Talk:2014 Crimean crisis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Requested move to "2014 Russian invasion of Crimea"

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.

---

2014 Crimean crisis → 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea – This has changed from a purely political crisis into a military intervention by a foreign power. Article editor (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose The crisis should act as a lead-up to the Russian invasion of Crimea [Soffredo] 23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Agree with this suggestion. The civil unrest prior to the Russian invasion isn't part of the invasion itself. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Clearly an invasion of one sovereign country by another. Not simply a crisis, but an all out invasion.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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". --Երևանցի ^talk 00:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

  One country need not use bullets to invade a country. Lets just go with the sources shall we?--JOJ ^Hutton 00:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Whether it's formal/official or not does not affect whether Crimea has been invaded. --Article editor (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There was an invasion, not by Armed forces, but by unidentified terrorists. USchick (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, it has happened. [1] --Article editor (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

They were invited by the acting prime minister as "peace keepers." No invasion according to them. USchick (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The acting "prime minister" was installed by the Russians after the previous one was removed at gunpoint. --Article editor (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

The new government came in after the previous president was impeached by the legislature, including by members of his own party. --Article editor (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

They both denounce each other, that's why its a revolution. USchick (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per Երևանցի USchick (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  But why? All sources say that Russian troops have invaded, not just terrorists.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What sources are you talking about? Please provide a few. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's one. [2] --Article editor (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

How does informing in advance makes an invasion not an invasion? --Article editor (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Technically speaking, the Olympic truce was still in effect, so Putin had to pay it at least lip service. 83.70.234.21 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - crisis works, no complaints, but there's no denying its a full on invasion.--Львівське (говорити) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • But let's recognize it for what it is now, a Russian invasion in Crimea. --Article editor (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Why should Russia "liberate" Russian-speaking Ukrainians? --Article editor (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

They're not troops, they're "peace keepers" invited by the Prime Minister. USchick (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Over a third of the population of Crimea is ethnically Ukrainian and Tatar. It's misleading to call it "solidly Russian."--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well they are certainly the clear majority, Strike solidly above though. Irondome (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Russian invasion of Crimea as a separate article for now, and have this article focus on the lede up to the invasion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Yerevantsi. WP:CRYSTALBALL.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi hasn't voted/commented in this survey. Are you confused or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

See Երևանցի USchick (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, it looks like I'm the one who's confused. My apologies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "crisis" is the common name used in the news media.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

Exactly. USchick (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 --Tocino 03:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The word invasion is clearly western rhetoric --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose We can't speak of invasion if the local majority is the one who opposes the self-imposed government in Kiev.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's no longer just a crisis, it's a military conflict. Russia has illegally seized Crimea by force and Ukraine is in the process of taking it back.—Rurik the Varangian (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify, what else do you expect to be occupied?Psubrat2000 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 12 trucks is not an invasion per WP:COMMONNAME Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You might want to read the rest of the sources.Psubrat2000 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Strong Support. "Crisis" is a weasel word anyway.--Froglich (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I get the feeling you have no idea what a weasel word is. If you really do have something against the word, then I suggest contacting newspaper companies and book publishers and tell them to stop using the phrases Suez crisis, Eurozone crisis, and Greek government-debt crisis. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support: It's clear a invasion. Many organization,countries and press is considered to be occupation, military escalation and action and here, can not be mentioned only a "crisis". United States [3], NATO [4] Al Jazeera [5] The Independent [6] BBC [7] and more.Also, page should be merged with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. - Maurice07 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose. 2014 Crimean crisis is main article for this topic. Invasion/intervention is part of the crisis only. NickSt (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is no strong consensus to move this page, it is highly divided. This has been open for days. I suggest that this be closed saying that the result was "inconclusive" as to how to proceed, as it was highly divided.—74.12.195.248 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This debate is moot, anyway. We have a separate article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and the discussion to merge these two pages was closed as "no consensus". The move proposed is therefore impossible anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Title

Is it really necessary to have 2014 in the title... almost every source simply is referring to it as the Crimean Crisis, it should be renamed similar to the Suez Crisis... There is no other Crimean Crisis that I am aware of, unless we are trying to differentiate from the Crimean War which was quite different… --Kuzwa (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, however, I do not think the "2014" qualification hurts in anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I'm seeing a lot of citation overkill, especially in the first paragraphs. This is probably because the topic is very polarizing, instigating edit wars. Then, editors add more and more sources to "prove" a piece of information is valid. While it is important to make sure information is properly cited, too many citations can impede readability and put off those who are not edit-warring. In order to maintain readability, we should either remove excess citations or merge them. B14709 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please do merge. I don't know the process, you can leave the template on my talk page as well for future reference. I speak for myself, who put most of the citations.Psubrat2000 (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Explanation in intro of the the issue of Svoboda in Russia's claims to legitimize its intervention is relevent

The new sentence added is a more direct explanation of Russia's position in regards to Svoboda's presence in the new Ukrainian government. Though it is from a Western source, an article on CNN, it explains the concerns addressed by Russia and the European Parliament of the EU over Svoboda. This party is by in large what Russia is referring to in media statements that calls them "fascists" or "Nazis" in the Ukrainian government. In some cases Russia may be referring to the far-right in Ukraine in general, including the Right Sector movement. Svoboda's presence is an issue involved in Russia's claims of justification for intervention. I accept that perhaps a shortened version of that material could be in the intro. However the role of Svoboda in this crisis needs to be addressed in detail in the article given that both Russian and Western press are addressing it.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Shades of green look too much alike on map

On File:Crimea reaction clean.png the shades of green look almost alike is there a way to fix this with more color contrast? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Get better eyes? Difference is very clear to me.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah the dark green and the light green one can tell apart but with the current coloring China looks like it is the same color as Vietnam. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who takes issue with the colour scheme? Green = good, red = bad? LokiiT (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DEW colors are colors, they should be defined though both for the naked eye and for colorblind users. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring and we're not discussing a template. I'm just proposing we make the colours a little more neutral. I don't think anyone would dispute that red is the universal bad or warning colour, especially in contrast with green. LokiiT (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Deforkification

As of now, 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine have meaningless huge overlapse. Unfortunately neither of the pages is a clear sub-article of another one. Still, forking the whole section is very bad idea. Clearly it is a current event and not everybody pays attention to WP:Summary style, and the texts may be fixed when the dust settles.

Nevertheless I feel that one such overlap (in fact, 100% mirror) must be nipped in the bud, namely, legal aspects. It looks like the identical text was cut'n'pasted into both articles, but afterwards the efforts of fixers-uppers started to diverge. Therefore, for the purposes of maintenance I suggest to grow this section in one place. - Altenmann >t 06:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Altenmann, Thanks for catching this. You're absolutely right. It's hard enough to fix text in one article. Then to find the text verbatim elsewhere--just ridiculous. IMO these articles should definitely be combined. If there WERE a real crisis separate from the Russian military intervention, the latter IMO should logically be a sub-article of the former. But it doesn't appear to have developed that way. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Revolution in the lead

Currently the revolution described as pro-Russian vs pro-European Union, unless it is specifically tailored for the protests in the next sentence IMO it rather in accurate. The protest were mostly about government corruption and Russian intervention. It only became as Pro-Russians vs the rest, after the clashes started and healthy dose of propaganda from Russian media.--PLNR (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia, on the other hand, does not recognize... - too long for a short lead.Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the sentence "In February 2014, the pro-Russian national government in Ukraine was replaced with one desiring closer ties to the European Union". Wouldn't it be better to use another word than "replaced" ? The Ukrainian government was not simply replaced following an election in a normal process, it was overthrown by a revolution. just my 2 cents. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Xx236, still whole this East vs West thing is generated by Russia, the goal of Euromaiden protest wasn't EU but what it represented i.e. move against corruption and reforms, while Russian represented the economical bully.

@Cmoibenlepro, The president was dismissed by a majority vote of the same Ukrainian house of representatives that "put" him there, same goes for call for early elections due to a national crisis, which is not so uncommon in the democratic world or unconstitutional in Ukraine - so it depends on what you mean by "normal proccess". --PLNR (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand you, do you support this long statement in the lead, rationalizing Russian politics?Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

According to report by Polish think tank funded by Poland's government, Svoboda party program included ethnic discrimination of non-Ukrainians

In this report by Polish think tank from 2011 Centre for Eastern Studies (which if funded by Polish government and thus can't be seen as pro-Russian), the Svoboda party program includes ethnic discrimination of non-Russians in Ukraine by limiting their numbers in administration, military, state organs and dramatically reducing their civil rights, Svoboda according to them is radically anti-Russian while also anti-Polish[8]

• Original partNajważniejszym elementem programu Swobody jest etnocentryzm. Narodowość obywatela ma być kategorią publiczną. W organach władzy wykonawczej, siłach zbrojnych, oświacie, nauce, a nawet gospodarce ma być zaprowadzony cenzus narodowościowy: ich skład ma procentowo odpowiadać proporcji Ukraińców i mniejszości narodowych. Podobnie udział języka ukraińskiego w mediach ma być nie mniejszy od odsetka etnicznych Ukraińców w społeczeństwie. Jedynym językiem urzędowania struktur państwa (w tym oświaty) ma być ukraiński, a jedynym prawem mniejszości narodowych – tworzenie stowarzyszeń. W dokumentach programowych Swobody brak natomiast elementów rasistowskich.Oprócz programu oficjalnego istnieje również program nieoficjalny, nie ujęty w formie jawnego dokumentu, lecz dający się odczytać z wypowiedzi członków Swobody, a także podejmowanych przez nich działań. Jest on znacznie bardziej radykalny, w tym rasistowski[6]...Nie zmienia to jednak faktu, że antypolonizm jest zarówno w retoryce, jak i programie tej partii drugorzędny: za głównego i rzeczywiście groźnego wroga Ukrainy Swoboda uważa Rosję i Rosjan.
• Translation The most important element of the Svoboda party program is ethnocentrism . Nationality of citizen is to be a public category . The bodies of executive power , the armed forces , education , science, and even the economy are to be subjected to national quotas to be escorted census of nationalities : their composition will be according to percentage of responding proportion of Ukrainians and ethnic minorities. Similarly, the share of the Ukrainian language in the media is to be no less than the proportion of ethnic Ukrainians in society. The only language of state structures (including education ) is to be Ukrainian , and the only right of national minorities - the creation of associations. The official program documents lack any mention of racism.In addition to the official program , there is also an unofficial program , not included in a public document , but evident by statements by members of Svoboda, as well as their actions . It's far more radical , and includes racism [ 6 ] ... does not change the fact that the anti-Polonism both in rhetoric and program of the party secondary : the primary and indeed dangerous enemy of Ukraine Svoboda considers Russia and Russians

I suggest adding information on program of Svoboda based on non-Russian source coming from NATO and EU aligned country, it seems that Russian objections and concerns for Russian population in Ukraine didn't come from nowhere.It shows that Russian sources informing about nature of Svoboda's government aren't isolated in their assessment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by Svoboda's government? Probably Svoboda's leadership? Government is a government, local or central. Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry being used to insert NPOV-violating material

The user Owner Ming is resorting to sockpuppetry including the account Daithicarr to insert NPOV-violating material into the article 2014 Crimean Crisis while avoiding detection. Daithicarr like Owner Ming is abusing Wikipedia:Getting Started to somehow justify altering material in the article. A discussion on the talk page of that article criticized Owner Ming's editing behaviour. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry clearly states that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. This user must adhere to Wikipedia policy by using one account and cease using multiple accounts at once. However given the repeated editing behaviour and the tenacity to evade detection, I believe this user will not stop voluntarily and therefore they should be reported.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Im Daithicarr, I am new, im desperately trying to figure out how I can prove im not Userming. It is the first time i edited something. I felt it was so reliant on a very biased news source(RT) that someone should edit it. How can I show im not some other user and what makes you think I am that user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, your editing behaviour is clearly exactly the same using exactly the same tag of "Getting Started" [9] [10] [11]. You are lying when you are suggesting that you are not the same person.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is infuriating. This is the first time I ever tried to contribute to wikipedia. I set up my account this morning on reading a very biased section of the crime article which only sourced Russia today and claimed that the pro Ukrainian protests were Nazis from western Ukraine. I copied and pasted the section, edited with new references, then re pasted. Please explain how the links you provide illustrate I am some other user. Just for a minute consider maybe I am new to this and haven't a clue what youre on about or how to refute youre ludicrous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that since the article has been changed back to the heavily biased account, you dont agree with my editing, have changed it and then accuse me of being some other user in order to dismiss my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr (talk • contribs) 12:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

74.12.195.248: The "New editor getting started" tag is automatically added to the edit summary of new users who access an article via Wikipedia:GettingStarted. Its presence actually serves to suggest that Daithicarr is not Owner Ming, since a user who already knew of the article and wanted to impose their POV on it would be more likely to navigate there directly rather than going via GettingStarted. If that is the best evidence you have, then I suggest you retract your accusation that Daithcarr is a liar, since it's a pretty clear personal attack. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I retract my claims. I did not know that the Getting started tab was automatic. I believed the user was a sockpuppet. I apologize for the accusation.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the apology, I in turn apologies for stating that youre accusation was based on disagreeing with the content of my edit. I wrongly assumed it was some way to discredit my attempted contribution. Daithicarr (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal aspects section; be careful

Be careful with the legal aspects section. It seems to be falling to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. We also need to be extremely careful on legal matter as we cannot in any way or form provide legal opinions (see WP:NOLEGAL). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi User:Ahnoneemoos, WP:Systemic bias is an essay and not WP policy. It IS a valid point IMO, however. There just seems to be disagreement about what the systemic bias consists of or in favor of whose side the systemic bias is happening. Also, the other Wikilink you mention, WP:No legal, is a disclaimer, NOT A WARNING. Finally, I'm confused: Weren't YOU the author of that legal section of the article? WTF? Is s.o. changing your work or you're afraid of that happening or what? Which way do you think the systemic bias is happening? If I read it correctly, if you're the author of that section, I guess you're thinking the bias is tilting in favor of the Russian position. Is that right? Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Never said systemic bias was a policy. Besides, I'm not the author: User:FT2 included the text on this edit: [12] It was extremely lopsided so I tried to rephrase it to make it neutral but it was difficult, hence why I made this post here: to request help. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the diff. Now I understand your position. First, I want to make clear, I do NOT question your GF. If part of your point is that this material should not be in WP's voice, IMO you have a valid argument for that.

What I take exception to is adding unsourced, presumably OR, info in the middle of the cited author's argument to rebut him. EVERYTHING needs to be sourced on WP. Also, it is not effective presentation of rebuttal to go point by point, especially with uncited material or OR. Let the source speak for itself, and then rebut it IF VALID RSs are available. (I'm NOT saying YOU did this; I was wrong about your being the author of this section.)

Next, it is not acceptable to add in words like "seems" attributing that language to the cited source UNLESS THE SOURCE ITSELF was wishy-washy in presenting his arguments.

Another complaint is your tags. I don't think that's legal on WP to just make up your own tags. I've never seen it done before. If systemic bias is not even WP policy, what is a tag doing there for it? I COULD be wrong; IF you can cite some WP authority for making up your own tags OR for systemic bias being a proper WP tag, then please cite it here and only in that case feel free to add it back for discussion by the larger WP community. Discussion c/b solicited here or it could go to an RfC.

The rest of the problems are pretty much mechanical, e.g., formatting of quotes, which I tried to clean up.

So I think I understand now that you believe this is biased AGAINST the Russian position. IMO just the opposite is true, at least for MUCH of the article. Paavo273 (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm placing here a short piece of text I removed from the article that appears to be blatant OR: The Partition Treaty on the Black Sea Fleet which is still in effect, however, seems to contradict Weller's opinion on the matter once more. The CITED SOURCE is an article BY Weller. So I seriously doubt he contradicted his own position. Unless a source is cited for this info, it doesn't even deserve a tag because it has the unmistakeable marking of some WP editor taking content creation and interpretation into his own hands, clearly not allowed by WP sourcing policy including Verifiability.

The WP-approved way to counter accurately-represented, valid source material perceived to be one-sided is to find OTHER CONTRADICTING valid source material; it's not acceptable for a WP editor on his or her own to "debunk" the material. Paavo273 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ahnoneemoos is spot-on. I did add the material. I am not overly invested in the article, although I track the dispute in the media. I also edit a lot on law and legal aspects of matters. I noticed the BBC's mention of a well-respected academic's legal analysis (independent of politicians, US, Russia and Ukraine) and thought it a good start. Paavo273 was also absolutely spot on in his/her comment about fixing up deficiencies by adding balancing material if needed, and I came back to find the section greatly improved by everyone elses' work. So a "thank you" on that - I hadn't had time to look at all legal commentary and check whether the views were as balanced as they should be in everyones' eyes, but others have. Doesn't seem to need any changes from here. My concern was that the article needed a competent "legal views" section, and now it has one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• You have a very skewed understanding of how Wikipedia works. First of all, the {{systemic bias}} template was not created by me. It was created by User:SMcCandlish on this edit: [13]. Second, whenever you find something on Wikipedia that you beleive to be WP:OR or unsourced then either tag it with the {{cn}} template or the {{OR}} template so that we can find a source for it and remove any doubts. I'm not a lawyer, but I tried to balance the prose as much as I could per WP:FIVEPILLARS (our core) and its extension WP:FIXIT but came up short. This is exactly why I made this post here: to request help from the community to balance the section into a neutral point of view and to find sources that provide a perspective different than Weller's. Stop accusing me of this or that, and understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative work. Each and everyone of us doesn't have the answers to everything: hence why we request help from the community in cases like this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline march 9th

The description of events around the protests in Crimea itself on the 9th of March seem to be extremely one sided. It is more in keeping with a RT news broadcast.

I would suggest re-editing along the lines of

On March 9 2014 in Sevastopol, at a rally celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko was held by local people opposed to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Russian state owened media denounced the pro-Ukrainian rally as a group of radicals from Western Ukraine started shouting Nazi slogans They also reported that other pro-Maidan activists also opened fire near by the rally before being detained by self-defense squads. However most independent news reports speak of the mainly elderly protestors being confronted by a pro-Russian crowd who then attacked them and threw missiles at a car as they tried to flee the scene, smashing its windows, while cossacks and other pro Russian demonstrators cased and beat other pro-Ukrainian supporters.

You are Owner Ming using a sockpuppet account, your editing behaviour here has been criticized for inserting clear NPOV-violating material into this article. This is unacceptable behaviour.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that, What NPOV material have I added? And how do I go about proving I am a new User not some other guy your referring too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr (talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So apart from supposedly being User Ming, is there any other reason why a version similar to what I have pasted above should not be put in place of the existing heavily Biased Version which is sourced from Russia Today. Daithicarr (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Owner Ming (the real one) is continuously reverting any changes back to the original , which is highly biased and comes from one source which isint very reliable given its owned by one of the party's in the conflict. His account also ignores parts of another source he uses which are completely at odds with the information present in the paragraph. Daithicarr (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move to "Crimean crisis"

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.

---

From 2014 Crimean crisis → Crimean crisis

Reason: This is the first and only event referred to as "Crimean crisis". Furthermore, we have already established naming conventions for this kind of articles already. Examples include:

• Bedchamber crisis
• Suez Crisis
• Eurozone crisis
• Oka Crisis
• Agadir Crisis
• and many others.

What's everyone's opinion?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Retiring request based on Nickst's finding. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is pretty much the only event specifically called Crimean Crisis in history, and there is precedent for it in other articles. Kiralexis (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment:. User:EdJohnston has noticed on my talk page that we use "Crisis" (capitalized) when it's preceded by a nation's name but "crisis" (lowercase) when not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per given arguments. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support The only others I found were "conflict" and "war" in the titles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. See Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances#1994 Crimean crisis. NickSt (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose since there was another Crimean crisis, in the 1990s. No opinion on the caps. Dekimasuよ! 01:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Military units

I have just reviewed an article, its called List of military units on Crimea, I am quite sure that some of the content can be moved to this new page. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested mentioning of Chetnik Involvement in the Crisis in the "Parties to the civil conflict" table

Why have the Serbian Chetniks been ommited from the "Parties to the civil conflict" table? They were there until midday March 7th. I demand that they be returned, they are even mentioned in the article as members supporting the Russian forces under Other (non-Russian) involvement: "A group of Chetniks, a Serbian nationalist paramilitary force, have travelled to Crimea to support Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukisuzuki (talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/who-is-milutin-malisic-leader-of-chetniks-in-crimea/ Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You could ask politely, or you could just add them back yourself if that is a reliable source. Beach drifter (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of men wearing Chetnik uniforms do not merit inclusion to this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Kiev and pro-Moscow POV

As said above, this POV has been inserted multiple times. I suggest that the edit(s) that did this be found and the article reverted to prior to those edits. The editor who did this should be given a clear warning not to insert blatant NPOV-violating material in the article. The same should be the case for editors inserting blatantly anti-Moscow, pro-Kiev POV as well. Wikipedia users must adhere to its principles of NPOV, or else they are violating it. This is a very relevant article for a current event that should not be permitted to be an exception to the rule.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be Mr. 31.48.69.109. I previously wrote a relatively polite note to a relatively impolite editor, who became more polite and provided a reference, but I don't think I'm in the mood to be polite right now.
Anyway, those particular edits should be gone now. --Kizor 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I see it's Owner Ming. Owner Ming has been at it too, and made a much bigger impression - after starting editing today he's made thirteen edits to this article, and one to the article about the Russian intervention. Owner Ming and 31 have used very similar language and added almost the same passage, the one starting with "However Russian troops have...". --Kizor 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit [14] by Owner Ming also includes a very strong anti-Kiev and pro-Russian POV. Every user must uphold NPOV, if they are incapable of doing that because of strong connection or attachment to the situation at hand, then they should not be contributing here and instead publish their perspective on a website or blog.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem really is the source the user used. RT is extremely partisan in such cases, so I wouldn't use it. For example, RT claimed in 2008 while the war was underway that thousands were killed by the Georgian assault and later when Russian troops invaded Georgia they totally disregarded the events and only showed footages of 'reconstruction works in Ossetia'. Not a WP:RS. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On my national news (I live in a western country) I recall seeing footage of war-torn Tshkinvali, while the caption read something like: Russia invades Georgia. Propaganda and disinformation is not exclusive to the Russian side, and we cannot disregard media outlets for bias; if we did that we would have very little material to work with. RT is at least as reliable a source Kyiv Post or Ukrainian Pravda. LokiiT (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Again using the same double standards than in Syrian civil war-related articles? Again saying that RT is unreliable but Kyiv Post is reliable? Try not to be so partisan, some editors are ruining the declining credibility of WP...--HCPUNXKID 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Media bias is going to exist regardless, seeing the two sources are reliable though maybe we can balance the claims by both sources out somehow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

All that needs to be said is what I said above: users must adhere to NPOV, it is not a choice. If they cannot adhere to that, they should publish their material elsewhere but not on Wikipedia.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that having articles like this one in WP:Getting started is not a very bright idea? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Owner Ming is repeatedly editing the entire article in a manner which is clearly Pro Moscow's point of view. Daithicarr (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So, report the issue to WP:ANI or better yet try taking the discussion to their talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This article seems very pro-russian so far, it fails to mention many issues, such as the presence of suspected Russian forces in depth and also fails to have neutral point of view. I understand this is another article, but surly at least a paragraph should be dedicated to this subject. I also think this article should be locked, I forget the term for it but I think it's called "protected."208.97.212.65 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Phone Call Urmas Paet to Catherine Ashton

I removed the whole paragraph referring to this leaked wiretapped phone call because it has been very thoroughly dealt with in the Ukrainian Revolution page. I don't think it has much relevance to Crimea and, since the quoted source has effectively flatly denied the most important claims, the only explanation I can think of is that Paet was carrying out Moscow's active measure. The story appears in the Russian language page on the Ukrainian Revolution but without the denial, and it seems the page cannot be edited by non-Russians.PussBroad (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Good call, it's a source of propaganda and disinformation. Are you sure non-russians cant edit it? Wikipedia isn't owned by Russia...--Львівське (говорити) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia can definitely be edited by non-Russians, just as the English Wikipedia may be edited by anyone. The OP may have simply meant that the language would be a stumbling block for most. (it would be for me, even with three years of Russian Language in High School). N2e (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename to 2014 Ukrainian crisis?

This is NOT an official move request I just wanted to ask how people felt about this idea? Looking at the sources there seems to be a slight edge with "Ukrainian crisis" over "Crimean crisis" Here is a chart to compare the two: [15]. Also this crisis has not just effected Crimea but other parts of Ukraine as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A similar discussion is here: Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Requested move - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As the crisis is taking place in Crimea, I'd prefer if it was left at "Crimean crisis". The crisis fundamentally began with agitations by Crimean civilians, and only escalated when Russian troops moved in. These troops have not qualifiably left Crimea, nor have the demonstrations outside of Crimea born any relation to the ones inside Crimea, which had its own constitution and a history of separatism. I have a feeling that the Google results are a kind of conflation between different events happening across different parts of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why again?

The lead was corrected, but then someone wrote again:

"The crisis unfolded in late February 2014 in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution: after months of protests by Euromaidan and days of armed violence by protesters in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, the democratically elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced by the Yatsenyuk Government in a procedure that Russia contends was done improperly and was, therefore, according to Russia, "unconstitutional" and "illegal".[b]

Please change it. This sentence is simply wrong. Please read the discussion above. According to Russia, Yanukovych was impeached improperly, but it has nothing to do with the government, which was dissolved by Yanukovych himself on January 28! And the Yatsenyuk government was elected later, in a legal procedure.Impatukr (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

People like Aleksandr Grigoryev and Lvivske should edit this article, because this version sounds extremely one-sided.

The main problem is that there is an edit war between Ukrainians and Russians about the legitimacy of both the Ukrainian self-proclaimed government and the Crimean self-proclaimed government. I think both point of views should be completely removed from the lead. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User: Owner Ming is engaging in constant edit warring and blatant POV pushing. I suggest a notification via WP:ANI. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the lead, by keeping only 4 paragraphs (wikipedia guidelines). Please feel free to edit if you think I removed too much. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll add a few central points again. While the old lead was getting out of control, your version is too short, in my opinion, and there is an unfortunate choice of words.

1. The word overthrown usually has a negative connotation in English (although one can also overthrow a dictator, which is usually seen as a positive event). By this connotation, it gives weight to the Russian claim (overthrow of a legally elected president), which is widely disagreed with internationally and also in Ukraine (among the pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan camps, obviously). Although in the article itself it is explained in greater detail, we can't simply leave this out of the lead. I'd suggest to restore this passage to the old version and present both the Ukrainian (and international) and the Russian points of view: Yanukovych was impeached by the parliament in a procedure that Russia considers to be illegitimate and that a new interim government was appointed by the parliament, recognized by the West but not recognized by Russia.

2. We can't leave out the essential fact that the "local self-defense forces" are believed to be Russian soldiers by the overwhelming majority of RS (Western media, OSCE officials, Western politicians and experts). In fact, even in Russia itself, apparently hardly anyone even among the supporters of the interventions believes the "self-defense" explanation (they are quite proud of what they claim "their army" is doing for the "protection of Russian brethren"). Russian independent news source TV Rain reported that, in the meeting between Putin and Ukrainian parlamentarian and former Crimean Tatar leader Mustafa Dzhemilev, Putin did not confirm that the forces in the Crimea were Russian, but neither did he deny it. In short, it is perceived -and reported- to be a transparent fiction. Finally, the article itself speaks of a Russian military intervention, and we have a corresponding article forked off from this one. It would seem very strange if no mention of this at all is in the lead.

Per those arguments, I will rewrite. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Very long lead

Wikipedia guidelines suggest to have 4 paragraphs in the lead. It is currently very long with 6 paragraphs. My opinion is to remove completely from the lead any POV about legitimacy of the current authorities in both Crimea and Ukraine. Any suggestions?Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

See below. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, Protect the article

Due to the blatant POV pushing can someone with the authority please protect or semi-protect this article. We already have people pushing thier ideals into this and it is not good for the integrity of the article. I will also be reporting this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. This is getting out of hand with the edits. Avion365 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)