Jump to content

Talk:2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DFlhb (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 11 November 2022 (→RfC on the inclusion of the below infobox's for the results of the referendum: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC on the inclusion of the below infobox's for the results of the referendum

Should we include the below infobox's within the article to show the referendum results? Tweedle (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An unprecedented situation where the published results of the vote are not shown only because the vote is illegitimate and contrary to international evidence.
There is the fact of holding referendums. fictitious. but the referendums. fact. The results of referendums, however fictitious, should be shown either in the form of infoboxes or tables. PLATEL (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)Vgaify has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note that even the UN Secretary General who is obliged by his office to be neutral, calls them "so-called 'referenda'". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I find these arguments convincing. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is basically a sneaky way to introduce POV into the article. If we had an infobox for "sham referendum" or something like that than maybe. But there's really no need to have it and it doesn't add anything to the article. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pretending that something which is obviously a big pile of stinking shit and lies could be “legitimate” is indeed POV and most certainly not “neutral”. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This page informs about the genocidal war. Please respect more than 100,000 its victims.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respect everyone. This page primarily describes referenda which are to competitive democracy as pro wrestling is to legitimate sport. That's all I'm pointing out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I know some of the victims (refugees) of that war personally, I'm not sure that your comparision shows good taste. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. In hindsight, comparing these to other fake things may have gone over better, but other fake elections were already covered and I still don't know any movie, TV show or video game article that uses tables for its in-universe "results". I'm in no way implying anything at all about the war itself or its many other results, to be clear, just these exact shady figures. I've known refugees, too. They were from other wars, but I empathize enough to know it's just as real for your friends. I wish them well, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above and what's already been said by others. Tweedle (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exclude. In the form presented below, they are "Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes" (an essay): such boxes do not present any information helpful to understanding the topic. In this particular case, these infoboxes do not reflect the gist of the article, and come across as misleading. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:The infobox accurately summarises some information, the integrity of the referendum itself has no bearing on whether the infobox should stay. Keep it. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the job of an infobox to 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)[reply]
    The purported results of the referendum are indeed the key facts here. Remember, this article is about the referendums, not the annexation or it's legality. Of course we should be summarising the declared, no matter how sham it was. election rigging happens all the time in many countries, we still give the results. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The purported results of the referendums are not key facts because the actual numbers are meaningless and there was no chance they could have come up with a "no" answer. They are fictitious numbers. If there are other equally fictitious referendums with articles with infoboxes, discussions can be had on their Talk pages. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that we should decide what is best for this article, not merely copy practice from elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite familiar with WP:INFOBOXUSE—and I am saying what is best for this article is to have the results of the referendum, same as all sorts of articles about elections and referendums, rigged or not. The result of an election or a referendum are the key facts about it. it is irrelevant whether it was free and fair or not. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no reliable source calls it a “referendum”. Instead, it is called “sham referendum”, or “so-called ‘referendum’”, or something like that. That makes the so-called “results” quite unimportant. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of nonsense is that? Sham elections and referendums are still elections and referendums, and are treated as such on Wikipedia. All reliable sources report the results as it is the key fact of the whole affair. what else can even be the key fact of an election, fake or not, except the results? please try to look at the issue objectively rather than letting one's (legitimate) feelings about the unjust war get in the way. and please don't bludgeone the discussion with frivolous arguments. I won't be replying further. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Sham referendums are not referendums. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Media coverage of recent elections in Brazil, Sweden etc. has the numbers quite prominent, because the journalists consider those to be important and interesting. Media coverage of these supposed referendums barely mentions the supposed voting numbers because journalists recognise they are meaningless. We should follow RS and do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly false statement. The first source itself, a Reuters piece, gives the results in the third paragraph: 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)[reply]

Bondegezou used the expressions "quite prominent" and "barely mentions". Now, a third paragraph is surely closer to "barely mention[ing]" than to "quite prominent". I can't see how their comment should be "misleading". Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the infobox as a sign of support, consensus, collaboration with pro-Russian separatists. It is just the usual information we provide for referendums, no matter how contested they are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inhabitants of free world ignore perversion of totalitarian terror. Such 'infobox' is a tool of Russian war propaganda. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include infoboxes. I agree with every word of Masebrock's arguments. Having the results in the infobox is not an endorsement of legitimacy, either of the referendums, of their results, or of Russia's claims. Let's imagine the same referendums were held, but Ukraine somehow managed to counter-rig them so Russia would lose the vote. The results would still be rigged, and the referendums themselves would still be illegitimate, but we'd put the results, no? Legitimacy isn't a criteria; the results are what they are, and we should reflect them. DFlhb (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack without any reference to sources or WP guidelines
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Xx236, stop trying to edit with an agenda. We are here to edit an encyclopdia, not to donate to a Ukrainian charity or fight for Ukraine in the frontlines. You're trying to inject emotions instead of approaching this in a civil and professional way.
The referendums are a hastily organized excuse by Putin; everyone here is (supposed to be) aware of that. But Wikipedians' jobs is to collect, cite and state the relevant information, in this case about the referendums (and condemnations of them by the international community) in an informative way. A valid reason to oppose, for instance, would be if the results were so disorganized by the hasty nature that the purported results show no useful data even by Russian election standards. Not "this is a morally wrong action". That's like saying an informative site shouldn't bother showing the votes in Russian parliament for authorizing the invasion because the invasion is morally wrong. Since when does that prohibit the reporting of data? (There were genuine dissenting votes in that, by the way.) 2603:8000:B600:4000:94E2:AE76:71B3:9B06 (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Referendum on the entry of the Luhansk People's Republic into Russia (2022)
23–27 September 2022
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
Yes
 
 %
No
 
 %
Reported voter turnout:


Referendum on the entry of the Donetsk People's Republic into Russia (2022)
23–27 September 2022
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
Yes
 
 %
No
 
 %
Reported voter turnout:


Referendum on the entry of the Kherson Oblast into Russia (2022)
23–27 September 2022
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
Yes
 
 %
No
 
 %
Reported voter turnout:


Referendum on the entry of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast into Russia (2022)
23–27 September 2022
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
Yes
 
 %
No
 
 %
Reported voter turnout:

References

  1. ^ https://iz.ru/1398250/2022-09-20/v-lnr-oboznachili-formulirovku-voprosa-kotoryi-vynesut-na-referendum МИР СЮЖЕТ: РЕФЕРЕНДУМЫ НА ОСВОБОЖДЕННЫХ ТЕРРИТОРИЯХ В ЛНР обозначили формулировку вопроса, который вынесут на референдум
  2. ^ https://ria.ru/20220921/tekst-1818462748.html Избирком Херсонской области утвердил текст вопроса для референдума
  3. ^ https://ren.tv/news/v-mire/1026676-v-dnr-pokazali-gotovye-biulleteni-dlia-golosovaniia-na-referendume Бюллетени для голосования на референдуме показали в Запорожье

Biased name of this article

Should be 'Russia’s sham referendums in occupied Ukraine' https://www.ft.com/content/87a4bd52-2d82-48ac-a842-cdca3ba742dd

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63052207
https://www.dw.com/en/eastern-ukraine-eyewitnesses-speak-out-on-sham-referendums/a-63272615
"We do not accept the sham referenda and any kind of annexation in Ukraine, and we are determined to make the Kremlin pay for this further escalation," vd Leyen https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-updates-eu-plans-new-russia-sanctions-after-sham-referendums/a-63261920

Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A number of journalistic sources are calling these sham or fake referendums with no scare quotes or attestation. They are fake according to academic, political, and journalistic consensus. It is non-NPOV to call them “referendums.” —Michael Z. 22:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the above comment is a Russian POV pusher or was genuinely concerned about NPOV, but this is not the place for advocacy of righteous causes, Michael Z. Just like we don't say "The Clearly Bogus 2020 Belarusian presidential election" in that article title, that sort of sensationalism doesn't belong there. This was addressed multiple times above in the talk page. The fact is that Russia declared its intent to annex these four oblasts and a referendum series is the way Russia chose to formally do so (as opposed to, say, just immediately annexing them without referendum process). There's no bias about this simple description. Whether the annexations and the votes were a sham belongs to the article content and is already there. 2603:8000:B600:4000:1965:1AE9:A647:5546 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, no. There was no “referendum process.”
WP:TITLE: “the title indicates what the article is about. . . . Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.” To diverge from what reliable sources say and present this as a referendum when it is not is misleading and a disservice to the readers. —Michael Z. 18:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the First Day to Fifth Day sections. That's "process". Russia could've chosen to annex without bothering with referendums at all.
Also give me one article on Wikipedia describing a specific election or referendum that has the word "sham" in the title. 2603:8000:B600:4000:94E2:AE76:71B3:9B06 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This IP address is currently partially blocked".Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

To add Singapore's reaction at the "Reactions" subsection in regards to this topic.

  •  Singapore: Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that "The decision by the Russian Federation to formally annex the occupied Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson violates international law and the UN Charter, and that the the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be respected."[1] Beckherm (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Singapore says Russia's annexation of 4 Ukrainian regions violates international law". CNA. 1 October 2022. Archived from the original on 1 October 2022. Retrieved 5 October 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine&oldid=1121206723"