is I why I reverted your edit. Petr Matas and I are not holding the page hostage until we "feel like allowing you to make an edit"; I just want to have a full discussion on the issue. Regarding the matter of relevancy, I have to disagree with the notion that anything written in a reliable source is necessarily relevant or notable. Wikipedia has different standards for relevancy and notability because it is encylopedia, not a newspaper (see WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS). Otherwise, articles would quickly become bloated with any information mentioned in the context of the article subject. For instance, if observers Berkovec's and Angourakis' political beliefs are notable than every individual observer's political beliefs are notable resulting in a long list of names and (probably disputed) characterizations of their beliefs. With only a few names it gives the impression that they are representative of the whole or are important members of the team - like team leader, Piskorski - and, as far as I am aware, we do not have reliable sources that say that. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, in this case the "bold edit" would've been Petr's attempts at removing well sourced information, so "status quo ante" would be undoing that revert, and restoring the text. (and like I said people keep changing what BRD is supposed to be about all the time. It's also one of the most misunderstood and abused of Wikipedia's... essays)

And I never said that anything written in a reliable source is automatically relevant or notable. That's a strawman. But sources IS how we determine notability and relevancy, especially if there's disagreement in regard to editorial judgement calls. The political affiliation and the prominence within certain political spheres of certain of the "observers" is most certainly relevant and notable. That is why it's reflected in primary sources. Just type in "Luc Michel Crimea" and you'll get plenty of them.

Likewise it is a total strawman to argue that if one of the "observer's" political beliefs are notable then automatically ALL of them are and we MUST list them all. Nobody's saying that, and that is not a logical conclusion. We list those observers' affiliations who are specifically discussed in sources. Piskorski, Michel, a few others. It might be the case that Berkovec and Angourakis are not notable and maybe we should leave those two particular guys out. But we cannot leave the ones which are discussed in sources (I'm getting tired of repeating that). ANDDDD the sources discuss these guys BECAUSE they are representative. It's not "us" creating that impression, it's the sources. Your argument appears to be "sources do not discuss every single observer in detail. Therefore we cannot include any info about those observers which the sources do discuss". This is just simply incorrect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. The sources cited are op-ed pieces. When I googled "Luc Michel Crimea", I found some more op-ed pieces and some blogs. None of op-ed pieces are authored by prominent personalities. None of the author's of the cited sources state that Luc Michel or others are representative of the team nor could they because the EODE has not published a list of their Crimean observers. Please note that three op-ed articles that each note one observer constitutes a single citation for each single edit and cannot be construed as three supporting sources for a single edit. I consider this undue weight. I cautiously support a statement reading,

Some commentators have raised concerns about the far-right political affiliations of some of the international observers

because this statement doesn't give undue weight to the sources. I'm cautious because the last two sources don't explicitly state that their affiliations are a concern but it could be implied since it's noted in the context of a critical opinion. I'll try to find better sources as well. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

None of op-ed pieces are authored by prominent personalities. - again, simply not true. Timothy Snyder is a prominent Harvard historian and an a renown expert on the region.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, I was too dismissive about Snyder. I'm willing to amend my proposed solution to write

Some commentators have raised concerns about the far-right political affiliations of some of the international observers including Enrique Ravello, Luc Michel, Béla Kovács, and team leader Mateusz Piskorski.

I'm hesitant to include Enrique Ravello since he's not prominent enough to have his own article. Going into details about each individual's political background seems like undue weight especially since it can be found in their respective Wikipedia articles. How does that sound to everyone? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We could also add, ". . . including EODE team leader, Mateusz Piskorski" with a supporting citation. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure if I agree with the precise wording, but how about we agree that the people we mention by name are those which are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that listing of multiple names will not demonstrate anything, it would be just undue weight. The statement that some of them (preferably quantified), including the team leader, were far right, is the most important message, not the exact names. Therefore I propose limiting the list to Piskorski and maybe Michel. Additionally, I propose to add a right-floating table with all known int'l observers, their roles (MEP etc.) and which political party they belong to (neutrally stated). Petr Matas 15:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not as if the list of names would set a precedent for adding any other observer's name - only those who are prominent enough to have a Wikipedia article and/or hold an important position on the observer team are mentioned. I don't understand how listing an observer's name can be undue weight but creating a table with details about each observer's political affiliations is not undue weight. Further, I suspect it will be difficult to find reliable sources detailing some of the lesser-known observer's political backgrounds especially considering that such descriptions are often contested. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stephen J Sharpe: I think that the list of those with a Wikipedia article would be still too long for inclusion into the objections. Concerning the table, many of the observers are important politicians (MEPs, MPs, mayors...), which I see as a relevant information, not only with respect to the objections. And because they are politicians, it is also relevant, which political party they are from (only the party, no additional details). Where this information is not available, we would mention just the name. I think that the table will have about 20 entries, because only a fraction of the names is known. Petr Matas 06:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

please please

Need sources in English. For articles Crimea, Russian (ru wiki). you can lead them on the page Crimea (ru wiki). This is necessary for the article, reason - difficult to find the source of not knowing English (knowing little about the quality of the source). Just create in the discussions -> == Sources in English == Well of course that this was the source of expert analysis (And specify the - source = analyst. Or source = opinion of President.). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

On that matter, note 18 does not support what it is supposedly supporting (that "In an interview on 22 January 2015 Igor Strelkov admitted that his militia group coerced Crimean deputies to vote in favor of secession from Ukraine."). The cited link is, first of all, to a very biased, very non-objective source. Secondly, it is neither primary nor even secondary -- as the cited article itself links to another article on another site, which contains only a broken link, purportedly to a video clip showing what was cited. Thirdly, the linked article makes vague allusion to the statement for which it is purportedly a citation. When you follow the links in the cited article back, the apparent secondary source on which it is based does not even contain a hint of the assertion to which note 18 is supposedly a citation. In sum, the sentence ostensibly supported by note 18 finds in that note not only an utter lack of objectivity, but also an utter lack of actual support. The sentence ostensibly supported by note 18 should be removed in its entirety.

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.politics.hu/20140319/foreign-minister-tells-cnn-solidarity-must-underpin-any-3rd-stage-sanctions/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• My proposal on Hungary's reaction:
• Hungary – Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the referendum as "illegitimate and unlawful." The ministry also emphasized that it "remains committed to Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity."
  • I incorporated it into the article with some modifications. Petr Matas 10:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The observers and other edits

This edit [2] adds "There were 135 independent observers from 23 countries who found the". No. These were not "independent observers". They were an assortment of far-right politicians cherry picked by an organization with ties to extreme right and Neo-Nazi groups. The claim is unsourced. Do not restore it without providing a reliable source.

This edit [3] changes it to "While the referendum was described as fair and legitimate by reputed international observers" and cites it to RT TV. This is exactly the kind of factual claim which you cannot source to a non-reliable source like RT. Same goes for the statement "Other politicians, for example Ewald Stadler - a member of the European Parliament, stated that the referendum is legitimate and should be recognized, citing the UN Charte" And you most certainly cannot just put that info in there without mentioning that Ewald Stadler is a member of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria. But honestly, since this is a WP:FRINGE, and minor politician the text violates WP:UNDUE, in addition to the unreliable source. And you really really really cannot make such an edit with an edit summary which falsely claims "minor clarifications" and is marked as minor.

This edit [4]. The claim that "The status quo was instead implied by the choice not to vote" is unsourced and, aside from not making much sense, is an example of original research.

This edit [5] changes sources but does not actually improve them.

This edit [6] appears to contain original research and again talks about these faux-observers, including Stadler, without mentioning their ties to far-right groups. And no reliable sources are used. Again, this is NOT a "minor" edit.

This edit [7] just removes tags which where rightfully placed there by another user.

This edit [8]. The quotation marks around "observers" is in the source itself. Please don't remove them.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Scare quotes have non-neutral connotation of "so-called" (implies fakeness). If you insist on them, you may separate them from main text with something like blockquote (or similar quoting instrument), but not leave in plain text, otherwise it (the article) becomes POVed (that is, assures 100% illegitimacy, this point is controversial due to:

a) revolution brokes laws (Kyiv gov't was already formed with procedural violations I've pointed above) and

b) there is a Kosovo independence precedent, which, just like Crimea now, was self-determination made in violation of national laws (of Serbian constitution). Seryo93 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The scare quotes are used in the source itself. NOT including scare quotes would be misrepresenting the source. THAT would be non-neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, we can remove Ukrinform on same grounds as Russia Today, because: a) it's owned by Kyiv gov't, and b) editorial independence of Ukr. media during current revolutionary conditions is also under much doubt. Seryo93 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Ukrinform widely described as a "propaganda tool" in reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

UPD: after having reviewed issue further I'm decided to withdraw my support for immediate rt.com re-inclusion on certain topics where it seems to be "banned" (I'm rather abstain from that controversial issue instead, esp. considering fact that there are still Russian sources around, with not so controversial reputation). But how about official/"so-called official" acts of the Republic of Crimea&similar entities: can RT and/or Crimea Inform be used as a sources (with proper attribution and caution)? Seryo93 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But that ("ban" of RT) raises some questions: there are situations, in which RT is only source avaliable (for example: interview with ex-chief of SBU about this, which - for obvious reasons - wouldn't be made by either Ukr. agencies (who *usually* either glorify revolution, self-censored, or, as in case with Svoboda MP incident, overtly censored) nor Western agencies, (who usually (but not always, to be fair) do the same thing). Can we add that with attribution (for example: "... released interview with..., who claims that..."). This seems to fall under this case (upd: and under this). Seryo93 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Probably* solved via other RS (Ukrainska Pravda and Vzglyad (newspaper) in case of "list of..."). Now I'd like to abstain from other disputes regarding RT (at least for now - sorry for tautology :). Seryo93 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Far-right, neo-nazis

And another point: "admirer of Adolf Hitler" [possibly] may stay in article about this person, but here it seems like another ad Hitlerum argument (that is, reduces credibility of article). I think, that marking him just "far-right" is enough (everyone knows that far right is about extreme nationalism and/or fascism/Nazism). Seryo93 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a notable fact about the person, one of these "observers". Gives context to who they were.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This "gives context to who they were" (without neutral attribution "far-right") is what ad Hitlerum argumentation is: "He is a Hitler fan, he is a lier and murder-assistant of bloody Russian occupiers, etc." How about overt US involvement in the Ukr. Revolution then (incl. scandalous Nuland support of the protesters at the Maidan Nezalezhnosti - which is completely unacceptable due to doctrine of non-intervention in internal affairs of sovereign states - and formation of government is definitely "internal affair", not external - unless state is officially a colony, not independent)? It's not metioned at all! (And you remove even Guardian sources, whenever they say that RU views 2014 Revolution as a coup). Sorry, but it seems more and more similar to case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKETHIS. Seryo93 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "...Hitler" is really too much, even though the source gives it in connection to the observer mission. I would prefer neo-nazi. I think that far-right is a too weak formulation in comparison to what the source says. — Petr Matas 02:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, far right is enough. — Petr Matas 02:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There were no neonazis among the observers, but there are many nazis in kiev and the west ukraine, obvioulsy the ukrainian illegitimate government's mass media is more reliable source for u as the russian. Where are nazis among the observers? Reliable proof or liar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.223.199 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Our sources say that many of the referendum observers have ties to far-right and neo-nazi groups. Should we use only far-right and avoid neo-nazi? Previous discussion is above. Petr Matas 11:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is my first comment on anything so I apologize if it is in the wrong place. I believe that far-right is more appropriate unless, it is clear that the group advocates for the policies of the German Nazi Party there is a difference between a Neo-Nazi and a far-right member, for example there are far right parties in Israel and we would not call them Neo-Nazi. Please let me know if I commented correctly. Thank you!!! Admusa1992 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Petr Matas, it seems that the issue has been addressed. Perhaps you should remove the RfC tag. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We can close this RfC with "use only far-right" result if Volunteer Marek agrees, but I don't think that he does. Petr Matas 04:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I don't. If the sources use *both* the terms "far-right" and "neo-nazi" then we should also use both. We don't get to pick and choose just because we like and not the other. That's original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Balancing 135 observers

Copied from #Observers and legitimacy:

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)

Come up with a neutral way to describe these "observers", their affiliations and how they came to "observe" the referendum. It might - probably will - take a bit more than just a sentence, probably a paragraph, maybe even a sub-section. But you can't present only cherry picked aspects of the phenomenon and purposefully leave out all the significant details.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I'd like to add here some info, that in October 2013 they [newspaper The New Republic ] were accused of inciting Yeltsin-style coup d'etat in the US (see here and NR article, that caused controversy). And BTW, again, WP:BALANCE, WP:Goals (second pillar) and WP:NPOV. Seryo93 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you being serious or is that meant tongue-in-cheek? I'm having trouble discerning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's sarcasm (about first sentence). About second one: well, isn't the article needs to be balanced (to show at least some Russian point, not resorting only to Ukr. one)? I've posted a link above (to Svoboda deputy beating of head of Ukrainan analog of Gosteleradio, note that link is not from Russian state media but from Euronews), which, in my view, shows that Ukrainian state media (like Russian one) are under governmental pressure too, and shall be treated in same way: if we remove RT - then we shall remove Ukrinform too. Seryo93 (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to remove Ukrinform, then you need to go to WP:RSN first and make the case that it is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's not "picking cherry picked aspects" (sorry for tautology), "admirer of Adolf Hitler" is definitely argumentum ad Hitlerum, and emphasis on that (even if it's true) will undermine credibility of the article. BTW: I'm not going to contiune this dispute anymore, if there is apparently WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Let our readers presented with ad Hitlerum, "Russian occupiers", "democratic government of Kyiv" (so "democratic" that one of their first acts was against nearly half of population - and it's seems that it was Putin's 1 March address to Fed.Council. which has influenced Turchynov to not sign repeal of language law - repeal, which was supported by current PM of the Ukraine (even if he denies that now)). Seryo93 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the report on 135 observers needs to be balanced by saying who they were. I think that the section Observers from this version (from "Concerns have been raised...") gives the required balance. — Petr Matas 02:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that this edit is useless and should be reverted, because the observers are dealt with in a more ballanced way a few paragraphs lower, where I wrote: A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries... — Petr Matas 23:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Seryo93 (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Polish observers

Polish observes weren't "far-right", one was an SLD activist (criticised by his party) and the other one pro-Russian.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But VM's sources claim so. Opposite[*seen by him as*pro-Russian]-side sources (RT, for example, and even The Guardian (!)) are often removed by him. Seryo93 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Piskorski is from Samoobrona and he also played around with various neo-Nazi groups and publications, like Niklot [9]. This is the kind of populism similar to National Bolshevism that combines elements of far left and far right and is essentially fascist in nature, so the fact that sources describe him/it as "far right" is not surprising, nor is it inaccurate. Who was the other guy? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75248,15641458,Posel_SLD__ktory_byl_na_Krymie__juz_zmienil_zdanie.html Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Xx236: Currently my preferred version of report on Piskorski is that he is an antisemite and neo-nazi. Unfortunately I don't speak Polish to read that Wyborcza article. Please provide your proposed version of report on him and back it up with a quote from the article, so that I can check it using a translator. — Petr Matas 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the quality of this rather obsolete description [10].Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Piskorski seems to be active in Russia [11], this part of his life in unknown in Poland. He used to be a Slavic activist in Poland more than 10 years ago. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian observer

The whole section about the international observers is very badly written, absolutely unneutral and unbalanced. Beside many other problems it contains at least one (probably more) false accusation about an observer, claiming he is a member of a "neo-Nazi" party. The person who wrote this is either not well-informed or is deliberately spreading disinformation, as he/she fails to back up his/her claims with any reliable source. By the way, while I am not an experienced editor and I don't know what the rules of Wikipedia say about this issue, I think basic logic dictates that describing a group/party/person as "neo-Nazi" can be considered as a neutral characterisation only if that group/party/person characterises itself as "neo-Nazi". This is certainly not the case with Jobbik. They received more than 20% of the votes at the parliamentary elections last week. This makes them the second-strongest party in Hungary. Béla Kovács is a Member of the European Parliament. I am not sure why this fact isn't mentioned in the article, because it is certainly more relevant than the alleged antisemitism of another observer. - Tamas90 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Jobbik is commonly described as far-right. Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, even this description can be disputed. But labelling them as "neo-Nazi" is certainly not acceptable in an encyclopaedia. I haven't made any edits yet. This is because I think the whole section should be completely rewritten from scratch. Since English is not my native language, I would rather leave this task to a native English speaker or someone with a decent level of English. - Tamas90 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Observers in the lead section

The observers are a strong argument (let's leave its validity aside) of the Russian side and therefore I think that we should deal with it in the lead section somehow. If we leave it out, readers will perceive the article as biased. In my opinion, this version was the best one we had so far (sure - I am its author ;-) ). Maybe it's not that good in your eyes and you can improve it, but it's still better than nothing. Please improve it, if you can – deleting everything is not a solution. — Petr Matas 16:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you put in info about these so called "observers" in the lede then NPOV requires that you actually describe who they were; a motley assortment of far-right and neo-Nazi-linked individuals (with perhaps a few who didn't know what they were getting into).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What about linking Useful idiots? Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Then this will become very big POV-push (like unattributed Hitler parallels). BTW, since observers (or "observers") are so controversial I would support removing them from lead and describe them in separate section of article. Seryo93 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of attributed Hitler parallels. The name "Anschluss" is quite popular even in Russia.[12]Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Attributed parallels (i.e. not presented as encyclopedia siding with them) may go well (but not overused). We have one such attributed parallel in ruwiki, where it stated that

4 марта бывший госсекретарь США Хиллари Клинтон сравнила действия российских властей по Украине с агрессивным поведением нацистской Германии накануне Второй мировой войны, а Путина — с Гитлером, кроме того отметила, что когда Путин «смотрит на Украину, он видит место, которое он считает по самой своей природе частью России-матушки.»[552].

Seryo93 (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it that way, I agree that removing the observers from the lead is the best solution. Everyone can find them in the TOC. — Petr Matas 07:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rolltheblunt is trying to include info on observers into the lead in a POV way. If we are going to put them into the lead, it should be something like the first sentence of Crimean status referendum, 2014#Non-OSCE observers, but I think that Stephen J Sharpe will oppose even that until we get better sources. Petr Matas 10:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I already said that they were unofficial, imho thats fair enough. I'll leave it in article

@Rolltheblunt: Still, you are mixing fairness (which the observers can assess) with legitimity (a question for legal scholars and politicians). The observers' oppinion on legitimity is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the observers themselves are controversial, so they are better kept only in a dedicated section, see Crimean status referendum, 2014#Non-OSCE observers. Petr Matas 15:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, they were official, but that does not matter. Petr Matas 15:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rollthesecondblunt is attempting the same edit as described above and I suspect him being a Rolltheblunt's sockpuppet. Petr Matas 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Estimates of real support for secession

I don't see why the Illarionov's estimate (34%) should be notable. Note that the poll results are as follows:

• 63.8% (Razumkov Centre, 2008)
• 23% (International Republican Institute, May 2013)
• 77% (Crimean Institute of Political and Social Research, 8-10 March 2014)
• 71% (GfK, 12-14 March 2014)

— Petr Matas 09:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Illarionov clearly has no special knowledge on this matter. Furthermore, even institutions responsible for low polling numbers can think of an explanation for the referendum results that does not involve electoral fraud. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/another-explanation-for-crimea-referendum-landslide/ — Gootcha (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the alleged claim by Refat Chubarov (the linked reference quotes Akhtem Chiygoz, not Chubarov) is dubious. The argument is: "Maximum voters, who in the best times and in a peaceful environment could come to the polls and vote for a particular party or a particular candidate, never exceeded 40 percent. And now all 70 percent and without participation of the Crimean Tatars," This is comparing apples to oranges, and factually untrue. In fact, all referendums conducted in Ukraine and Crimea had a turnout similar to the alleged turnout of the 2014 referendum. Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 had a turnout of 84 %, Crimea 1991 sovereignty referendum 81 %. Even presidential elections had a turnout in the 60ies and 70ies. I think all these statements by individuals with an agenda should be removed from the lead, otherwise why not adding Putin's statement as well? Perhaps there should be a separate section for statements by individual politicians. —Gootcha (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another series of polls was conducted quarterly by UNDP in Crimea. Results are available in Russian: 2009, 2010, 2011. Survey showed that if referendum was held, between 65% (2011Q2) and 70% (2009Q3) would vote for accession to Russia, while 9% (2010Q4) to 15% (2009Q4) would vote against. Altes (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

About the UNDP polls there are two issues: (a) the UNDP web site concerning Ukraine is actually www.ua.undp.org [13], i.e. different from the location of the mentioned UNDP poll documents www.undp.crimea.ua [14]. What is this web site, is it reliable? It seems it is not the official UNDP web site. Can the same document be found on the official UNDP site? (b) Second issue is that the links to the documents (containing poll results) should have page numbers or some other means to find the poll results. Npapula (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The challenge was raised due to "undue weight" assigned to one person's opinion on the matter. Regardless whether or not Illarionov is correct, his opinion has no place in the lead. --Truther2012 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Undue weight" would be to only report "official" results and cite it to RT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued in #Illarionov. Petr Matas 05:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)