![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
@ PLATEL: An article on this topic already exists and has been linked. Must be merged. Sakiv ( talk) 19:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I propose merging 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine annexation referendums into 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine referendums. Sakiv ( talk) 17:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
"decline histmerge, does not appear to be a copy/paste pagemove involved, so no histmerge is necessary". Elijahandskip ( talk) 20:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
As it stands right now there is conflicting reports by both Russian and Ukrainian sources on what if anything is going to happen. How can a referendum be held in Kherson for example, if there is nobody to organize it? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
There are sources saying that Russia might also annex Donetsk and Luhansk (DPR/LPR?). Although, they were after the U.S. said that Russia might annex Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. I don't know, but it seems worth looking into. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 02:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, at the end of this section is a statement saying that Russia 'abandoned' the oblast in early September ahead of a Ukrainian advance. This is not cited and I believe it gives the wrong idea - Ukraine suffered losses as did Russia, there were battles, Russia fled. I've not seen any source that says Russia fled "ahead" of Ukrainian advances. The battles indeed continue today. I may adjust this sentence, any thoughts? Thelisteninghand ( talk) 17:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [2] . I don't see how writing "sham referendum" , or "referendum" (in quotes), as per what sources use, is less NPOV than "referendum" without quotes, while no sources use this. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 20:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
While the Kremlin claimed 96.7% support, a leaked report from Russia's Human Rights Council said only around 30% had voted and barely half supported annexation. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a list of fake observers (or fake monitoring organisations) trying to legitimise these fake referenda?-- Bancki ( talk) 10:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
run by the authorities of the Russian-controlled "people's republics" (Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR)), as well as the Russian-appointed occupational administrations of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast - from the lead - which sources are saying this? Manyareasexpert ( talk) 10:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Per
MOS:REDUNDANCY, instead of the current title, we could use In 2022, the authorities of the breakaway states Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, as well as the Russian-appointed occupational administrations of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast organized annexation referendums in occupied territories of Ukraine.
without a bold text.
Beshogur (
talk)
11:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: You changed it back to the form that according to Beshogur and me is against MOS:REDUNDANCY without taking part in this discussion. Please take part here before reverting again. Rsk6400 ( talk) 06:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
But the article says "The preparation of referendums and the formation of a new image of Russia after the annexation of Ukrainian territories were entrusted to the first deputy head of the presidential administration, Sergey Kiriyenko". Xx236 ( talk) 05:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to write it as referenda? 178.120.50.32 ( talk) 01:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Added this to the list. But needs rework. Also not sure if those two oblasts could be considered "states". Beshogur ( talk) 09:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
the article shouldn`t call the referendum a sham event. 174.4.117.23 ( talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
how every reliable news outlet is describing this? I have already given examples above, this is usually attributed. Mellk ( talk) 22:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
When I first added the results I added them together under a single section heading. Currently though, it seems that each region's result is under that region's heading. I think that it is more convenient to put all the results together. Quantum XYZ ( talk) 12:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Does it make sense to give the results in % without specifying the number of voters? According to Nexta, only 39,000 persons voted in the Zaporizhia region. So, the results show only % of support are misleading. Aotearoa ( talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The bar graphs don’t belong in the article because no data exists to graph. I’m parking the wiki code here. — Michael Z. 17:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
These referendum templates below should be added when the referendums are finalized. Regardless of their validity and recognition, the templates should be the same as the ones found on
2014 Donbas status referendums,
2014 Crimean status referendum or
2017 Catalan independence referendum.
Vgaiyfi (
talk)
16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock
I agree with Mzajac (Michael Z). These are not real votes. It would be undue and misleading to present them in the same way we present votes with some degree of legitimacy. This is not an article where the story is what percent one side or the other got. This is an article about how the whole thing is a sham. If there are other referendums of equal illegitimacy, then we should do the same on those. I think, in particular, we should not use a referendum infobox, which would imply an equivalence with legitimate votes. We could have a bar chart later in the article, with less emphasis. MOS:INFOBOX is very clear that articles don't need to have infoboxes. If people want an infobox, use Infobox military conflict. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaiyfi, at a personal level, I am sympathetic to your view that the 2017 Catalan independence referendum was problematic. But that's a matter for that article. The general approach on Wikipedia is not to impose consistency, but rather to focus on getting individual articles right. Consistency is generally not considered a good argument in Wikipedia decision-making when compared to other issues (compared WP:WHATABOUT). You can start a discussion at Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum or not, as you see fit, but what happens on that article should not determine choices here. Choices here should be based on WP:RS, WP:DUE and other core principles. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I am not saying that what happens in other articles should determine this one, but then go on to say your objection is to
making it different from the rest. So it appears to me that you are saying that what happens in other articles should determine this one. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXUSE is clear that an article does not have to use any sort of infobox, and "which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If we want an infobox, we can use Infobox military conflict, because this is more a story about the war than it is about voting. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Vgaiyfi: According to WP:NOCONSENSUS, you need consensus to change something. According to WP:ONUS you need to show that something is relevant before adding it. According to WP:UNDUE we are forbidden to present a fringe theory (i.e. that those sham referendums were real referendums) as a mainstream theory. Rsk6400 ( talk) 13:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
The entire article is tainted by both-sidesism, favouring the presentation given by poor journalistic sources.
The results are objectively false, according to expert sources on this, and good journalistic sources that respect objective reality.
The lead presents the fake Russian results and one organization’s contradictory statements as equally valid opinions. The bar graphs present “results” to anyone scanning the article as if they were objectively real numbers based on polling.
This is disgraceful. I’ve tagged the article as non-NPOV until it is improved. — Michael Z. 20:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We have articles like fake moustache, fake news website, fake orgasm, fake defection; should we do a formal RM for changing this article title to 2022 fake referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, given that there are no reliable sources arguing that these were genuine referenda? If someone else is in favour, feel free to start the RM. The fact that they were supposedly about 'annexation' is minor - the regions are already partially occupied by the invading forces. Boud ( talk) 05:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaiyfi ( talk · contribs) inserted the first results of the first "referendum" in this edit, although they should have known that there was no consensus for the inclusion at Talk:2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine#Charts_with_no_data. They and DinoSoupCanada ( talk · contribs) added the results of the other "referendums" soon after. When I deleted the infoboxes [24], they reverted me and another editor four times and were blocked for this breach of WP:3RR, see WP:ANI/3RR#User:Vgaiyfi_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_Blocked). This RfC was started while the infoboxes were present, so I give this explanation for why I'm convinced that I'm correctly returning to WP:STATUSQUO although I change to a version which differs from the one when the RfC was started. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Just because the Israeli government says they are against the referendum doesn't mean the people such as myself are against it.
2A02:14C:327:3200:5038:3BC6:F716:C680 (
talk)
19:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
A lot of the discussions above have been heavily influenced by an indefinitely blocked sock advancing pro-Russian positions, Vgaiyfi. These comments by the sock are to be disregarded as far as changes to the article are concerned. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the occupied areas of the Mykolaiv Oblast were already annexed into the Kherson MCA and into Russia. Can anybody confirm this? Danielg532 ( talk) 11:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Which means against American law and wishes? please give me a break. Russia has the right to do what ever it wishes to without asking the opinion of other countries.
2A02:14C:327:3200:B1B0:34F7:6D01:7D66 (
talk)
09:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The content of these two articles is rather redundant, and reliable sources have widely considered the referendums to be very thinly veiled procedural maneuvers for annexation. Given the rapid pace of the annexation (within a week after voting on the referendums began), I am not sure they warrant two articles. Perathian ( talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In academic writing, the plural of referendum is "referenda", and the word is indeed used multiple times in this article.
2022 annexation referenda in Russian-occupied Ukraine 675930s ( talk) 16:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I vote in support too, referenda is more correct. Besides, English speakers don't have a problem in understanding Latin plurals anyway (e.g. algae, alumnae, etc.) There are no downsides. 178.120.50.32 ( talk) 11:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
What’s up with the text “ Cities annexed by Russia are colored red; cities controlled by Russia but not annexed are colored blue.”? Russia never annexed cities in Donbas until now, and when it did, de jure it annexed the entire oblasts, not picking and choosing cities. 82.37.67.151 ( talk) 00:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add Singapore's reaction at the "Reactions" subsection in regards to this topic.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we include the below infobox's within the article to show the referendum results? Tweedle ( talk) 17:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment Please note that I reported Vgaiyfi at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Vgaiyfi_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_) because they reverted 4 times within 24 hours. Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaify has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry.
Rsk6400 (
talk)
06:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep the infoboxes. I have used the word " keep", since they are already included in the article. I think infoboxes offer a good way to display the information to readers. Its use is common on other referendum articles. This is the case of
2014 Crimean status referendum and
2014 Donbas status referendums. Apart from that, I don't think the presence of infoboxes changes the POV of the article, since it is possible to add text lines about the illegitimacy of referendums (in the boxes, apart from the main text). This is about format, not about points of view. The illegitimacy of a referendum (or an election) is not a plausible reason not to add infoboxes.
Vgaiyfi (
talk) 18:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep the infoboxes. The purpose of an infobox is to present information in a readily accessible and visualizable way for the reader. This is why an an infobox is better than no infobox. Discussions of "democratic legitimacy" are a red herring, as the presence or absence of an infobox suggests no inherent levels of democratic legitimacy. As pointed out, many elections and referenda that are universally agreed to have been fraudulent or democratically illegitimate also contain infoboxes (examples: 1, 2, 3, and the 1927 Liberian general election, described on Wikipedia as "the most fraudulent election ever reported in history"). Simply, if the results of the referendum are notable enough to be reported on Wikipedia, then they can (and ought) to be reported in the form of an infobox. Masebrock ( talk) 23:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, for the same reason that Masebrock provided. Infoboxes do not suggest that Wikipedia approves of the legitimacy of the election, they merely visualize information that is already provided. There is no value in hiding this from the reader. Jacoby531 ( talk) 01:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Replace with results table: The infoboxes are a waste, the RS clearly say that the motive for these referendums is Kremlin politics, so separate infoboxes are unnecessary. 213.233.108.109 ( talk) 02:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose State the “results” in text, with explicit attestation, and alongside the caveat that these are objectively held to be “sham” or simply fabricated, with appropriate sourcing. Alternatively, use table, per anon, but presented with the same descriptives. If infoboxes are included, they shouldn’t have a heading stating “results” falsely implying we assert that the numbers result from the conduct of the sham referendum. “Country” flags must be omitted when one country is illegally imposing this thing in the territory of another. — Michael Z. 02:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, but open to alternatives Helpful visualization of "the results." I've no issues with using some other form of visualization like a single table rather than four separate infoboxes, removing the flags (avoiding the need to discuss whether to use oblast flags or the symbols used by Russia and its puppets), stating in the infobox/table itself that these are just results as claimed by Russia and not the results of any sort of democratic process. etc. But even a fraudulent election or referendum has "results data" that's better off visualized in a format that's convenient for readers.
Vanilla
Wizard
💙
04:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose All reliable sources that I know of call them "sham referendums", "so-called referendums", or the like. We may not support the impression that they were real referendums in any meaningful way. Let's remember that many of our readers just take a quick look at the article, see the graphics in the infoboxes and think, "ah, another referendum". Also, please remember WP:ONUS: To include something, a reason has to be given. Other articles are not relevant here, since these "referendums" were really exceptional. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think we should have more regard for MOS:INFOBOX. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that there is no need for an infobox. What happens on other articles can be discussed on the Talk pages of other articles: MOS:INFOBOX is clear that we should make any decision on having an infobox on this article locally. An infobox gives undue weight to the results, it gives them a veneer of legitimacy and reality. An infobox should summarise the key points of an article ( MOS:INFOBOX again) and the key points of this article are not that 99.23% of votes supposedly supported annexing Donetsk etc. The key points of the article are that these were sham events conducted for political reasons as part of an ongoing war. If editors really want there to be an infobox of some sort, then Infobox military conflict appears more appropriate. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Support It simply doesn't matter whether the referenda were legitimate or not. Even elections universally considered to be fraudulent have their tallies displayed, and to not do so would be a disservice to readers. As to Marek's suggestion that "sham referendum" would somehow be less POV, I find that notion rather silly, as it would be an explicit statement of POV on an infobox which was already neutral on whether the vote is legitimate or not. Serafart ( talk) ( contributions) 20:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep Agree with above, even though they are clearly 'sham' or 'illegitimate' does not mean the inboxes should not be included like any other referendum and is helpful for readers to see. Yeoutie ( talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Get The Table Survivor Series (1997) was obviously a big pile of stinking shit and lies, too, and it has results tables. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, per the above and what's already been said by others. Tweedle ( talk) 17:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
summarise[] some information. It is, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, to "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". What are the "key facts" of this article? That 87.05% of votes supposedly supported annexing Kherson? I don't think so: no-one believes that figure is true, nor the vote fair. The "key facts that appear in the article" are that these are sham referendums held in the middle of a war for political purposes. If there is to be an infobox saying anything, it has to be to say that. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Luhansk authorities said 98.4% of people there had voted to join Russia. In Zaporizhzhia, a Russian-appointed official put the figure at 93.1%. In Kherson, the head of the voting committee put the "yes" vote at above 87%.The referendums concluded on 27 September. The discussion closer should look into the coverage by reliable sources past that date themselves so see how untrue the assertion that reliable sources are not reporting on the results are. I know I have said I will not reply further, but I can't just leave misleading comments hanging... TryKid dubious – discuss 13:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
what's the point of an infobox?; edited 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal attack without any reference to sources or WP guidelines |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
| ||
Are you in favor of the entry of the Luhansk People's Republic into the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation?
[1]
better source needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Are you in favor of the entry of the Donetsk People's Republic into the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation?
citation needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Are you in favor of the secession of the Kherson Oblast from Ukraine, the formation of an independent state by the Kherson Oblast and its entry into the Russian Federation as a Subject of the Russian Federation?
[2]
better source needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Are you in favor of secession of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast from Ukraine, formation of an independent state by the Zaporizhzhia Oblast and its entry into the Russian Federation as a Subject of the Russian Federation?
[3]
better source needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Should be 'Russia’s sham referendums in occupied Ukraine' https://www.ft.com/content/87a4bd52-2d82-48ac-a842-cdca3ba742dd
Xx236 ( talk) 08:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
These "referendums" have nothing to do with the free, democratic expression of the will of the people, as they were held under conditions of Russian terror, psychological pressure and persecution of Ukrainian citizens and Ukrainian activists, whom the occupying Russian authorities threw and continue to throw into prisons, torture chambers and filtration camps. They also violate international and Ukrainian legislation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] This above excerpt must be included in the article. Wise2 ( talk) 15:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
These "referendums" have nothing to do with the free, democratic expression of the will of the people, as they were held under conditions of Russian terror, psychological pressure and persecution of Ukrainian citizens and Ukrainian activists, whom the occupying Russian authorities threw and continue to throw into prisons, torture chambers and filtration camps. They also violate international and Ukrainian legislation. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] I entered this above text excerpt as the last paragraph of the preamble in the same articles of Ukrainian and Rassian Wikipedias: https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Псевдореферендуми_на_окупованих_територіях_України_(2022) , https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Референдумы_на_оккупированных_территориях_Украины_(2022) -- Wise2 ( talk) 14:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
@ PLATEL: An article on this topic already exists and has been linked. Must be merged. Sakiv ( talk) 19:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I propose merging 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine annexation referendums into 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine referendums. Sakiv ( talk) 17:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
"decline histmerge, does not appear to be a copy/paste pagemove involved, so no histmerge is necessary". Elijahandskip ( talk) 20:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
As it stands right now there is conflicting reports by both Russian and Ukrainian sources on what if anything is going to happen. How can a referendum be held in Kherson for example, if there is nobody to organize it? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
There are sources saying that Russia might also annex Donetsk and Luhansk (DPR/LPR?). Although, they were after the U.S. said that Russia might annex Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. I don't know, but it seems worth looking into. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 02:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, at the end of this section is a statement saying that Russia 'abandoned' the oblast in early September ahead of a Ukrainian advance. This is not cited and I believe it gives the wrong idea - Ukraine suffered losses as did Russia, there were battles, Russia fled. I've not seen any source that says Russia fled "ahead" of Ukrainian advances. The battles indeed continue today. I may adjust this sentence, any thoughts? Thelisteninghand ( talk) 17:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [2] . I don't see how writing "sham referendum" , or "referendum" (in quotes), as per what sources use, is less NPOV than "referendum" without quotes, while no sources use this. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 20:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
While the Kremlin claimed 96.7% support, a leaked report from Russia's Human Rights Council said only around 30% had voted and barely half supported annexation. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a list of fake observers (or fake monitoring organisations) trying to legitimise these fake referenda?-- Bancki ( talk) 10:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
run by the authorities of the Russian-controlled "people's republics" (Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR)), as well as the Russian-appointed occupational administrations of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast - from the lead - which sources are saying this? Manyareasexpert ( talk) 10:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Per
MOS:REDUNDANCY, instead of the current title, we could use In 2022, the authorities of the breakaway states Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, as well as the Russian-appointed occupational administrations of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast organized annexation referendums in occupied territories of Ukraine.
without a bold text.
Beshogur (
talk)
11:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: You changed it back to the form that according to Beshogur and me is against MOS:REDUNDANCY without taking part in this discussion. Please take part here before reverting again. Rsk6400 ( talk) 06:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
But the article says "The preparation of referendums and the formation of a new image of Russia after the annexation of Ukrainian territories were entrusted to the first deputy head of the presidential administration, Sergey Kiriyenko". Xx236 ( talk) 05:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to write it as referenda? 178.120.50.32 ( talk) 01:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Added this to the list. But needs rework. Also not sure if those two oblasts could be considered "states". Beshogur ( talk) 09:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
the article shouldn`t call the referendum a sham event. 174.4.117.23 ( talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
how every reliable news outlet is describing this? I have already given examples above, this is usually attributed. Mellk ( talk) 22:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
When I first added the results I added them together under a single section heading. Currently though, it seems that each region's result is under that region's heading. I think that it is more convenient to put all the results together. Quantum XYZ ( talk) 12:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Does it make sense to give the results in % without specifying the number of voters? According to Nexta, only 39,000 persons voted in the Zaporizhia region. So, the results show only % of support are misleading. Aotearoa ( talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The bar graphs don’t belong in the article because no data exists to graph. I’m parking the wiki code here. — Michael Z. 17:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
These referendum templates below should be added when the referendums are finalized. Regardless of their validity and recognition, the templates should be the same as the ones found on
2014 Donbas status referendums,
2014 Crimean status referendum or
2017 Catalan independence referendum.
Vgaiyfi (
talk)
16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock
I agree with Mzajac (Michael Z). These are not real votes. It would be undue and misleading to present them in the same way we present votes with some degree of legitimacy. This is not an article where the story is what percent one side or the other got. This is an article about how the whole thing is a sham. If there are other referendums of equal illegitimacy, then we should do the same on those. I think, in particular, we should not use a referendum infobox, which would imply an equivalence with legitimate votes. We could have a bar chart later in the article, with less emphasis. MOS:INFOBOX is very clear that articles don't need to have infoboxes. If people want an infobox, use Infobox military conflict. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaiyfi, at a personal level, I am sympathetic to your view that the 2017 Catalan independence referendum was problematic. But that's a matter for that article. The general approach on Wikipedia is not to impose consistency, but rather to focus on getting individual articles right. Consistency is generally not considered a good argument in Wikipedia decision-making when compared to other issues (compared WP:WHATABOUT). You can start a discussion at Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum or not, as you see fit, but what happens on that article should not determine choices here. Choices here should be based on WP:RS, WP:DUE and other core principles. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I am not saying that what happens in other articles should determine this one, but then go on to say your objection is to
making it different from the rest. So it appears to me that you are saying that what happens in other articles should determine this one. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXUSE is clear that an article does not have to use any sort of infobox, and "which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If we want an infobox, we can use Infobox military conflict, because this is more a story about the war than it is about voting. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Vgaiyfi: According to WP:NOCONSENSUS, you need consensus to change something. According to WP:ONUS you need to show that something is relevant before adding it. According to WP:UNDUE we are forbidden to present a fringe theory (i.e. that those sham referendums were real referendums) as a mainstream theory. Rsk6400 ( talk) 13:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
The entire article is tainted by both-sidesism, favouring the presentation given by poor journalistic sources.
The results are objectively false, according to expert sources on this, and good journalistic sources that respect objective reality.
The lead presents the fake Russian results and one organization’s contradictory statements as equally valid opinions. The bar graphs present “results” to anyone scanning the article as if they were objectively real numbers based on polling.
This is disgraceful. I’ve tagged the article as non-NPOV until it is improved. — Michael Z. 20:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We have articles like fake moustache, fake news website, fake orgasm, fake defection; should we do a formal RM for changing this article title to 2022 fake referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, given that there are no reliable sources arguing that these were genuine referenda? If someone else is in favour, feel free to start the RM. The fact that they were supposedly about 'annexation' is minor - the regions are already partially occupied by the invading forces. Boud ( talk) 05:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaiyfi ( talk · contribs) inserted the first results of the first "referendum" in this edit, although they should have known that there was no consensus for the inclusion at Talk:2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine#Charts_with_no_data. They and DinoSoupCanada ( talk · contribs) added the results of the other "referendums" soon after. When I deleted the infoboxes [24], they reverted me and another editor four times and were blocked for this breach of WP:3RR, see WP:ANI/3RR#User:Vgaiyfi_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_Blocked). This RfC was started while the infoboxes were present, so I give this explanation for why I'm convinced that I'm correctly returning to WP:STATUSQUO although I change to a version which differs from the one when the RfC was started. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Just because the Israeli government says they are against the referendum doesn't mean the people such as myself are against it.
2A02:14C:327:3200:5038:3BC6:F716:C680 (
talk)
19:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
A lot of the discussions above have been heavily influenced by an indefinitely blocked sock advancing pro-Russian positions, Vgaiyfi. These comments by the sock are to be disregarded as far as changes to the article are concerned. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the occupied areas of the Mykolaiv Oblast were already annexed into the Kherson MCA and into Russia. Can anybody confirm this? Danielg532 ( talk) 11:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Which means against American law and wishes? please give me a break. Russia has the right to do what ever it wishes to without asking the opinion of other countries.
2A02:14C:327:3200:B1B0:34F7:6D01:7D66 (
talk)
09:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The content of these two articles is rather redundant, and reliable sources have widely considered the referendums to be very thinly veiled procedural maneuvers for annexation. Given the rapid pace of the annexation (within a week after voting on the referendums began), I am not sure they warrant two articles. Perathian ( talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In academic writing, the plural of referendum is "referenda", and the word is indeed used multiple times in this article.
2022 annexation referenda in Russian-occupied Ukraine 675930s ( talk) 16:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I vote in support too, referenda is more correct. Besides, English speakers don't have a problem in understanding Latin plurals anyway (e.g. algae, alumnae, etc.) There are no downsides. 178.120.50.32 ( talk) 11:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
What’s up with the text “ Cities annexed by Russia are colored red; cities controlled by Russia but not annexed are colored blue.”? Russia never annexed cities in Donbas until now, and when it did, de jure it annexed the entire oblasts, not picking and choosing cities. 82.37.67.151 ( talk) 00:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add Singapore's reaction at the "Reactions" subsection in regards to this topic.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we include the below infobox's within the article to show the referendum results? Tweedle ( talk) 17:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment Please note that I reported Vgaiyfi at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Vgaiyfi_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_) because they reverted 4 times within 24 hours. Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaify has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry.
Rsk6400 (
talk)
06:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep the infoboxes. I have used the word " keep", since they are already included in the article. I think infoboxes offer a good way to display the information to readers. Its use is common on other referendum articles. This is the case of
2014 Crimean status referendum and
2014 Donbas status referendums. Apart from that, I don't think the presence of infoboxes changes the POV of the article, since it is possible to add text lines about the illegitimacy of referendums (in the boxes, apart from the main text). This is about format, not about points of view. The illegitimacy of a referendum (or an election) is not a plausible reason not to add infoboxes.
Vgaiyfi (
talk) 18:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep the infoboxes. The purpose of an infobox is to present information in a readily accessible and visualizable way for the reader. This is why an an infobox is better than no infobox. Discussions of "democratic legitimacy" are a red herring, as the presence or absence of an infobox suggests no inherent levels of democratic legitimacy. As pointed out, many elections and referenda that are universally agreed to have been fraudulent or democratically illegitimate also contain infoboxes (examples: 1, 2, 3, and the 1927 Liberian general election, described on Wikipedia as "the most fraudulent election ever reported in history"). Simply, if the results of the referendum are notable enough to be reported on Wikipedia, then they can (and ought) to be reported in the form of an infobox. Masebrock ( talk) 23:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, for the same reason that Masebrock provided. Infoboxes do not suggest that Wikipedia approves of the legitimacy of the election, they merely visualize information that is already provided. There is no value in hiding this from the reader. Jacoby531 ( talk) 01:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Replace with results table: The infoboxes are a waste, the RS clearly say that the motive for these referendums is Kremlin politics, so separate infoboxes are unnecessary. 213.233.108.109 ( talk) 02:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose State the “results” in text, with explicit attestation, and alongside the caveat that these are objectively held to be “sham” or simply fabricated, with appropriate sourcing. Alternatively, use table, per anon, but presented with the same descriptives. If infoboxes are included, they shouldn’t have a heading stating “results” falsely implying we assert that the numbers result from the conduct of the sham referendum. “Country” flags must be omitted when one country is illegally imposing this thing in the territory of another. — Michael Z. 02:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, but open to alternatives Helpful visualization of "the results." I've no issues with using some other form of visualization like a single table rather than four separate infoboxes, removing the flags (avoiding the need to discuss whether to use oblast flags or the symbols used by Russia and its puppets), stating in the infobox/table itself that these are just results as claimed by Russia and not the results of any sort of democratic process. etc. But even a fraudulent election or referendum has "results data" that's better off visualized in a format that's convenient for readers.
Vanilla
Wizard
💙
04:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose All reliable sources that I know of call them "sham referendums", "so-called referendums", or the like. We may not support the impression that they were real referendums in any meaningful way. Let's remember that many of our readers just take a quick look at the article, see the graphics in the infoboxes and think, "ah, another referendum". Also, please remember WP:ONUS: To include something, a reason has to be given. Other articles are not relevant here, since these "referendums" were really exceptional. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think we should have more regard for MOS:INFOBOX. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that there is no need for an infobox. What happens on other articles can be discussed on the Talk pages of other articles: MOS:INFOBOX is clear that we should make any decision on having an infobox on this article locally. An infobox gives undue weight to the results, it gives them a veneer of legitimacy and reality. An infobox should summarise the key points of an article ( MOS:INFOBOX again) and the key points of this article are not that 99.23% of votes supposedly supported annexing Donetsk etc. The key points of the article are that these were sham events conducted for political reasons as part of an ongoing war. If editors really want there to be an infobox of some sort, then Infobox military conflict appears more appropriate. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Support It simply doesn't matter whether the referenda were legitimate or not. Even elections universally considered to be fraudulent have their tallies displayed, and to not do so would be a disservice to readers. As to Marek's suggestion that "sham referendum" would somehow be less POV, I find that notion rather silly, as it would be an explicit statement of POV on an infobox which was already neutral on whether the vote is legitimate or not. Serafart ( talk) ( contributions) 20:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep Agree with above, even though they are clearly 'sham' or 'illegitimate' does not mean the inboxes should not be included like any other referendum and is helpful for readers to see. Yeoutie ( talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Get The Table Survivor Series (1997) was obviously a big pile of stinking shit and lies, too, and it has results tables. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, per the above and what's already been said by others. Tweedle ( talk) 17:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
summarise[] some information. It is, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, to "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". What are the "key facts" of this article? That 87.05% of votes supposedly supported annexing Kherson? I don't think so: no-one believes that figure is true, nor the vote fair. The "key facts that appear in the article" are that these are sham referendums held in the middle of a war for political purposes. If there is to be an infobox saying anything, it has to be to say that. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Luhansk authorities said 98.4% of people there had voted to join Russia. In Zaporizhzhia, a Russian-appointed official put the figure at 93.1%. In Kherson, the head of the voting committee put the "yes" vote at above 87%.The referendums concluded on 27 September. The discussion closer should look into the coverage by reliable sources past that date themselves so see how untrue the assertion that reliable sources are not reporting on the results are. I know I have said I will not reply further, but I can't just leave misleading comments hanging... TryKid dubious – discuss 13:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
what's the point of an infobox?; edited 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal attack without any reference to sources or WP guidelines |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
| ||
Are you in favor of the entry of the Luhansk People's Republic into the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation?
[1]
better source needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Are you in favor of the entry of the Donetsk People's Republic into the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation?
citation needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Are you in favor of the secession of the Kherson Oblast from Ukraine, the formation of an independent state by the Kherson Oblast and its entry into the Russian Federation as a Subject of the Russian Federation?
[2]
better source needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Are you in favor of secession of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast from Ukraine, formation of an independent state by the Zaporizhzhia Oblast and its entry into the Russian Federation as a Subject of the Russian Federation?
[3]
better source needed | ||
Results | ||
---|---|---|
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Should be 'Russia’s sham referendums in occupied Ukraine' https://www.ft.com/content/87a4bd52-2d82-48ac-a842-cdca3ba742dd
Xx236 ( talk) 08:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
These "referendums" have nothing to do with the free, democratic expression of the will of the people, as they were held under conditions of Russian terror, psychological pressure and persecution of Ukrainian citizens and Ukrainian activists, whom the occupying Russian authorities threw and continue to throw into prisons, torture chambers and filtration camps. They also violate international and Ukrainian legislation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] This above excerpt must be included in the article. Wise2 ( talk) 15:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
These "referendums" have nothing to do with the free, democratic expression of the will of the people, as they were held under conditions of Russian terror, psychological pressure and persecution of Ukrainian citizens and Ukrainian activists, whom the occupying Russian authorities threw and continue to throw into prisons, torture chambers and filtration camps. They also violate international and Ukrainian legislation. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] I entered this above text excerpt as the last paragraph of the preamble in the same articles of Ukrainian and Rassian Wikipedias: https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Псевдореферендуми_на_окупованих_територіях_України_(2022) , https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Референдумы_на_оккупированных_территориях_Украины_(2022) -- Wise2 ( talk) 14:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)