Talk:2014 Crimean crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

characterization as a "Diplomatic crisis"

The lead used to say this is a diplomatic crisis. That link, however, is a redirect that actually takes the reader - surprise! - to the article "International crisis". When I first went there, I found a 1970's era definition that asserted a very precise definition. However, admittedly quickie research turned up a 2011 journal article saying that although it is bandied about on every street corner and news outlet, this phrase has no common definition. So its a meaningless bit of verbiage in the first sentence of what should be an insightful and pithy WP:LEAD summary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

too many 'See also' links?

I really don't see a reason to list so many articles to the crimson crisis, for example, Ukrainian Air Force Ukrainian Ground Forces and Ukrainian Marine Corps are already covered by the blanket term Internal Troops of Ukraine, Naval Infantry (Russia), Spetsnaz and Spetsnaz GRU should really just be covered by Russian armed forces, things like Hobbesian trap, Security dilemma are really too vague and all-encompassing terms, where should we stop? wouldn't Diplomatic crisis, International crisis, Military occupation, Military intervention and a whole lot of other terms and sociological 'war' theories like the hobbesian trap have to be included as well?

I'd like to keep it in the model of the 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis no need to go way overboard and mention the great games, unless maybe it does in fact, eventually, escalate into a cold war II but so far i don't see those links as warrented, and most don't even mention the 2014 crimean crisis in their respective articles, which they would if it were significant enough for them.

For now I'd like to keep it concrete and list those articles, not yet mentioned which are applicable, such as the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine which deserves a spot way more then any of the articles mentioned. — Wiki winkers (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue of UN recognition of the Yatsenyuk Government: is it legally recognized as the government? Or is it the de facto government of Ukraine

The Yatsenyuk Government has only been in power for a matter of days, and while it appears to have de facto control over much of Ukraine and much of the Ukrainian military, the issue of recognition of the government has arisen, with Russia saying it does not recognize the government, and there are those loyal to Victor Yanukovych who recognize him as the legitimate President of the Ukraine. I don't know if the UN has recognized the Yatsenyuk Government, but if it hasn't that raises issues about how to address the side of large parts of Ukraine that support the Yatsenyuk Government.

If it does not have UN recognition, but is widely regarded to be in charge of most of Ukraine, I recommend the table at the side of the page still using the word "Ukraine", but having a note reference beside it that says "De facto control over large parts of Ukraine is held by the Yatsenyuk Government and forces supporting it".

As for the Pro-Yanukovych elements, state "Pro-Yanukovych supporters" in the table.

So does the Yatsenyuk Government have recognition from the UN?--74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• AFAIK it is recognized by UN, EU and USA. See e.g. [1] or [2] Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Thank you for clarifying that. That may be an issue that will come up here, it is important for it to be addressed.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is a de facto government that was not elected yet. 206.47.245.252 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Casualties and missing people

The lead of the article states that "There were over 90 casualties, 320 missing and more than 1,700 injured" (without any source), while the info box says that there are "Several serious injuries, and 2–3 civilians dead" (and even this one has only sources in ukrainian or russian as I can not see the difference).

This is a serious mismatch. And this reduces the quality of the article. From an outside perspective like mine, this looks like propaganda..

Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The infobox refers to the Crimean crisis as such, whereas the lead refers to why Viktor Yanukovych was ousted, and is in reference to the Ukrainian revolution. With that being said i have deleted that part of the lead before, since i find it unnecessary information in respect to the Crimean crisis, mentioning that Yanukovych was ousted is enough information for the lead — Wiki winkers (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is confusing and somewhat unrelated to the article, which is about Crimea crisis. You said that you removed that part, but someone added it back.Also if we keep that part about the 90 casualties/1700 injured it needs to have a citation. I put a "citation needed" tag, but it was removed by someone. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph overviews events that occurred prior, please, see related articles, to which 2014 Crimean crisis relates. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But this is confusing, as the casualties/injuries reported are unrelated to this crisis, they happened in Kiev not Crimea AFAIK so this is misleading from an non-Ukrainian perspective. Better to put that information in background section, not in the lead.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree! Whoever rewrote the lede needs to be whipped with a wet noodle (and then shot). USchick (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Get the wip ready! but in a serious manner, I spent a whole hour chopping off over 5,000 Kbs from the introduction, which was really just a dumping ground for all sorts of biased snippets of infomation, into a neat and clear set of events and standpoints, there is no need to backpaddle. I would edit it out myself but sadly the article is now semi protected, and so i no longer can. Wiki winkers (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, the guilty party…..your account is one day old? Is it safe to assume that you were previously banned and now you have a new account? USchick (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is actually only a day old, that being said I'm guilty of nothing, you really want the old 8 paragraph long introduction? just a quick comparison Before my edits and after my edits. — Wiki winkers (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus about how to play nice with others. Seriously, you may want to start with articles that are not politically charged. And you would be surprised what can be controversial. For example, yoghurt was a hot topic for edit wars for a while. :-) USchick (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Prior wikipedia expereince include the Mini Constitution of Ukraine, so I am well equiped for this article. — Wiki winkers (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction length

I know that this is a complicated and fast-moving event, but as of March 5, there are over 880 words and ten paragraphs in the introduction. According to WP:LEADLENGTH, as a general rule of thumb, introductions should not be over four paragraphs long. We are six paragraphs over that limit at the moment. All in favor of doing a little trimming? --Tocino 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth the infobox could be trimmed as well, specifically the "Status" section. --Tocino 07:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, really the introduction needs to be cleaned up and most of it should go into either the timeline article, or if significant enough, into the timeline section of this article, not the introduction. The article is also too long as is, even more reason to limit the introduction. — Wiki winkers (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, the lead is way too long, and contains too much snippets of information. These should be in background or other sections. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If a war were to occur

When the 2013 Korean crisis was happening, we agreed in the talk page that if war were to break out, a separate article would be made. This article would stay and act as a build-up to the war. If so, I recommend that the page would be called the "(2014) Russia–Ukraine war" instead of something like the "2014 Crimean war", as the article for the Russia–Georgia war was originally called "2008 South Ossetian war". [Soffredo] 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's important that we wait to see what WP:RS call this conflict. "Russia-Ukraine War" sounds likes its the whole of Russia versus a united Ukraine, and if we can say one thing with clarity, it's that presently Ukraine is far from being a united, functioning nation-state. --Tocino, 17:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For the Russia–Georgia war, it wasn't a "united Georgia" as Abkhazia and South Ossetia were fighting against Georgia. [Soffredo] 17:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but Georgia wasn't only a week off from a violent revolution before its president decided to invade South Ossetia. Not even taking Crimea into the equation, the post-revolution government in Kiev is not supported in many places in Ukraine proper (specifically Eastern and Southern Ukraine). This situation is just as likely to descend into civil war, than it is for Ukraine to suddenly overcome its internal problems and band together to fight for its separatist province against the foreign aggressor. Regardless, we should at least wait for the first known battle between armies, involving casualties on both sides, to occur before we make a drastic move to something like "Russia-Ukraine War". --Tocino 18:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be called the Russian-Ukrainian War.Alhanuty (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the other article is called the Russia–Georgia war, not the Russian–Georgian war. [Soffredo] 17:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, but is the title "2014 invasion of Ukraine" viable, similar to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Wolcott (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds good to me.--MillingMachine (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, or Russian invasion of Ukraine. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If ..., why not consider Second Crimean War, because, like the (First) Crimean War, probably some major allied armies will defend the same geopolitical interests ... Stefanomione (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not invent names. We should use names that are used in mainstream media. This is not a war (yet) as there is no combat between Ukrainian and Russian armies. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As of just under 10 minutes ago, the Ukraine is reportedly initiating a full scale mobilization. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236054-2nd-attempt-at-the-Ukriane-discussion-thread&p=7065807&viewfull=1#post7065807 83.70.234.21 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Whoever rewrote the lede didn't do a very good job. In the first paragraph, the number of casualties from another battle unrelated to Crimea…why is that in this article? The didn't "pledge" to hold a referendum, they VOTED. Can we restore it back to something more accurate please? USchick (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting back to the old introduction! there was general consensus that the old introduction which I rewrote was too long as well as Biased and badly written, I also had some users thank me for the edit, it was generally well received. There is no need to revert it. — Wiki winkers (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki winkers, thank you, the lede needed to be trimmed. USchick (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, when I saw the first edits i thought you were reinstating the old and biased version of the introduction, but it is better now, no more controversy. — Wiki winkers (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of ethnicities map

Distribution of ethnicities according to the 2001 census. Russian is in red (58%), Ukrainian in yellow (24%), Crimean Tatar in green (12%), and other ethnic groups in purple (6%).

This Ukrainian-language map of the breakdown of ethnic groups by district was removed by User:Knowledgekid87, with the rationale being that it's in a foreign language and this not useful for English Wikipedia.

I think with the explanation in the blurb, Russian - red, Ukrainian - yellow, Tatar - green, others - purple, one does not need an understanding of Ukrainian to be able to gain knowledge from this map. Unfortunately, there are no English equivalent maps on Commons, thus it's either this map with the English description attached, or no map at all. Thoughts? --Tocino 03:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because I feel it does not help the article, even with what is shown in the map, you have to expand it to show it in detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You have to expand it to show it in detail. - You are correct, but this is true of most maps. Consider featured pictures such as File:Armenian Genocide Map-en.svg, File:Chernobyl radiation map 1996.svg, and File:Dublin Rail Network3.svg—none of them are particularly useful at less than 500px–600px, but they are highly informative when expanded. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The nationalistic or ethnic stand off is not present in Crimea. It something that is being provoked by the Kremlin junta. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  Do you support the map's inclusion or removal? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  "It something that is being provoked by the Kremlin junta." - In other words, Russia is using it to justify their military intervention, and so we should neutrally present the stated point of view of one side in the crisis. In this context of ensuring that all major viewpoints are represented, the map provides a factual visual representation. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. I've had enough of Putin's bullshit slathered over all hell's creation (note: this is a comment in general) -- and the pic lends undue weight to the propaganda that ex-patriot Russian ethnicities are clamoring en masse for their return to a reborn Soviet Union. --Froglich (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  How does the map, accompanied by a neutral caption, lend undue weight? It makes no claims at all about the political preferences or opinions of any group or its members. We don't need to accept Russian propaganda in order to recognize the fact that there is a regional and ethnic component to this crisis, as many reliable sources have pointed out (e.g., Washington Post). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Retain the map. News sources are filled with refs to the ethnic makeup of Crimea, so this map is germane to understanding the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Retain per GeorgeLouis. The ethnic makeup of Crimea is being noted as a factor in many sources about the current crisis, including the Toronto Star, The New York Times, Reuters (and again), CNBC, Sidney Morning Herald, and many others. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Any ideas about where to put it? I think it would make the text in the background section too crowded, if we put it back to its original spot (see here: [3]). Perhaps replace the current large Crimean map [4], or put the ethniticies map just underneath it? --Tocino 09:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Retain per Black Falcon. LokiiT (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Retain - the removal seems a bit POINTy, of course it is relevant that Crimea is the only region of Ukraine that has Russian majority. Arguments like ″the pic lends undue weight to the propaganda″ are not convincing: we are not supposed to support Putin, however we are also not supposed to hide things that may potentially be used by Putin to advance his views. Just present what the situation is and that's it. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've re-added it. Have a look: [5] --Tocino, 00:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Remove. This map is very ugly, especially difficult to understand (for non-Ukrainians like me), and it is not in English (thus does not follow Wikipedia policies). Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  Although I do not doubt your assertion that you find the map "difficult to understand", it has nothing to do with being Ukrainian or non-Ukrainian. I am neither Ukrainian nor Russian, and cannot read Cyrillic, yet I find the combination of the map and caption to be immediately intuitive. Further, there is no prohibition of which I'm aware against the presence of non-English content in a map, especially when the English-language caption clearly explains what the map illustrates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. This map is very misleading. It claims that Sevastopol is part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and that's not true. USchick (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Commentary = misinformation

The commentary section is just a source of misinformation. Just because someone says something and there is a reference they said it doesn't mean it belongs here. For example,

Not sure who this guy is:

Volodymyr Panchenko, of the Kiev-based think-tank International Center for Policy Studies, says that the aim of Russia is for Crimea to be "more or less controlled by Russian troops," but that if or when a referendum is held "more than 80 percent" of votes would be for secession from Ukraine. The way events are unfolding in Crimea "is not a good precedent for the other provinces."[231]

But a recent Gallop poll http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf has only 23% percent wanting to to be part of Russia. The number of 80% is purely pulled out of his rear end and not worth putting in the article. Actually the whole section needs to be deleted if it just mean to be a bunch of opinion not based on facts. --MarsRover (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but basically commentry doesn't have to be a source of 'true' infomation, commentry per defintion is based on opinions, not facts. Basically whatever someone says on the subject matter as long as they are adquetly affiliated with an aspect of it (i.e. their opinions matter) it should be included. As for the opinon poll, the gallop poll is from 2013, before the revolution, and really can't be compared to up-to-date numbers, after the 2014 ukrainian revolution, which could have shook sentiments. The question is just where do we draw the line of who's opinions matter? If johnny depp voices his opinions on the crisis tomorrow, do we really have to include it?Wiki winkers (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The line is just don't include commentary. Sentient has increased but the Ukrainians and Taters make up more than 30%[6] so the 80% number is obviously bogus. --MarsRover (talk)

Tatars for one have publicly stated they won't partake in the referendum, for what we know Volodymyr could have calculated this into his 80%, he may have even calculated potential Russian voter fraud into the 80%, that is really the difference between analysing a circumstance (i.e. the referendum) together with the situation, and an opinion poll. In this case Volodymyr's commentry/analysis could well be more accurate then an opinion poll, that is why I believe that commentry is an important tool. The only problems i really have with commentry is when it doesn't give a good analysis, such as the nazi comparisons, or when commentators aren't qualified to analyze the situation Wiki winkers (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree if you have a fraudulent election than you can easily have 80% vote for secession in that case. But this vote didn't happen so its just speculation at best and the phrasing leaves out the context of the voter intimidation and/or fraud which makes it misleading. --MarsRover (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A recent poll in Ukraine showed that 41% of Crimeans wanted Crimea to join Russia [7]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So, 59% percent don't want to leave. And the 2001 census says there are 12% Tatars in Crimea. You just proved 7% don't want to go. And there are 21% Ukrainians in Crimea that highly unlikely want to go. My point was simply 80% is wrong. Winkers actually had a better point that this comment might be about a fraudulent election. But the context make that not so clear. --MarsRover (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@MarsRover, your poll is about people who want "be part of Russia", the commentary is about "secession from Ukraine" and troop presence, so your argument is very poor WP:SYN. Your next comment about "Ukrainians and Taters make up more than 30%" is violation of WP:OR. stick to sources. --PLNR (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Humm, being a part of Russia and being a protectorate of Russia? Those are pretty much the same thing. Not sure you invalidated my comment. And I did put a reference to the source in my comment about the 30%. It the Ukrainian census of 2001. The commentary section allows inclusion of material that is speculation or just opinion that has absolutely no references. If people want that material in the article now that's great. I would prefer just leave it out for now. --MarsRover (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

ICBMs

Should anything be mentioned about the ICBM that Russia just tested over Astrakhan? They were said to be planed ahead of time, but so were the other Russian wargames, and they are mentioned. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you write about topics concerning the issue (not the article, but the issue), and I can't. I mean I understand it's just unsourced information, but there is clear evidence that the Russian troops are withdrawing from Ukraine on Putin's command, it's underdeveloped in the article and there are also sources (which just need to be included) on why Putin decided this. I mean real sources, not someone's opinion. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Likely because I have a wiki account and you just have an IP address. They usually don't let IPs edit controversial articles.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not talk nonsense: Wikipedia:IPs are human too, thank you. 87.78.72.16 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it is a big deal, US officials knew about it and it was a planned event, no need to add to the frenzy unless something noteworthy comes out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is unrelated Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Working on new lede

In the lead, there is this sentence:

The next day, masked gunmen without insignia started taking control of Crimea, and dismissed the autonomous republic's government and replaced the chairman of the Council of Ministers of Crimea, Anatolii Mohyliov, with pro-Russian chairman Sergey Aksyonov.

There is some sources that confirm that masked gunmen took control of some buildings, and put russian flags in some places. But there is no source that said that the gunmen actually dismissed the government. This should not be in the lead. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It was Supreme Council, I"m fixing it. Would you like a stab at it? I'd like a few minutes please and then someone can review ok? USchick (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You should remove that from the lead (this unsourced content reduces the credibility of the article), put that in the Timeline section. But I could remove the whole section from the lead if you want.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone even wrote that the Crimean government is part of the organized crime. This is clear POV. What if I stated that the Ukrainians are bandits? This is BS. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

She's in the process of reverting the the introduction back to 11:32, 5 March 2014. A mistake in my veiw. Wiki winkers (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done. It may bee too sparse now, but it's a clean slate. I propose a discussion first, before adding new material. USchick (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose removing "under siege" expression, as it is unsourced, and not clear who makes the siege. Also the thing about supreme council has a non-neutral source (kiev post); you should use mainstream media source especially in the lead, otherwise if is not clear who did what, it should be removed. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

gunmen seized parliament, and then parliament voted for the PM under gunpoint (since they still occupied the building). --Львівське (говорити) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the proposed new wording? We could go back to the long explanation, but that was the original objection. USchick (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is objectionable? It's owned by a foreigner. USchick (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the situation is still very confusing, with embryonic information, let's wait that a fully credible mainstream media explains what happened before introducing unsupported claims in the article lead. Otherwise, from a non-Ukrainian perspective, this looks very bad. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

citation from Kyev Post is as bad as from RIA Novosti. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to propose a paragraph? With a source you think is appropriate? USchick (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources from America or Western Europe instead of Ukraine or Russia. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review the policy about sources Wikipedia:Verifiability. Non-English sources are allowed. Also, please consider that "Western" influence is being blamed for the conflict, so "Western" sources can be just as biased. USchick (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your going to have problems then, if russian sources will be classified just as biased as western sources you'll either need to write the article using both conflicting sides (in a sort of he said, she said manner) or not at all. The propaganda war is basically supplying contradicting references for the the crisis as it unfolds, portraying two very different narratives, there is no way around it. — Wiki winkers (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review what is considered as "Reliable Sources" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources USchick (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoever is writing this new lead is doing their best to present the pro-Kiev side of the conflict. A statement like "yet they had equipment exclusive to Russian high-readiness reconnaissance troops" is complete speculation and serves only to undermine the Russian point of view, especially since it's not attributed, but presented as an indisputable fact. We have no idea what equipment they had available to them. This whole lead needs to be re-written. It's not even a half-hearted attempt at being NPOV. LokiiT (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand trying to tone down or remove one side's POV but the way to do that is not to push another POV, like here [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&oldid=prev&diff=598341384] (for example that "self-appointed" bit, or the use of a single opinion column as a reliable source). Despite what some people on Wikipedia think two POVs don't make one NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What's POV about the term self-appointed? I don't think they themselves would deny that they weren't voted in via an election. Moreover, I supplied three additional mainstream sources via Forbes, The Nation and RT. How can you deny the significance of this event when the mainstream press is widely reporting it to be relevant? LokiiT (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

LokiiT, the law that you keep referring to was not passed in Crimea and it wasn't even about Crimea. If you want to include this information on the Ukraine revolution article, go do it there. USchick (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What USchick said. Also, in this context, "self-appointed" is most definitely POV. You would need a very very reliable and independent source for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the law wasn't passed is irrelevant. The effects the proposal had were still obvious, as the press widely reported, and that's what I put in the article. I'm simply reiterating what the mainstream media reported. You're denying that it's relevant but have no grounds to do so. Also take a look at the "causes" section in the side panel. LokiiT (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the law specific to Crimea. This is a law for ALL of Ukraine. If you want to include this information you can either do it on a Ukraine Revolution page or you need to find a source that links it to Crimea. USchick (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow you. It doesn't matter if the law was specific to Crimea or not - that's who it effected the most, which is why the mainstream media was reporting it in respect to Russians in Crimea. LokiiT (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel your pain, there are things I would like to include also. USchick (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The new government acted before they thought about it. They wrote a law that would make it difficult for LOTS of people in Eastern Ukraine. This law was NOT directed at Crimea. It was a very bad decision, they recognized their mistake and they didn't pass it. Right? Can you provide a source that says it affected Crimea "the most"? USchick (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has the highest percentage of Russian speakers in the country. That's what I mean when I say it affected them most. LokiiT (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Eastern Ukraine may have more. The census maps are misleading. Don't forget that many Russian residents of Ukraine are bilingual. The Tatars are counted as "Russian speakers," but if it was up to them, they would rather use their native language, so to count them as "Russian" is misleading. Are there any sources that claim this law was directly aimed at Crimea? USchick (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Russian was an official language of ARK well before the law of languages 2010. The autonomous status allowed to do this there unlike on the rest of Ukraine. Logically, the repeal of the law should have no effect on Crimea, but people are hardly logical. Anyway, the article talks not only about the unrest in Crimea but in other Russophone areas as well and repealling the law was a major disturbance for the population there. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very good point. They have their own constitution, so it wouldn't affect them at all. Thank you!!! USchick (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Map of Crimea

Look at the map that shows the population. Sevastopol is almost half of the population, and even if all those people started to complain, they are not part of the Republic of Crimea. They belong to Ukraine. USchick (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede is much better now and neutral than it was yesterday. Congratulations for your good work. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. USchick (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion on splitting the article on Crimea and having an article on the Autonomous Republic of Crimea

The proposal is here: [8]. This proposal may require this article to change the language used here if it distinguishes Crimea from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Map — why blue was better

Not the guy that changed the map, but, the blue version was better, since it coincides with the map in the intoduction, where ukraine is portrayed with shades of green. — Wiki winkers (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. The important thing is the "green map" is constantly updated by 4 editors and is up to day. And it's allready on 2 other wikipedias. By the way, it's simpler to change colour on the map in the introduction as to make the blue map up to date. --Zhitelew (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No need, I already reverted it mainly on the grounds that I noticed it was more up to date, but also because it has the ability to portray city states and islands, which makes it more practical. I don't think that because it is on more pages is an argument for it though, it doesn't automatically make it the better map. — Wiki winkers (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian/Russian sources

Regarding this edit summary [9] - no, there is no rule that Russian or Ukrainian sources can not be used because one or the other user can't read Russian or Ukrainian. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. What is the point of adding citations from a source that we could not read? If you want to add citations in Ukrainian, then add them to the Ukrainian version of Wikipedia. And if you want to add a citation in Russian, then add it to the Russian version of Wikipedia. This is an English article after all. This practice reduces greatly the credibility of the article. Most wikipedia's readers can't read Cyrillic. There is also the issue of partiality of Ukrainian/Russian sources. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to agree or disagree. The policy is very clear about that. Wikipedia:Verifiability USchick (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. I have the right to check if the source is from an Biased or opinionated source. Which I can not do when it is written in Cyrillic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIASED Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• "However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If you question a source, the appropriate place to do it is on the talk page. After 3 reverts in one day WP:3RR you risk being banned. USchick (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I am doing here. Please avoid reverting all my changes or I will report you. Thank you! Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that ALL Ukrainian or Russian sources (especially those in Cyrillic) should be completely removed as they reduce the credibility of the article. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are millions of editors and everyone thinks something different. That's why we follow policy and establish consensus. As a new editor, you will have to collaborate with others if you want to participate. If working in multiple languages is difficult for you, I encourage you to edit articles that don't deal with international topics. USchick (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is why we should follow Wikipedia policies as this is an English article, and we need to have verified sources. You will have to collaborate with others if you want to participate. If working with non-Ukrainian people is difficult for you, and if you do not have verifiable sources, I encourage you to edit articles that don't deal with sensible international issues. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. At this point, I will stop helping you and simply wait for you to get banned. Cheers. USchick (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As you wish, I will let others remove unreliable sources. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you're complaining, one of the sources is in English. When you have multiple media outlets in several languages reporting the same thing, at what point does the information become reliable? USchick (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

OK you win. I will let others judge the quality of these sources. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not about me winning. It's about you being new and understanding the process. I hope you enjoy your experience here. USchick (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

2-3 civilian dead

I read many articles and watched TV news over the last days, and no source ever said that civilian were killed. Normally, this is the kind of information that will be told on mainstream media. Is it really true?

And the "2-3" number is very unspecific. What happened? One of these 3 is only partly dead? Or maybe they are missing, so someone thought that they were dead... I could understand if it was "thousands of casualties" as it is difficult to have a precise count, but "2-3" is not very clear. Also, the sources are of dubious unreadable sources, mostly in Cyrillic.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? In what section? USchick (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In the info box. I put a Dubious tag, but someone removed it repeatedly. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement is supported by 3 separate sources. When it comes to Russian sources, the consensus is that Russia Today is not always credible because it is state owned. And even then, it can be used if supported by other sources. Independent, privately owned sources like Kyiv Post are considered reliable. There are plenty of bilingual editors who will revert an edit if the source is unreliable. You will have to trust their judgment. USchick (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Then, is it 2? Or is it 3?. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

2 possibly 3 according to the articles. USchick (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

OK then at least make the correction in 2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine so it will be consistent. I can't prove that something did not happen. And if you can prove that only with cyrillic sources that I can not read, then I will let others judge the quality of these sources. Have a nice day. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, two people died during these clashes. There were no injuries. One had a heart attack, another, a woman, unfortunately, was trampled by the crowd," he said from the stage on Independence Square on Wednesday. [10] In English. This hardly qualifies as something that the military would be responsible for, so the information does not belong on a "military Intervention" article. USchick (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Then could you please explain me how a heart attack is a casualty from the crisis? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro, this is an English source. The headline is: Two die in rallies outside Crimean parliament, says ex-head of Mejlis. You tell me. :-) USchick (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

When was Y. removed?

http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/757-VII says February 22.Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What is a "Y" ? Your article in Cyrillic does not help me to understand. This is an English article.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yanukovich.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Crimean occupation

Why 2014 Crimean "crisis"? Why not make the subject more specific of what this "crisis" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.57.134 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Read here on why most of us, for now, wouldn't warrent a renaming of the 'crisis' to an 'occupation'. Wiki winkers (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

News articles refer to this event as an "occupation" not a "crisis"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.57.163 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of troops

On March 7, Reuters quoted Serhiy Astakhov, an aide to the Ukrainian border guards' commander, as saying there were 30,000 Russian troops in Crimea, compared to 11,000 permanently based in Sevastopol before the crisis. [11] Sca (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup and editing

"The international community widely condemned this move."

Wierd. The international community haven't really said anything yet really. Provide reliable sources for this. Have it removed from the lead section meanwhile. Accepted sources, or don't put it in. This is a sensetive article. Also, the international reactions should be edited to be short and concise, cut the large American additional information. This article needs to be rewritten in a concise manner, as of now, it looks like seperate lines of facts instead of a whole and cohesive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.247.103 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Reading the article, and seeing the biased presentation of "facts", and understanding that even *I* could (if I had the time) revise the article to be more even-handed, leads me to one conclusion. Russia doesn't have as good propaganda machine as many would suppose. I would think editing the Wiki article would be a priority for them. Nehmo (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's the most irrelevant of comments. Thank you for that. 85.165.227.94 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Serb Chetniks in the Crimea

Serb Chetnik volunteers are in the crimea, helping the Russians patrol the roads and such http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEamSFsnHkA http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f90ru_pro-russian-serbian-volunteers-help-patrol-crimea-roads_news http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbian-fighters-head-to-crimea http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/who-is-milutin-malisic-leader-of-chetniks-in-crimea/

Should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.54.36 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence

See here, but the same countries who argued this and won their argument then are now supporting the position Russia took at the time. But what are the legal experts writing about Crimea now? Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Holy cow! That could make all the difference in the world. According to Russia, the parliament already voted and the referendum is just a formality. [12] In dispute cases like that, usually the international community is willing to accept whatever the local people decide. They accepted the Ukrainian govmt because that's what the people on the ground decided. Unless someone is willing to go extract Putin, this may be what we end up having. USchick (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What international law says about holding referendums at gun point(we still don't have any real confirmation about the votes in Crimea? Right now Crimea legal body isn't recognized by anyone and Russian troops controll of another sovereign state territory is an international law issue. --PLNR (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War proved that a declaration of independence was an issue.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The situation in Crimea closely resembles that in South Carolina and Fort Sumter. If you really understood the history of secession. Abraham Lincoln and "states rights" in American history, Obama's position makes perfect sense.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Kosovo ruling implies more generally that International law does not necessarily have to agree with the consitution of a country in the sense that it will say that one or the other party is correct, even if one party clearly violates the national constitution. International law allows for a group to (attempt to) break away from a country in violation of the national constitution and also for that country to fight that breakaway attempt. Count Iblis (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Read paragraph 81 of the Advisory Opinion. UDI based on military invasion IS invalid, but Kosovo was not such a case. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"WHAT DO WE DO WITH ALL THIS TEXT AND REFERENCES?"

A large block of text and references with this section's name in a leading comment was deleted in <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=598498705 #598498705>. Was that intended/desired? Morfusmax (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that material could be rearranged and put in parts of the article where it is relevent. Deleting all of that may not have been beneficial. Redistributing that material through the article would have been better.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

China

China is listed as a supporter of Russia, but the Chinese government has actually OPPOSED Russian direct intervention and the proposed referendum as interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that China's response to Russian intervention has been deliberately ambiguous. Some pronouncements made by the Chinese press display sympathy for Russia's position, and Russia seems to think that China is in their corner. But in other settings (statements to Western diplomats, for instance) Chinese representatives say they support Ukrainian sovereignty and call for a deescalation of tensions. TheBlueCanoe 02:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Internet dimensions

I'm trying to determine the most appropriate place to introduce material on the internet dimension to the Crimean crisis. There's some good reporting documenting attacks on website of state agencies and news organizations; disruptions of mobile communications; and censorship. Looking for input on whether this would be the most fitting article to add this info. TheBlueCanoe 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Attempted move

User:Soffredo moved this article to "2014 Crimean political crisis" [13], before I moved it back to the current title shortly afterwards. His reason for the move was to show "the difference from the military intervention article". I moved it back because: A) There was no WP:RM B) It was an attempt to make a clearer distinction between this article and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article, but the the fact that there are two articles about essentially the same subject is controversial and currently under discussion on the talk page of the other article. --Tocino 04:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How about moving it to the USSR Wikipedia article? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

One writer's opinion how to end the crisis w/o allowing a Russian takeover

Here's a link from Forbes about one way to get Putin's attention, as in, "You're next." Unlikely Obama would have the kohones, though. [14]. If someone thinks this belongs in the article, it could probably go in the comentary section. Although it seems 2 B a sort of op-ed. piece, the author has strong academic credentials. (See bio in article.) Paavo273 (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Parties to the civil conflict

should the Serbian Chetniks Volunteers also be mentioned ? http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/crimea-crisis-group-of-serbs-arrived-in-sevastopol-to-support-local-self-defens-units/ --Shumokuzame33 (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)