Why Wikipedia began politicized

May 3, 2014.

1. Historians who label joining Crimea to Russia in 2014 as "annexation" should first do their homework.
They first should recognize that Crimea's "joining" to Ukraine in 1991 was illegal.

They should recognize that joining to Ukraine happened not in 1954 but in 1991. What happened in 1954
meant "nothing" because there were no Ukraine and no Russia but one country, Soviet Union. If was one country officially
and most important because there was no actual division in practice and in minds of people. All national
differences were suppressed or not felt, so it made no difference what is on the paper.

What really happened was Russian Crimea in 1917 and then it suddenly began Ukrainian in 1991.

But this is not so important as important the opinion of Crimea's people.
This opinion was betrayed by Russia be series of agreements between Ukrainian and Russia in 1991 - 1994 - 1997.
What really happened in 2014 is simply resolving a problem created by illegal annexation of Crimea to Ukraine.

2. If you are a citizen of US, living to say in Texas or Florida, how would you feel if your state has been transferred
to Mexico in 1991? "Unimangenable", you can say ... So, why this is "imaganable" what has been ( prepared in 1954 and )
actually happened in 1991 with Crimea? Are Crimean people worse then you?

So, lets pretend that now, in 2014, Texas is a part of Mexico. And by some internal instability,
there is a coup d'etat in Mexico and interim government removes native language of Texas and makes a Spanish as the only state language.
Do you want still speak English? Do you want your children no having English as an equal language in your country, Texas?

Apparently you would like to go back to US. If you hold a referendum which results in taking decision to join US back, what
you expect from president of US to do? Ignore own people in Texas? Betray them again? How this president will look
in eyes of other American states?

But there is even worse. There is a third party, which has own interests and don't care about native population ... native
population of Crimea and, in our imaginary example, of Texas. In case of Crimea, this is a NATO which opposes to Russia since end
of cold war. In case of Texas, let's pretend this is a China who now has own interests in Mexico, but you, citizen of Texas
don't want to follow China just because China supports a coup d'etat or "Mexican Revolution", call it whatever one want,
but you, citizen of Texas, don't care how to call, all you care you don't agree with it.

3. Without proven support, it is very misleading to call events in Ukraine "Russian military intervention". There always will be
"foreign" people from other countries who came to support rebells like it was in Spain before WWII, or in Afganistan, in Iraq,
in Palestine. This does now mean though "Foreign intervention". Foreign intervention means sending regular troops.
Of course, there can be many Russians filtering into East Ukraine, so what?

In case, if one has a proof, one can call this topic "Russian covert" operations in Ukraine. But one cannot, because there
is no evidence. And why Russia needs such covert if there is already strong anti-government sentiment in Eastern Ukraine?
Russia let all the "territories go own way" in 1991 freely, this is not a mindset of Russians to grab land, which is felt
in abundance in their country.

PS. More details:
1783 - Crimea came to Russian control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea

"... 1845, Congress admitted Texas to the U.S. as a constituent state of the Union ... "
"...Mexico gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, ceded the Mexican Cession in 1848, ... "

May 3, 2014.