The best place to find alternate views is on the Talk page of any controversial article. You can usually judge the bias of an article by reading the discussion on its Talk page (and making sure to view the archives).

This is actually a great suggestion I never thought about, but most users will never read it and assume the michael scott way.

My thumb rule is to ignore wikipedia for any article with a hint of politics. Unfortunately over time nothing is being spared from politics

It's surprising how far politics reaches tho

Armenian history related articles are always a great time in the talk pages. Lots of Turkish ultranationalists diving in, occasionally the Kurdish irredentists get in the mix.

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. " ― Pericles

I don't know what the second one is supposed to be, but at least one instance is featured on the History of Crimea page,[0] which leads to a fairly detailed page about the related referendum.[1] Seems pretty factual to me.

> With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence the majority ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea,[54][55] after a 1991 referendum with the Crimean authorities pushing for more independence from Ukraine and closer links with Russia. In 1995, the Republic was forcibly abolished by Ukraine with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established firmly under Ukrainian authority.[56]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea#Post-Soviet_...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer...

> Seems pretty factual to me.

But the instances where this happened during the 80s, Crimean leadership working to split from Ukraine are nowhere to be found.

Now, did they happen? How? That's my point, it's not easy to find anymore, unless one at least remembers the exact page and can scroll the history to the point this information was still present.

I remember reading them about those in February 2014 when I wanted to understand what was happening better, and I remember myself forming the opinion that maybe Crimeans didn't really want to be part of Ukraine from already quite some time.

But if a user reads it now, the overall narrative is much milder. Another person may form a different opinion.

Thus my point that edit wars can influence lots of people thinking.

Not sure if this 80s secession attempt is true, but just to add some dimension of complexity, if such things mentioned without a vast context it's guaranteed to be misunderstood. In 80s it was still USSR, and what was "X leadeship" then? Communist party territorial organization, indeed. CPSU had a strict vertically imposed subordination. If it's true X oblast leadership tried to switch from one Soviet territory to another, we're probably talking level of apparatchik's intrigues, at times fueled by personal animosity, or corrupted interests conflict. But wait, there's more. In 80s central Soviet leadership decided to positivily re-brand itself from failed imperial center to a neutral stability sponsor, and started to clandestinely (not so much) encourage irredentism, and separatism in constituent republics to then weigh in as an arbiter, and peace-maker. With that in mind, some of secessionist demands were practically scripted, and sometimes could be even coordinated with republic's KGB heads. (But, of course, with diminishing authority, and resources in Kremlin it went out if control soon, and contributed to many very real conflicts afterwards)