The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
A news item involving 2014 Crimean crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 March 2014.
Wikipedia
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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)[reply]
The international community
The story falls short. 1. The international community means the western world. 2. It is difficult no to see the parallels with the Georgian affairs six years ago. At least in part, both of these events were likely triggered by western intention to decrease Russia's influence in the area. It is surprising that this possibility is not discussed anywhere in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.169.154 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
title should be changed to conflict now, beyond protests, gunmen just took over the crimean parliament and raised russian flags. this is an armed insurgency or something similar. --Львівське (говорити) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Man, this article was a right mess till I started working on it 1 hour ago for 1 hour... Faults were: information completely out of chronology order, no dates given for when events happened en worst of all sources badly read (I assume good faith my friends!) before being used (at one point this article claimed that Russian troops were blocking roads when the source for that did not claim that....). I hope that whoever made these honest mistakes learns something from this. (Don't worry: I am not mad at cha; I know we are all hard working volunteers and do appreciate any effort on Wikipedia that is well intended.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yulia, just want to explain why it seemed i omitted information: mark mackinnon changed the article after i used it, he never mentioned the volunteers part originally. He's been updating it throughout the day, "Published Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014, 6:37 AM EST Last updated Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014, 2:53 PM EST" when I wrote the content for the original article it was like 11AM EST --Львівське (говорити) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you know. Only thing I really changed from the source article was 'checkpoint' to blockade, which I felt was synonymous and with other reports I read today with them laying down concrete blocks on the roads, it seemed blockadey.
language law did not cause demonstrations because the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea
I did read the Euronews source! And the source does not say "people are now protesting because last week, the parliament in Kyiv made Ukrainian once again the sole official language for all legal documents". Chairmen of the Supreme Council of CrimeaVolodomyr Konstantinov stated in March 2013 that the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea.[1] Journalist make mistakes too; you know... And in this case I do believe it was the Euronews journalist.
If there is a conflict between the sources, we should give preference to the English language source over the foreign language source. --Tocino02:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
infobox POV
I wasn't sure whether to change it or not so asking, but the infobox presents this dispute from the side of the pro-russian camp. Is it not two sides protesting against one another? Should it be NPOV or since the tatars/ukrainians protesting are for the status quo, we display the side who wants change? Just curious --Львівське (говорити) 06:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox makes it appear as if all Crimean Tatars are Russophobes, which is clearly wrong and too generalizing, especially with the Tatar flag. The list should go like this in my opinion:
I've addressed this concern by substituting "Crimean Tatars" for the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People which is the activist group that were at the pro-Euromaidan protests. --Tocino 08:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the listing of Don Cossacks is also controversial. First of all, the reference is out-of-date, dating before the Crimean protests began, and secondly like listing Crimean Tatars on the counter side, it presents these peoples as a monolithic bloc. --Tocino08:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the infobox is that it's protesters vs. protesters. To be like Euromaidan, it has to be [side with grievance] vs. government/side that has ability to make concessions. I think side 2 should be the government of ukraine/crimea (since thats who the protesters are against) and as supporting the provisional government would be pro-ukr revolutonaries & tatars. That, IMO, would be easier to comprehend and giving an equal view.--Львівське (говорити) 08:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
United Russia
Was blanked so starting a talk, should United Russia be included in the infobox? Source says MP stated "Arrived in Sevastopol, Crimea to support residents. Friends, Russia with you!" and then "There is an information war. We arrived in Sevastopol Hero City to personally interact with the residents to know the situation from within." Should it be included? Lokal made a good point that we didn't include EU/US politicians on the euromaidan article. Won't put it back without consensus, just wondering if it counts. --Львівське (говорити) 16:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2014 Crimean protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename
I moved this article to 2014 Crimean unrest now that heavily armed groups have become involved. An editor undid this with the only objection being that it should go to RM. Requested move discussions are for controversial decisions and I do not think it is even remotely controversial to suggest that you have gone beyond protests when organized militia units with RPGs and automatic weapons begin taking over buildings. That said, I am looking to see if there is anyone who considers it seriously controversial to suggest this can longer be described as "protests" given the recent developments.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is controversial. Besides the occupations of parliament and the airport, there are still daily protests going on. Please consult with other editors before you decide to move a highly-viewed, current event article such as this. --Tocino02:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what if there are still protests? Unrest can include protests, especially when the protests are violent and lead to deaths. That does not somehow magically change that armed groups seizing public facilities is now part of the event. It is hard to argue that the actions by armed groups are not part of the overall situation and it is especially hard to argue that they could be considered mere protests.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Tocino03:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [1]). Perhaps replace the current large Crimean map [2], or put the ethniticies map just underneath it? --Tocino09:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Considering uniformed Russian soldiers have seized at least two airports, blocked off at least one Ukrainian military base, and set up checkpoints on the highways into and out of the peninsula, I think it's pretty clear what we're seeing is -- depending on your point of view -- either an invasion or an intervention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term "invasion" still lies within accusations that are still unconfirmed and the claim is also denied by the Russian government. Can we call it "standoff" just for now? Because it's definitely not an unrest anymore. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian government has admitted to moving troops inside Crimea. BBC is reporting that phone systems have been shut down and a number of Russian transport aircraft have landed at Simferopol. "Invasion" seems reasonable - although I'd like to see "2014 Crimea crisis" or something more neutral as the title. Kiralexis (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian government confirmed the invasion (Article). Maybe we should rename it to the 2014 Crimean invasion or 2014 Crimean occupation since these events are more important than the original riots or the "unrest". [Soffredo]19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisis is good for now only but if things go bad in these days it should be changed to "2014 Russian invasion of Crimea" or something like that. Adnan Hz 97 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Russian invasion seems to be happening (in near future)
A few hours ago Russian President Putin stated it was of "extreme importance of not allowing a further escalation of violence and the necessity of a rapid normalisation of the situation in Ukraine" in telephone calls with key EU leaders.[1]
So it is safe to say that Russia is not involved in seizing anything in Crimea or Putin is not telling key EU leaders the truth. Since the parliament and airports seem to be occupied by "gunmen unmarked" I think we should not assume they are Russian soldiers untill we can be sure (per WP:CHRYSTAL).
The article you linked is called 'Ukraine crisis live: Russia admits its troops are moving in Crimea". Is it not about Russia being involved? [Soffredo]19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read this part of the article:
15.50 BREAKING: The Russian foreign ministry has admitted that armoured units from the Black Sea Fleet base near Sevastopol had entered Crimea in order to protect fleet positions.
“The Ukrainian side was also passed a note regarding the movement of armoured vehicles of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, which is happening in full accordance with the foundation Russian-Ukrainian agreements on the Black Sea Fleet,” the ministry said in a statement posted on its website on Friday afternoon.
In the same note the Russian foreign ministry said it had declined a Ukrainian request for “bilateral consultations” on events in Crimea because they are “the result of recent internal political processes in Ukraine.”
So the Russian authorities claim to be not a part in the conflict! And the article says Russia claims Russia is not involved! We are editing articles based on content of sources; not by tittle of content... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia admitted to being involved, just not in the airports. Well, they only denied Simferopol. Russian military with Russian flags have been seen all over Crimea, and Russia has admitted to this "drill" --Львівське (говорити) 19:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we edit Infoboxes on the bases we believe the Russian foreign ministry is lying? What Russian officials are claiming that Russia is involved? If only journalist claim it, then the lead should have the information that Russian officials claim Russia is not involved. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to point out about the fact that Russian foreign ministry is lying. It should be left as is, because it portrays the facts that indeed took place. Analysis of events will develop later. We need to reform the infobox, however, from civil unrest to a military conflict. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian invasion of Crimea does not have to be with intent to annex the territory. Russian cannot simply occupy it without any legal basis. However, there is an evident attempt to interfere in interior affairs of Ukraine and Crimea, specifically (political influence). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not forget about the Russian interest in the Sevastopol naval base, existence of which could be compromised as it hangs on the scandalous Kharkiv agreements that extended military lease of the base until 2040s. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian officials admit troops are in the area on routine maneuvers, Ukraine says Russia is occupying buildings and also in the streets, the US has said that Russian troops are on the ground. Is someone in denial here? --Львівське (говорити) 22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support - I think "crisis" is rather mild -- it's an armed takeover -- but "unrest" is certainly no longer an acceptable descriptor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that per Wikipedia:Article titlesArticle titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Yerevantsi, Dzhemilev, Chubarov, Kunitsyn are all residents of Crimea. Why are you identifying them under different flags? It is obvious aggression of Russia against Ukraine. Even Konstantinov was booed away in front of protesters. No Ukrainian central authorities are active. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, your wording is pretty troublesome. Naming this section "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment" clearly shows your POV and is a direct accusation towards me. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
Second, being a resident of Crimea does not mean they represent the government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the flag of which it is. If you have problems understanding, I'll repeat. Dzhemiliev is a Ukrainian (not Crimean) parliamentary deputy, Kunitsyn is an Ukrainian (not Crimean) official, Chubarov is a Crimean Tatar representative.
Third, the rest of your comment is a personal opinion having no connection with the flags. Keep your personal point of view out of Wikipedia, please and thank you. --Երևանցիtalk02:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is this article seems slanted in favor of the Russian side, I agree with you. Russian troops are occupying Crimea. Why are we burying the lede? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yerevantsi, Chubarov is a member of the Crimean parliament. The chairman of Crimean Council of Ministers is a Ukrainian official as much as Kunitsyn. That is exactly the point I was talking about. Crimea is not an independent entity and residents of Crimea are Ukrainians and then Crimeans. Kunitsyn was recently appointed the presidential representative in Crimea, but previously he headed the government of Crimea, twice. Is he a traitor? Of course, not. Your flag posting is inconsistent and portrays anti-Ukrainian sentiments in way that Ukraine tries to annex Crimea rather than Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yerevantsi, about personal attacks. I am not calling you names, am I? If you are taking it personal, I do apologize. It was not my intentions of insulting anybody. However, your edits have a slanted point of you and I want to discuss it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some correspondent Christopher Greene accuses the new government of Ukraine in dictatorship, against which all people in Ukraine. He also accuses the United States and the Europe in instigating the recent events in Ukraine.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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". --Tocino18:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is calling it a "crisis" still appropriate? Maybe we should rename it "Russian invasion of Crimea" or "Russian invasion of Ukraine"? There are already sources calling it an "invasion", but they are mostly citing the Ukrainian side [4][5][6] Thoughts? --Երևանցիtalk17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AP is using the term "de facto military takeover" - I'd be comfortable with a military conflict infobox and possibly a name change (another! yay!) to something like "2014 Russian Occupation of Crimea." Kiralexis (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Covert operations troops and Irregular military units routinely operate without obvious markings, often leaving means of ID down to observation of signature equipment and tactics. Private Military Contractors (which some suspect have been brought in by the Russians [through a certain Russian Naval office] to augment their initial manpower on the ground) would come under the later category. 83.70.234.21 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that! In order to stay neutral, I think we need to choose words very carefully and accurately. USchick (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add to the lede
Unmarked military seized the building and held a referendum to install a new Prime Minister. I think this is significant and needs to be incorporated in the lede. Opinions? USchick (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Budapest Memorandum (actually made up of three intergovernmental memorandums) is increasingly a dead letter, unfortunately. 83.70.254.132 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename article
This article should be called 2014 Ukraine crisis, the Crimea is part of Ukraine and the full scope of the issue is Ukraine, the Crimea is just one aspect of the full crisis. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The crisis in Ukraine is covered in the Euromaidan article. This crisis is limited to Crimea. I agree that all related articles can be better tied to each other. USchick (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia would be wise to have admins watch over this page for the potential of nationalist bickering
Measures on Wikipedia can be prepared for now, for the prospect of this page going completely out of control should war or other ethnic violence erupt in Crimea with ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian nationalists making their own claims of what is going on. This will especially be the case if the new government in Crimea declares independence from Ukraine that is not recognized by Ukraine. Precedents on how other controversial declarations of independence have been dealt with on Wikipedia such as on the topic of Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not predicting what will happen. I am saying that it may be wise to prepare for what is possible to happen under existing circumstances. Wikipedia can decide to prepare for this, or it can decided not to. It may solve problems by preparing for potential circumstances now. The new Crimean government declared its intention to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine. (http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/28/ukraine-s-crimea-vote-to-hold-a-referendum-on-region-s-future/). To have some admins watch what is being added would be a wise precaution in my opinion.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new government was installed by masked gunmen with assault weapons. Whatever they decide is irrelevant. However, the same gunmen may be headed to Wikipedia, so I agree about admin oversight. USchick (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Europe has a history that is familiar with people with guns forming governments that have exercised influence, their influence should not be disregarded at this point. It is good though that we have some agreement on the need for admins to watch over this page.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should be on the lookout for openly biased editors here. I already see ones on this page denouncing the actions of Russia or Ukraine. This is not a place for general discussion of what is going on, but for discussing adding content. Users who are openly denouncing the Russian or Ukrainian governments, or Crimean government for that matter, are not demonstrating their ability to calmly address the situation in neutral, non-inflammatory language. No doubt that will be difficult for people with strong sympathies in this crisis, but our business here is to uphold NPOV, and inflammatory language here is not acceptable. Users who use such inflammatory language here should get get the boot by administrators.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better map
The Crimea peninsula.
I tried to make an improvement of the currently used map. I think it is a little more descriptive. I left away any mention of nation states so I hope the map remains neutral. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this. We need to confirm where the borders are. according to other maps, the islands belong to Crimea as well. [9] Can we confirm? USchick (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the map uses a geographic definition of peninsula, separating it from the main land at the narrowest point, which would mean that the some of the small islands would be part of the peninsula. Do they have Wikipedia entries? The boundaries on my map are administrative (below nation state). --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This disagreement is about territorial integrity. I like the map you made, but if it's going to be translated to other languages, it needs to be extremely accurate. Maybe use it for English version only, for now? USchick (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the territorial dispute is one level above what my map shows. Nobody is disputing the borders between the regions and municipalities. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's the Peninsula of Crimea and the Republic of Crimea. In English Wiki they are treated the same, which is a mistake. Other languages treat them separately. Sevastopol is not part of the republic of Crimea, but it's located on the Peninsula. No one is disputing the borders between municipalities…. yet. Seems like there are other maps you can use. USchick (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lines on the map appear to be accurate. However, Sevastopol seems to be the Municipality of Crimea, and it's not. It'c a municipality of Ukraine. USchick (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Western press will call it a take over. Russian press will claim that they are acting legally under military agreements with Ukraine that permit Russian military forces to operate in Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine clearly doesn't share the Kremlin's unique perspective on said agreements, and Russian state-owned media are not reliable sources. If we have reliable sources calling this what it is -- a takeover of Crimea by the Russian military -- we should call it that, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed sources are reliable. It would help if editors actually read the proposed comments before stating an opinion. USchick (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new Ukrainian government that overthrew the previous government a matter of days ago does not share Russia's perspective. What about the ousted President Yanukovich who still claims power? What about people in Eastern Ukraine who are pro-Russian? This is a complex issue, it depends on what happens on the ground. Quoting several Western media outlets is not going to make the matter easier.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
I originally created that, but realized there isn't much distinction between the two articles. I would recommend redirecting the smaller article to the larger one, since it doesn't have much information. --Article editor (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Let's wait and see until Russia actually invades. It has not yet put any boots on ground, at least not formally. And also, there is no need to include "2014" in the new title, because there is no other article titled "Russian invasion of Crimea". --Երևանցիtalk00:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 1) Russia has not (yet) officially used force. 2) Even when such does occur it will be a result of the crisis, not the cause of it. The title shoudl decsribe the contents of the article, so teh article would have to be completely refactored for "Russian invasion of Crimea" to be an apropriate title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity" Has this happened yet? No. --Երևանցիtalk00:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the new government of Ukraine also came in at gunpoint. Now both governments claim to be legitimate. That's why this crisis is part of a revolution. USchick (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please reed the article you posted. According to the article, there was no invasion. Russia informed Ukraine in advance. USchick (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At first, they were moving their existing troops, so they gave notification. Later, they were invited by the PM. In both cases, not an invasion according to the Russians. So far no one has challenged them. Except you. :) USchick (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I for one feel this needs to be a separate article. This Thug is blatantly ignoring the will of the Ukrainian People. Nice how he waited to act until after the closing of the Winter Olympics!--Subman758 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hardly an invasion. As far as I am aware, there are not 10 Russian Guards tank division lancing towards Kiev. there is some reinforcement of treaty related territories and installations in the Crimea. There are large areas of ethnic Russians in the Crimea and indeed in parts of Ukraine. There has been some blatantly racially antiRussian sentiment spoken in the Ujrainian polity. its way more nuanced than invasion. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Irondome (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence at the moment, mostly because it's highly likely that Russia is aiming for more than just reclaiming the Crimea. 83.70.234.21 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is no "invasion". Crimea is ethnically solidly Russian. I think liberation is more accurate. Do you grasp the complex nationalist and racist (on the part of the Ukraine) issues here? Irondome (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. If Russia is sending troops into Crimea, which is Ukrainian territory, then "invasion" is the appropriate and correct term. If.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity has eeverything to do with it considering the demonstrable racism that the Ukrainian Govt has expressed. We have Russian being banned as a the second langusge in the Ukraine, and openly neo-nazi elements operating in the Ukrainian administration. The largest proportion of Crimeans are ethnic Russians. They feel no loyalty to Kiev. The nuances of the situation are not being reflected in WP coverage at this point I feel. Irondome (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - The word invasion is clearly taking a pro-west side in the conflict. Ask someone from one of the many cities in Eastern Ukraine and they'll call it liberation/protection from an anti-democratic removal of their country's leader. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral on such sensitive, rapidly developing issues. Even the typically biased western media isn't calling this an invasion. LokiiT (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comment by LokiiT. Support merging Russian invasion of Crimea into this article at least for the time being, it is just splitting the issue in two. This is a complex and volatile issue and as LokiiT says it is rapidly developing. Any decision to rename this should be exercised carefully, and consideration should be made about bringing in Wikipedia administrators to monitor this page.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This issue isn't as simple as "Russia invades Crimea". There are underlying issues that this article discusses, i.e. Crimean grievances with the new authorities in Kiev, long-term pro-Russian separatist feelings, etc. Besides, there has not been one direct engagement between the Russian and national Ukrainian armies as of yet. "Crisis" is the most neutral word that we can use while the situation still plays itself out --Tocino03:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - However, the article should be called 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, NOT Crimea! You people are trying to disassociate Crimea from the Ukraine, which is wrong! IQ125 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - "Crisis" best sums up the complicated events that are unfolding in Crimea at this point. The events encompass both protests, non-violent, and the storming of various headquarters by civilians, along with military movement of troops. "Invasion" is simplistic and does not hold to NPOV. RGloucester — ☎18:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw this move request - The article, recently created, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, has been speedily kept at a deletion discussion. It was devised that that article would handle the Russian military movements, whereas this article, 2014 Crimean crisis, broadly deals with the crisis as a whole. As such, please withdraw this request. RGloucester — ☎22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: The words "invasion" and "genocide" cannot be used randomly. European Court of Human Rights in December 2013 decided that 1915 Events (about Armenians) are not genocide. Besides this, there is no usage of the word "invasion" in any of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Turkey's action on Cyprus. Hence, injectioning bias/conditioning is not the business of Wikipedians, but politicians. I am saying this not for Turkey's fora, Russia's fora. But, any fora that Wikipedia will face in future.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The situation in Crimea is definitely a "crisis", but we should wait a couple of days/weeks before we could tell that there is a "war" or an "occupation". The situation is too recent, and we do not know yet how it will end. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No need to jump the gun and hand out labels at such an early stage. Unless someone here has a functional crystal ball, we don't know whether this crisis will unfold into a deeper military conflict, or if the crisis will be solved diplomatically. So far only small pockets have been occupied or besieged, such as military bases and government buildings; this is hardly the invasion of an area. --benlisquareT•C•E22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per 1.CNN "In Crimea, more Russian troops arrived, surrounding military posts and other facilities and taking effective control of the peninsula from Ukrainian authorities. What they planned to do next remained unclear. Up to 12 trucks full of Russian troops crossed into the eastern Crimean city of Kerch from Russia Monday, Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov told CNN. Additionally, Ukrainian Border Service Assistant Chief Col. Sergei Astakhov said he saw Russian troops move by ferry from Russia across the Strait of Kerch. As the ferries approached the port, 10 heavily armed troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet attacked the border post from land and used force to overwhelm Ukrainian border guards, Astakhov said. In another ominous incident, a Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman said the commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet boarded a blocked Ukrainian warship and issued a threat." 2.Associated Press. 3.Newsweek "In Crimea, meanwhile, Russian troops and aircrafts were already creating “facts on the ground.”" 4.NY Times "European Union foreign ministers, condemning Russia’s actions, called on Moscow to return its troops to their bases". 5.Reuters "Russia paid a heavy financial price on Monday for its military intervention in neighboring Ukraine, with stocks, bonds and the rouble plunging as President Vladimir Putin's forces tightened their grip on the Russian-speaking Crimea region."..... These are major media outlets reporting on 2014 occupation of Crimea. To my understanding all English speaking countries by now agree that Russian troops are occupying Crimea, and this is English Wikipedia. Most succesful aggressions start undeclared, and declaration of war is frankly speaking, irrelevant. There is no "formal" war, there is just "war".Psubrat2000 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the articles, you could see that the situation is considered by mainstream media as a "crisis" and "tensions", not a war or an occupation.
Oppose since "crisis" is a broader term. It's more to the crisis than just an invasion, there is all the bavkground too and what will come next. Harold O'Brian (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not purely a military invasion, occupation, intervention etc, however. There were also civilians protests and movements throughout Crimea. Those events does not belong in an article called "invasion". The "invasion" is a sub-article of the overall crisis. That's why we have a separate article, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎17:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For such an important article, the text is bad. Poor English, lack of flow, etc. Let's put some effort into the presentation as well as the facts. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strategic issues should be looked into as to causes of the crisis
So far there are a lot of claims here of national grievances, etc., but nothing addressing strategic issues. For instance the issue of the new Ukrainian government aligning itself with the West and what role that might have in affecting Russia's military agreements with Ukraine involving its Black Sea Fleet being based in Crimea. This is something that should be looked into.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us here were involved in the Ghouta chemical attack WP article back in august. I see some similarities in our intial responses. We by consusus avoided the use of loaded terms, and deeply debated media sources, POVs very frankly. We had to have admin protection, (we will need semi protect within hours I suspect now) We basically saved and rebuilt to a good WP standard, what was a mess, to a balanced real time evolving article. I suggest we revisit our methodologies there. Represent both sides! Do not reflect either camps media grouphink! Provide a more nuanced and highly cited narrative, bringing in more background! I was literally just back from a 3 month Wikibreak, and it is nice to encounter this. The joys of WP..Irondome (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Crimean parliament approved a no-confidence vote for regional Prime Minister Anatoly Mogilev’s government and replaced him with Sergey Aksyonov of Crimea's Russian Unity party." [19]USchick (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More sources [20][21] :According to this article, Aleksei Chalyi is the Mayor of Sevastopol [22] Which council?
1. In a plenary session, the Supreme Council of Crimea passed a motion of no confidence in the Council of Ministers of Crimea and adopted a resolution to terminated its powers.
2. In addition, the parliament dismissed Anatoliy Mohyliov as the chairman of the Crimean Council of Ministers pursuant to Article 136 of the Constitution of Ukraine. [24]USchick (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sergey Aksyonov, has been voted in as the new Chairman of the Council of Ministers.
Suggestion If there is a desire to trim this article, and I agree that its rapid expansion is a concern, how about we make an "International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis" article, moving the reactions of most states off this article, so that we can keep more valuable details (i.e. actual events happening in Crimea) from being moved away? For me, it's more important to read about the protests, resignations, troop movements, causes of the conflict, etc., than to read about what the foreign ministers of Ireland and Spain have to say. --Tocino02:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukraine Navy seems to have disintegrated, or so it seems. It's main HQ and practically all major combat units including it's flagship (Hetman Sahaydachniy) and it's only submarine (Zaporizhzhia) appear to have gone over to the pro-Russian forces or been captured by same. A very large chunk of it's logistical and support infrastructure looks like to have gone the same way. It's command structure is in a mess, if it can be considered to still exist. A least a mention of the current unclear status of the Navy should be made in the article. 83.70.254.132 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lokalkosmopolit, if the Navy is possibly (even likely) hors de combat, then said possibility should be mentioned, with the qualifier that the actual status is still unclear, whatever your personal feelings on the matter may be. I'll leave your edit alone for the moment though, to allow others to have their say first. 83.70.254.132 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the Ukrainian Navy has disintegrated, but I haven't seen a source for that apart from some Russians who claim ″victory in Iraqover Ukraine″. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this seems to be true [26]. The article about him says he was appointed as commander-in-chief of the navy by President Oleksandr Turchynov on 1 March 2014. I expected dangerous results once the power sharing agreement broke down in Kiev but Putin has been way more aggressive than even analysts expected. I couldn't find the article now but a politologist suggested some weeks ago that Putin won't violate territorial integrity in favour of separatists as he's conservative and against all kinds of revolutions. The politologist was proven wrong. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize the first article link I mentioned took place before Coalition forces invaded Iraq right? Hostilities didn't start until 19 March 2003. So how can they call it anti-war protest if they took place on days like February 15? Wolcott (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Do we need a 2014 Crimean Crisis article and a 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article? The Russians have intervened as part of the Crisis, after all. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems illogical to have two separate articles about two events the are so intertwined with each other, one ties to the other. Russia states it is protecting its interest in the regions. This all has to do with the conflict in Crimea. It is not neutral to all sides that we call this an invasion. How exactly are the Crimean "crisis" and "invasion" different? Viller the Great (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the other article exists is because someone decided to prematurely start a Russian invasion of Crimea article, and instead of being deleted it was renamed to something more based in reality. I agree however that these two articles should be merged into one, as there is a huge amount of redundancy and they are essentially the same topic. LokiiT (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an official summary about a telephone conversation between Lavrov and Minister Wang Yi from earlier today here. It says that Lavrov presented Russia's position about the recent situation in Ukraine, that there was an intensive exchange of opinions, and both sides agree that a careful handling of the current crisis is very important for maintaining regional peace and stability.
Not sure if it is relevant to the article. It adds little to yesterday's remarks by Qin Gang, on the other hand it obviously sounds quite different from the "broad agreement" that Lavrov claimed earlier today. Yaan (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany comparisons
In my opinion, I think we should avoid comparisons with Nazi Germany, especially in the lead.
Perhaps, this could be suitable in the 'Reactions' section (I am ambivalent), but we should avoid any nazi comparisons in the introduction.
This should apply to both sides:
Comparison of Ukraine invasion by Russia with the Poland invasion by Nazis following the 1936 olympics.
Referring to the Ukrainian government as 'fascists'.
I agree this (if kept) should go into reactions. Furthermore the 'Prominent figures' (or at least the major ones) should be named in the article, no point having a reaction simply labeled as 'Prominent figures', one should be more specific then that. 95.91.248.229 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having that Nazi Germany comparison in the lede is way OTT, and should be removed immediately. I would broadly agree that such comparisons are seriously unhelpful. I would include that category specious and factually innapropriate comparisons such as the annexation of Sudentenland, or that the Ukraine is some new nazi Germany. However, I think mention of far-right groups and their relationship with the new Ukrainian Govt would be legitimate areas to develop if this was echoed by unfolding events and coverage of any Western unease in the MSM. The BBC already made a short 2 min piece, about 4 days ago, interviewing a neo-nazi street patrol in Kiev. If there is RS indicated a Russian equivalence, that should of course be covered too. But no whole-state comparisons with the nazis crap Irondome (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is reliably sourced, and the comparison is made by public figures or other well-known personalities, then it is notable and must be in the article. But probably not in the lead. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if it's reliably sourced and widely compared, why not? Russian media talking about phantom fascists is one thing, but comparing military maneuvers that are similar to provide useful historical context is another. --Львівське (говорити) 22:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is a phantom fascist? The Right Sector is openly fascist and openly anti-semetic/russophobic. They have made public statements calling on terrorist leaders to attack Russia. This is a lot more concrete and based in reality than yet another tired Putin = Hitler comparison. LokiiT (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the source was unreliable, or that it is completely irrelevant, but in my opinion there should not be any Nazi comparison in the lead. There is already a comment in the 'Reactions' section, I think it is enough. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These comparisons get stale and meaningless when they're made every time a major power uses its military. I see no harm in leaving this in the article, as they are indeed prominent figures and the sources seem reliable enough. However it does not belong in the lead and should not be given prominence. LokiiT (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Occupation of Crimea - Requested move 03 March 2014
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.
Oppose Maybe we should wait some time. There is still no formal war yet, and no casualties in Crimea that I am aware of. Maybe in a couple of days there will be a diplomatic solution, and not a real occupation like in South Ossetia Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for my wrong English.) I think it can wait some time (maybe to tomorrow). In my opinion, a military occupation does not matter whether the war is declared, it is crucial factual situation. The occupation and war is something else. During the occupation it may not make war. Porolissum-DE (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in a few days to find a diplomatic solution and that, therefore, this occupation will only take a few days. For occupation, if it meets the definition, is not required casualties. Porolissum-DE (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked. It is actually also a possible option. Why the article is named "Russian military intervention in Ukraine", if "military intervention" is redirected to "peacekeeping"? The current situation in Crimea is certainly not peacekeeping. I don't understand it. I think, that we can wait a few days (here is a term of 7 days) and during that time discuss it. Porolissum-DE (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be POV pushing. There is a dispute on whether Turchynov (Euromaidan movement) or Yanukovych (elected) is the legal president, and it has been reported that Russia has recieved a signed document by Yanukovych where Russian military has been requested. Anonimski (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that several leaders of Czechoslovakia in 1968, also signed the letter to Brezhnev, to occupy Czechoslovakia? Does not the President of Ukraine the right to claim a foreign state on the occupation of their country? Similarly, the president of the USA do such a thing? I do not know, as in England or the USA, but we in Central Europe, we call it high treason. Porolissum-DE (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone takes power over airports, offices, military installations and other important buildings, he effectively takes power over the whole territory. Porolissum-DE (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wait for adoption by the majority of mainstream news outlets and other third-party reliable sources. What the situation "looks like" in reality has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, it needs to be demonstrated that "Occupation of Crimea" is the WP:COMMONNAME in the English language first. --benlisquareT•C•E22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a few days and possibly the Russian army will do "friendly visit" even in America or Australia. We in Prague had a visit from both the Germans (Hitler, 1939) and the Russians (Brezhnev, 1968). You just have to experience for yourself, the experience is not transferable. Porolissum-DE (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a damn what the Russian army will do to America. When I'm discussing Wikipedia policy, it would be great if you don't reply with a splurge of irrelevant talk. --benlisquareT•C•E23:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per 1. "In Crimea, more Russian troops arrived, surrounding military posts and other facilities and taking effective control of the peninsula from Ukrainian authorities. What they planned to do next remained unclear. Up to 12 trucks full of Russian troops crossed into the eastern Crimean city of Kerch from Russia Monday, Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov told CNN.
Additionally, Ukrainian Border Service Assistant Chief Col. Sergei Astakhov said he saw Russian troops move by ferry from Russia across the Strait of Kerch.
As the ferries approached the port, 10 heavily armed troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet attacked the border post from land and used force to overwhelm Ukrainian border guards, Astakhov said.
In another ominous incident, a Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman said the commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet boarded a blocked Ukrainian warship and issued a threat."[1]. 2. All of[2]. 3. In Crimea, meanwhile, Russian troops and aircrafts were already creating “facts on the ground.”[3] 4. "European Union foreign ministers, condemning Russia’s actions, called on Moscow to return its troops to their bases"[4]
These are major media outlets reporting on 2014 occupation of Crimea. To my understanding all English speaking countries by now agree that Russian troops are occupying Crimea, and this is English Wikipedia. Most succesful aggressions start undeclared, and declaration of war is frankly speaking, irrelevant.Psubrat2000 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in Crimea is definitely a "crisis", but we should wait a couple of days/weeks before we could tell that there is a "war" or an "occupation". The situation is too recent, and we do not know yet how it will end. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Attempted move
User:Soffredo moved this article to "2014 Crimean political crisis" [29], 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. --Tocino04:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
The line is just don't include commentary. Sentient has increased but the Ukrainians and Taters make up more than 30%[30] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --Tocino06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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..
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
![[2]](/wiki/File:Crimea_republic_map.png){kind=link}