Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

POV pushing in Commentary section

There appears to be POV pushing going on in the "Commentary" section, where the section representing the views of legal scholars opposing the illegality of Crimea's seccession is continuously deleted. The reasons given for the removal, if they are given at all, don't hold any ground under even the slightest of scrutiny.

First, WP:NPOV policy suggests that due weight should be given to different points of view. The UN assembly vote on the matter showed that only slightly above half of countries, representing only a third of the world population, expressed agreement with the illegality of the Crimean referendum and independence. It thus stands to reason that the point of view of its illegality is not so overwhelmingly unanimous as to justify only the inclusion of that point of view.

Concerning the reasons given for the removal:

"The source does not support the text", as given by Volunteer Marek (22:09 30 march) and HJ Mitchell (1:05 31 march). The text is copied verbatim from the source and hence is clearly supported by the source.

Copyright violation, as given by Kudzu1 (3:21 31 march). The text falls clearly under acceptable use as it consists of brief quotations to attribute a point of view.

"Just some guy's blog, who also writes for conspiracy websites", as given by Volunteer Marek (0:11 31 march). First, what the man does in his free time is irrelevant, and is the use of an ad-hom. Concerning blogs: WP:NEWSBLOG provides the conditions for the use of an opinion piece in a blog as a source, namely that the author is a professional and that the statements are attributed in the form of "X opines that...". The second condition is clearly fulfilled. Concerning the first condition, the author holds a Master's degree in law specializing in international law, as well as a PhD in the same field. He was/is part of the defense counsel on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and is a member of the International Association of defence counsel practicing at International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He is deputy redactor-in-chief of the Kazan Journal of International Law. He is a member of the International Law Association, as well as the Russian Association of International Law. This is about as professional in the relevant field as it gets.

"Original research", as given by Volunteer Marek (22:47 1 april). A section which consists solely of quotations from source cannot, by definition, be original research since WP:OR defines original research as statements for which no source exists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have shorten the section with Mizayev's view. His 2010 article on Kosovo does not mention Crimea for the obvious reason, using it hear is indeed an original research. His 2014 article is mostly concerned with the legality of Crimean referendum, 2014, so it is probably should be there, nor here. In his 2014 article he mentioned that It should be noted that no way could Russia’s actions be compared with what the West does - Russia acts upon the invitation of the Ukraine’s legal authority. , that is probably relevant here, but I could nor decipher that the legal scholar meant by the Ukraine’s legal authority: Crimean local government? Ousted president Yanukovich? Ukrainian government leasing the naval base to Russia? Thus, I left this idea out Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like hes talking about Yanukovych's invitation --Львівське (говорити) 01:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article does have its place here, since if the referendum (and consequent inclusion of Crimea in the Russian Federation) is seen as legal then the Russian military operations consist merely of internal troop movements, not a foreign intervention.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the other articles (such as the one on international reactions to the referendum) already contain differing points of view on its legality, this article seems to be the only one where the other point of view was always getting deleted. In any case, for me the section is fine as it is, i was merely reacting to the NPOV violation.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As Alex points out above the original research involves synthesizing a source (reuters) which is about Kosovo and does not even mention Crimea, with a citation to the International Court of Justice and Mizayev's... blog. The citation to the ICJ in particular is dishonest as it makes it seem like Mizayev has some kind of connection to ICJ or affiliation with it or even some kind of special standing which allows him to analyze it's decisions. But actually, the quotes are just from his blog. Yes, the blog is dressed up to look like some news service but it's still a blog. And Mizayev is a frequent contributor to various conspiracy websites like nsnbc.com. Specifically: First, what the man does in his free time is irrelevant, and is the use of an ad-hom - when it comes to sources it actually *does* matter if the author contributes to conspiracy websites and espouses fringe and crank theories. That goes right to the heart of the credibility of the source and is not just something "a man does in his free time". It is not irrelevant. And when discussing reliability and credibility of sources... well, *of course* we discuss the hominem. That's the whole point, to evaluate the source. You might as well complain about "ad-hom attacks" everytime someone on Wikipedia says that some source is not reliable.

Apparently the university of Johannesburg considers him reliable enough to invite him for a guest lecture to provide his insights on the ICC. He certainly seems reliable enough on the topic at hand, which is international law. Being a professor in international law seems to provide standing to analyze decisions of the ICJ, that is what professors in international law tend to do after all.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of this junk violates numerous Wikiedia policies. WP:NPOV obviously, but also WP:RS (blogs are not reliable sources), WP:UNDUE (no reason to give prominence to one particular guy on the internet) and WP:FRINGE (especially when that guy contributes to conspiracy websites) and WP:SYNTH (combining ideas from other sources to make them appear as if they support this guy). Remove the whole thing.

In what universe is including a point of view held by at least Russia, a major player in the conflict, a violation of NPOV? I have already pointed you to the conditions for using blogs set forth in WP:NEWSBLOG and shown they are fulfilled, merely repeating your assertion that it is not a reliable source does not make it true - how about actually addressing the arguments instead? Re WP:UNDUE, the position of legality of the referendum is clearly not undue, again given that at least Russia upholds it. WP:FRINGE applies to making fringe claims on WP, it does not state to exclude sources on topics within their expertise merely because they happen to make fringe claims in other areas too. WP:SYNTH simply doesn't apply anymore after the latest edits.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I assume that the editor insisting on including this stuff is the same person that caused this article to be semi-protected recently and was then blocked for continued edit warring and tendentious editing. So it's also an obvious case of WP:BATTLE, WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA with a very probable side salad of WP:SOCK.Volunteer Marek (talk) Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, assume bad faith too while you're at it. For your information, no i am not the same person, i've only started editing this page 2 days ago out of concerns for some blatant POV issues. Any other baseless accusations you'd like to throw around?2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, anyone with more background knowledge have any idea what this "Academy on International Law and Governance" in Kazan that Mizayev is a "Chair" of is supposed to be? I checked List of institutions of higher learning in Russia and I don't see it. A search on bing or google comes up *only* with hits to either Mizayev's blog or the nsnbc.com conspiracy website to which he contributes (and of course, now, this very Wikipedia article). It's possible that maybe the translation is off or something but... you'd figure there would be *some* hits in that instance. The fact that Mizayev's blog is dressed up to look like something it's not (it pretends like it's a news magazine) adds to my concern as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, apparently the university of Johannesburg believes it, as well as his expertise, is real. Seriously, it's only the fifth hit on a google search on his name, have you even checked any of this?2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What does the university of Johannesburg have to do with anything? Plenty of universities have or host nutty professors. This isn't harvard. -Львівське (говорити)

It points out that the academy is actually real, as well as Mezyaev actually really holding a chair there, which seems to be what Marek was contesting in that paragraph - irrespective of whether he is nutty or not. Yes, they may be inviting a nutty professor, but one would be hard pressed to argue they're inviting one that doesn't even exist (in the capacity of professor of international law). 2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

First, I don't see a link to this invite. Second, them inviting him in one capacity or another doesn't prove that this organization is real. Maybe they invited him as a member of the International Law Association or the Russian Association of International Law?--Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Newsroom/News/Pages/UJ-Alexander-Mezyaev-to-talk-about-the-International-Criminal-Court-.aspx (the association with the academy is there). It's not like this stuff is hard to find, plenty of these things come up in the first few pages of google results on searching the name "Alexander Mezyaev".2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't entirely sure which org we were referring to, that clarifies it. I guess it could be argued that the "Academy on International Law and Governance in Kazan" is just a made up department in the university he's a professor for, I mean, that it exists doesn't make it notable or its research credible. It's not like the UoJ vetted that department, just him as a professor. That said, that is an institute of higher learning vouching for him...but I don't know anything about the UoJ or how prestigious it is, so that just goes back to my first point about some universities associating with nutty professors. That's just my take at a glance here as an observer, I haven't edited the content yet. Since he's not a well known figure, a WP:WEIGHT issue is relevant.--Львівське (говорити) 04:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the Russian Academy of Sciences also considers him distinguished enough to sit on their panel (http://afrika.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_afrikawissenschaften/konferenzen/conference_moscow_2014.pdf). There are numerous other results like this that come up if you just google the name. He may be a conspiracy nut, but in as much as international law is concerned he appears an accepted and even distinguished professor, and that is what matters here.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Marek. I also maintain that with such a lengthy quotation involving entire passages from the commentary being copy-and-pasted or closely paraphrased at great length, it's problematic from a WP:COPYVIO perspective. If whoever wants to include this can provide some good supporting arguments as to why this guy is notable, I can see a case for excerpting the commentary in a succinct, qualified manner. But for now, my instinct is to cut it as just another schmo's opinion. Wikipedia isn't a place to just list whatever umpteen random bloggers think about X or Y. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The recent change should preclude the COPYVIO concern. I have listed the qualifications, how that translates as "just another schmo's opinion" is beyond me. Besides, the opinion in se is notable enough, again seeing as it is held by at least Russia, all the source does is provide a complete rationale for it.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't insert your replies into the middle of my comment. Anyway, I reiterate my objection - sources are used to imply a synthesis. And the fact that you admit that "he may be a conspiracy nut" pretty much disqualifies him here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How can a single source be used to violate WP:SYNTH, whose very definition depends on combining different sources (in an inappropriate way)? Your argument makes no sense, by your standards we should remove pretty much all of modern mathematics from WP since Godel believed a conspiracy was out to get him and therefor his views on mathematical issues should be disqualified here.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:84D5:EBD9:BF83:1575 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have provided a link to this Mizayev's position. He is a head of a chair of a private University of Management "Tisbi", also known as an Academy of Management "Tisbi". I am very skeptical about the level of research at a "private university" in Kazan but the guys seems to be a scholar of a sort. Usually professional scholars publish their works in peer reviewed journals, books by recognized publishers, mainstream media. This guy published his work in an obscure online magazine of conspiracy theorists. I guess we need to include pro-Russian opinions to keep the article balanced but I would prefer to have a better source than that.

I do not like classification of opinions on "pro-Western" and "pro-Russian" - people's opinions are not black and white. I have put Mezayev's at the bottom of the list as the least notable of the scholar's presented Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Strategic Culture Foundation

What is the Strategic Culture Foundation? This work by Mezyaev isn't an academic peer reviewed article from a legal journal, or even written in a professional capacity. It looks to be a blog post or op-ed piece of some kind. The part where he says "In the case of Crimea the government is democratically elected and legitimate" is an immediate red flag that he's just shooting from the cuff and being liberal with facts. But let's see what's really going on at the Strategic Culture foundation!

gongshow #1:

The almost simultaneous rise to power of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the acting prime minister of Ukraine and Andrej Kiska as president of Slovakia has prompted fears that the secretive U.S.-based Church of Scientology is making a power grab in Central and Eastern Europe.

gongshow #2:

life is a strange thing! Especially if you are a rich American Jew. On the one hand you want to become richer.[...] At the same time the call of blood is always alive in the soul of a Jew

gongshow #3: (by 'Canada's Nuttiest Professor'!)

Is America Considering the Use of Nuclear Weapons against Libya?

Sorry, no, this site is a conspiracy theory site. It doesn't matter if Mezyaev is a professor who did a guest lecture once, his capacity here is that of a fiction writer, not a legal scholar. --Львівське (говорити) 06:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your examples aren't even written by him but by other people. But even so, your entire line of argument is based on fallacious reasoning. The other legal viewpoints represented in the section are also based on op-ed pieces, arguing that a pro-Russian point of view should be from an academic peer reviewed article is applying a double standard. Of course there are no peer reviewed articles, peer review takes time and the developments are simply too recent for any peer reviewed articles to have been published already - even if they were written and submitted immediately, which is by itself a doubtful proposition. And having conspiracy ideas in fields other than the one for which expertise is assumed is simply irrelevant. There's plenty of examples here, i already pointed to Godel who was a complete nutjob (he actually ended up dying from starvation because he believed there was a conspiracy to poison his food) yet that in no way has relevance to his notability and authority in his field of expertise (in his case mathematical logic). Another one that comes to mind is Bobby Fischer, whose nutty jewish conspiracy ideas in no way diminish his expertise in the field of chess. I'm sure there's loads more. All that is relevant is the expertise in the field for which the source is used, and stating it as "a professor who did a guest lecture once" is grossly misrepresenting the facts. Again, just do a google search, there are numerous guest lectures and cooperations with universities and legal institutions all over the world, as well as actually working as counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. His peers don't seem to think his nutty ideas detract from his expertise in international law, why should we? I maintain this is nothing but ad-hom reasoning.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is where it was published, not necessarily his qualifications. If he was writing a column in a national magazine that would have more credibility than a conspiracy site. I posted those 3 quotes from other authors as an example of what kind of site it is; one where any academic or journalist can submit an article ranting and raving without any fear of accountability. --Львівське (говорити) 19:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There could be a case of Anglophone selection bias at work on that fact, in that the only English newspapers willing to publish those articles are conspiracy theory ones. His biography includes being deputy director-of-chief of the Kazan International Law journal, but no English references are to be found on that journal either, so it might be the case that the reputable magazines in which his articles get published are specialized Russian ones. Not knowing Russian, nor even knowing how to begin searching for this, i would not be able to check. However i do seem to recall that Al-Jazeera published op-eds with similar argumentation (though not specifically his article). I'll look into the Al-Jazeera thing, maybe that'll give us some sources for the "referendum is legal" position that are not as contested.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"There could be a case of Anglophone selection bias at work on that fact, in that the only English newspapers willing to publish those articles are conspiracy theory ones." - or... there could be a case of "non-crazy-shit" selection bias at work on that fact, in that only wacky conspiracy sites are willing to publish this kind of stuff. Just remove this. If you can find legitimate, reliable representations of the "Russian view" that's another matter. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "this is crazy shit and must be removed" rhetoric is completely untenable. Even in-as-much as you can make the argument that it is published on a website that also publishes conspiracy theories, an argument that is btw nothing but a 'guilt by association' fallacy, using that to argue that the position of legality itself is "crazy shit" doesn't follow at all. I'll add another two sources expressing legality, this time by Americans so perhaps that would be more to your liking? I'll point out that those are neither published in mainstream Western media, but this time at least not conspiracy websites, so the argument that there is a bias in mainstream Western media against publishing op-ed's expressing the point of view of legality certainly doesn't seem that far-fetched, just like there is likely an equal and opposite bias in Russian meanstraim media.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you, or someone else, remove the "on his blog" part in the first sentence on Mezyaev's perspective? It seems that, whatever that Strategic Culture Foundation thing is, it's not his personal blog (there's loads of contributors). Page seems edit-protected.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty much a blog with some guest commentators, one crazier than the next. And you seem to be saying that we should include this guy because the fact that he publishes on crazy conspiracy sites (and publishes crazy conspiracies on his own website) is "guilt by association". You realize that that doesn't make any sense, right? Yes. Guilt by association with crazy stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The blatant way in which you are misrepresenting the facts, to put it mildly, to push your own agenda is simply staggering. Not a single sentence in your statement above has any basis in reality. Let's look at them one by one:

"It's pretty much a blog with some guest commentators...". The About Us page of the website states: "We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors from the US, Canada, India, Russia and Europe. {...} Editor-in-Chief Vladimir MAXIMENKO". Of the 11 articles available on its front page only a single one is by Mezyaev. A WHOIS search on the domain lists its owner as Andrey Areshev, a research scientist at the Institute of State and Law at the Russian Academy of Sciences. How you can persist in claiming that it's Mezyaev's blog is beyond me, but apparently facts don't matter much to you as long as you can push your personal POV on WP. Besides, it doesn't matter even if it were his blog, by WP:NEWSBLOG. But i guess published WP policies don't matter to you either.

"You seem to be saying that we should include this guy because the fact that he publishes on crazy conspiracy sites is 'guilt by association'". Have you ever heard of the term "straw-man"? I'm saying we should include it because (1) the position that the referendum is legal is held by at least Russia, which by itself makes the position notable and to be included for NPOV, and (2) because Mezyaev is a recognized expert in international law. I'm saying that your argument that it should be excluded on the basis that crazy ideas are being published on the same website is an instance of an association fallacy. And the argument that his views on international law must be excluded on the basis of him holding crazy views in other fields is ad-hom, and WP convention clearly doesn't abide by that argument - i've already pointed to the Godel and Bobby Fischer articles to provide for that.

"Yes. Guilt by association with crazy stuff". This is where it really gets bewildering, you're squarely admitting to using fallacious reasoning as a basis for removing it, yet going ahead with it anyway...

As this is obviously increasingly becoming pointless, i'll request formal mediation on the issue.2A02:A03F:1A5F:5E00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the western point of view has been represented with a complete lack of conspiracy websites. It would only seem balanced that we stick to reliable publishing sources. --Львівське (говорити) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Look. If a person publishes on crazy conspiracy sites that pretty much makes them an unreliable source (never mind the question of why their opinions should be considered noteworthy to begin with). You call that "guilt by association". Nice try, but no. It's just simply evaluating the reliability of a source according to Wikipedia policy. It's not "straw-man" because it is directly relevant to the question at hand - is the source reliable or not. I'm not convinced in the least bit either that Mezyaev is a "recognized expert in international law". All I see is that ... the guy espouses crazy conspiracy theories, promotes them on his website, and on other conspiracy websites. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you and everyone know i've logged into my account (i'm the alphanumeric IP). I didn't do so earlier since, as far as i saw it, i was quickly rectifying a NPOV issue (i hardly ever edit WP) but since this has gone into a full-blown discussion it's probably better to do it from my account.B01010100 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The source here is Mezyaev himself, given that it is an op-ed written by him. You'd have an argument if the article was written by the "Strategic Culture Foundation" (ie in the name of that website), but it is written by Mezyaev in his own name. Your argument is akin to refusing to include a book written by an expert in the field because the publisher of the book also publishes wacky stuff. It is in that sense that your argument is an association fallacy. The Strategic Culture Foundation acts merely as a publisher here, not as a source in its own right.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, I would be very very hesitant to include such a book. An exception would be if perhaps the author was not aware that their publisher publishes wacky stuff. Again, this isn't about analytic logic, it's about evaluating the credibility of the source. And in that case reputation and "association" are central.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If that website was the only context in which to evaluate the source you'd have a point, but it isn't. A google scholar search reveals that his articles are being cited in academic journals as well as textbooks (google scholar search his name). A normal google search reveals numerous invitations for guest lectures and cooperation from universities and legal institutions world wide. That establishes reputation, in the best way possible - through his peers, and in light of that the website thing is almost a non-issue. Specifically seeing that it acts solely as a publisher, and that i have not found any evidence that he himself is actually espousing crazy conspiracy stuff there. There could be any number of reasons why he publishes there. This line of reasoning is getting us into the almost silly situation that IF he had self-published it on a personal blog that it would have been perfectly acceptable.B01010100 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the alternative of removing it seems even worse, as it leaves the section with NPOV issues (independently of Mezyaev the position of legality is notable and should be included). So if you're going to remove it, at least put an alternative in there. I've added some to the section below, for instance the Dimitri Simes quote would seem appropriate (being published in the ny times, if the publisher is so important to you).B01010100 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that no valid arguments can be made against including it, but those should be on the basis of contesting that Mezyaev holds the necessary expertise in international law. Again, the source here is Mezyaev himself, and an argument contesting the reliability of the source should contest the reliability of Mezyaev himself - not contesting the reliability of the publisher, which is irrelevant, publishers just publish.B01010100 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your latest statements. "If a person publishes on crazy conspiracy sites that pretty much makes them an unreliable source". This is clearly a false statement, which you surely would see if you put it in terms of books/publishers rather than websites. "All I see is that ... (1) the guy espouses crazy conspiracy theories, (2) promotes them on his website, and (3) on other conspiracy websites." (numbering added). Regarding (1), i took a quick scan of the first two pages of his articles on Strategic Culture Foundation (20 articles in total), and i don't really see any crazy conspiracy theories being propagated by him - all i could find was some hyperbole about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. If you want to make this argument the burden of proof is on you to show that he actually espouses crazy conspiracy theories, and that he does so specifically in the field of international law. Regarding (2), it's clearly factually false that it is his website, so could you at least stick to the facts here? Regarding (3), falls under the same burden of proof regarding (1).B01010100 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

But that's the thing, we're not citing his academic work, we're citing his personal, unsupported opinion on a conspiracy blog. It's not like he wrote up a detailed analysis of the international law involved, this is just a rant.--Львівське (говорити) 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinion is also what is being cited in the rest of the commentary section, there is (yet) not academic work on this, all there is is personal opinion by people with relevant expertise. Either personal opinion is not allowed, and then the entire commentary section should be removed, or it is allowed and that goes for all points of view. Double standards are hardly appropriate. Saying that it is "just a rant" is not really correct either, he cites more case law and precedents to make his argument than some of the others whose view is being presented.B01010100 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The source by Stefan Talmon for instance cites no case law whatsoever, he merely claims that it is illegal without supporting it by any references to relevant law. It would be a double standard to accept that but require a pro-Russian point of view to be only accepted if it is a "detailed analysis of the international law involved". It already is much more of an analysis than Stefan Talmon's one.B01010100 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources arguing for legality of referendum

Under the assumption that the consensus is largely that the point of view on legality held by Russia (namely that the referendum is legal based on Kosovo and other precedents) should be included to retain NPOV, but that the current source (Mezyeav) is problematic on some aspects, i've created this section to put in some more sources expressing that point of view and we might later, after getting a few of them, look at how to rewrite the section.

I have found http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/world/europe/crimea-crisis-revives-issue-of-secessions-legitimacy.html (3rd to last paragraph), stating: "“Kosovo is very much a legitimate precedent,” said Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest, a Washington research organization, agreeing with Moscow’s argument. “Independence was accomplished despite strong opposition by a legitimate, democratic and basically Western-oriented government of Serbia.” By contrast, he said, the new pro-Western government in Kiev “lacks legitimacy,” since it came to power by toppling a democratically elected president."2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is also http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/dodik-says-crimea-independence-was-legal-unlike-kosovo-s with the president of the Republika Srpska stating legality.

However the issue with these is that they are not written by actual legal scholars specializing in international law, so i still think that Mezyaev is to be preferable even with the problems associated. In any case, these came from just a quick 1 minute search on "crimean referendum" on Al-Jazeera, so there will probably be better ones to be found.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article182811.html by Ron Paul, and http://www.voltairenet.org/article182587.html by Paul Craig Roberts. Both also expressing legality, yet also not being legal scholars providing a full rationale as Mezyaev does.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV you are right and these views should be mentioned in the article, but given that even the undisputed fact that Yanukovich was toppled in an unconstitutional manner may not be mentioned on Wikipedia I doubt if they will let you edit the article in this manner. Good luck anyway. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that too, but i've given up on trying here. I've always told my students to use WP only for reference to the hard sciences where an interpretative structure doesn't exist and to be wary of the rest due to systemic bias, but that it is this egregious is eye-opening. Come to think of it, i've got a class on logical fallacies coming up later this semester, so rather than using the same old newspaper articles as examples i might try using the talk pages of these articles for a change - there are some true gems here (especially by Volunteer Marek who seems to be specifically prolific with those, for one his latest argument for removing the alternative of calling it a coup on the article you mention, though of course there are also pro-Russian statements that fall foul to these). In any case, i did my share of trying and i'm done here, i've got better things to spend my time on.2A02:A03F:1A5F:5E00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the hard sciences, "interpretative structures" are alive and kicking. In sciences of nature, men interpret experimental data, some differently than others; and even in maths, the mathematical formulations themselves have no value without some good interpretation, because without interpretation, one does not have ability to understand… - 92.100.172.152 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, the difference however is that for instance nobody would dispute, say, the validity of Birkhoff's theorem in General Relativity or that the real numbers form, up to isomorphism, the only complete Archimedean field. As far as pure maths is concerned the interpretative structure is irrelevant, you may understand the pythagorean theorem in terms of colours rather than triangles if it so suits you, you'll still prove the same theorems from it - hence why a formalist would disagree with your statement about maths. So yes, interpretative structures do exist in the hard sciences but they are not of the nature such that they interfere with the validity of the presentation of the subject matter on WP - for one, the hard sciences tend to, by and large, consistently apply a set of objective criteria. An approach that is not only not applied, but outright rejected (Volunteer Marek saying this is not "analytic logic", as if "analytic logic" wouldn't be exactly the tool people use to minimize the influence of their biases on their reasoning - the need for which seems more than evident here). The fact that such rejection doesn't seem to bother anybody doesn't bode too well for the quality of the reporting done. If anything, devising a set of objective criteria, and applying it consistently, would probably be one of the better courses of action towards a more neutral presentation. As it stands now, other than for the presentation of simple facts, the articles seem more appropriate for research into bias in reporting rather than research into the actual subject matter being discussed. Anyway, as much as i'd like to have, for a change, a nice discussion on the aspects of interpretation in the hard sciences rather than this never-ending argument, this seems hardly the appropriate place for it - but you're always welcome on my talk page for something like that.B01010100 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a nice rant, though what it has to do with the topic is beyond me. You were arguing that ad-personam statements were irrelevant logical fallacies in a discussion... about someone's reputation and credibility. How exactly are we to evaluate someone's reputation and credibility without discussing attributes of that person? That does not make... logical sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained it ad nauseam, as well as provided you with examples such as Godel and Fischer. If you cannot, or will not, understand that the views people hold in other fields are irrelevant for consideration of the credibility of their views in a specific field then so be it. Come to think of it, i've had an algebraic geometry professor who was arguably a stalin white-washer - doesn't mean we didn't pay attention when he was teaching his actual subject. That this makes no sense to you is your problem, and, given your near-monopoly on editing these articles is arguably WP's problem too. Besides, even if it were relevant, i ended up checking his articles and can not find any evidence for him espousing "crazy conspiracy shit" - turns out you were just making it up out of thin air in the first place. Seriously, try editing articles on mathematical logic using your standards (be sure to remove any reference to Godel because he had crazy conspiracy ideas), and see how that goes for you... If it sounds too much of a rant to you, consider that "assume good faith" is not unlimited, even after having been pointed out some simple facts (such as that the website is not his, and certainly not his "conspiracy blog") you simply continue deleting it repeating the same disproven "facts". In as much as you had any argument left, that it should excluded on the basis that the publisher has also published crazy conspiracy stuff, that argument can be levelled against the sources used for the other views in the section just as well. Besides, it's not just the Mezyaev thing but the entire pattern of your editing behaviour over the set of articles - while i can sympathize with your goal of maintaining a NPOV, by being so overzealous about it without apparent awareness of your own biases you're introducing more POV issues than you're solving. If you want to be objective about it, then create a set of objective criteria and abide by it, rather than introducing and selectively applying criteria to rationalize whatever revert you're doing.B01010100 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You really gonna drag Godel into this? Sheesh. Poor Godel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Invasion?

Won't copypast it from an archived page. Starting over. And article says invasion by Russian solders. Almost all statements are relying on unreliable sources, like CNN. More reliable BBC uses more neutral pro-Russian self defense forces statement [1], [2], [3] Elk Salmon (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

in what universe is CNN not considered a [[[WP:RS]]? --Львівське (говорити) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not an invasion cause officially there were no russian troops (except black sea fleet which have always been in sevastopol). There were the self-defence troops without russian symbolics on the unifrom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.217.34 (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I made some edits to reflect this analysis. The article was weighed down with innuendo and false assertions that somehow Russia explained its ‘involvement’ in Ukraine/Crimea on humanitarian grounds… to protect Russians living there. This is ridiculous as Russia has consistently said that it has not entered into the Ukraine/Crimea. Putin even said in an interview that Russia did not train the paramilitaries that overtook control of Crimea. If Russian troops were identified in Crimea then there would be a ‘story’ but there is none. Again, care has to be taken in quoting sources. Look at the reporting of US/Iraq and the current conflict in Syria. Let’s keep the analysis and clear headed thinking that wiki is renowned and respected for.Hechos (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that Russia has not entered into Crimea is WP:FRINGE. --Львівське (говорити) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hechos' edits

Let's see if we can this time get at least some editorial discussion in about the edits before the next blanket revert.

The change about Mark Weller stating "assumed that Russia militarily intervened in Crimea and on this basis analyzed some legal aspects of "the intervention"" seems original research. True or not, it is not supported by the source, and should not be included. Besides, the article is titled "Russian military intervention", so putting square quotes around "the intervention" doesn't seem all that appropriate.

The change about Stefan Talmon adding "western" expert doesn't seem to add anything, given that the location of his tenure is given in the same sentence (Bonn) and thus anyone interested can easily deduce it for himself.

Adding the part " In the case of Kosovo, there was no referendum, NATO bombed Serbia and in particular Belgrade, killed over 2,000 civilians and forcing over 200,000 ethnic Serbs to leave Kosovo." seems out of place. The sourced statement by Talmon comparing the situation to Kosovo is fine, but there is no need to start adding that sentence as it gets off-topic. I'd suggest removing it and replacing it with a link to the NATO intervention in Kosovo in the previous sentence.

The rest of the changes seem fine to me.2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So... ummm... you mostly agree with my revert. Why are you complaining about it above?

I know that you don't like me adding remarks in the middle of your statements, but it is just an easier way to address multiple points rather than having to quote all of your text again. The indentation still provides for being able to follow who said what. What i'm complaining about is that (1) you've blanket reverted rather than going point by point which also reverts the fair parts of the edits such as including Talmon's quote on comparison with Kosovo, and (2) doing so without seeking consensus first. Thank you for changing that now though.

Alright, I'll go with your format, though it's very much frowned upon because it can be hard to ascertain who said what. How about, when you comment in the middle, you sign each response with the tildas, so at least we know who said what? Anyway, the blanket revert wasn't so blanket if you actually look at it carefully. Yes, it reverted most of the edit, but then you agreed with most of the rationale for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on format. It's not just about what you and I agree or disagree on, there may be other editors who agree and disagree on even different points of the revert. Making a blanket revert (let's define it for the sake of discussion as reverting several disconnected statements for several different reasons in one revert) just makes it difficult to first ascribe which reason goes with which removed statement, and second to discuss the revert point by point where some points may be correct and others not. In an already highly controversial article doing stuff like that will only lead to animosity, and i think doing it (other than for clear vandalism) in such an article without seeking consensus first will lead to the same result. Not to point fingers, but i see you just did it again, even on the points where there isn't/wasn't consensus yet, but already being discussed here. You can't just say "disagree" on the talk page and immediately include it in your revert, that isn't helpful and will only lead to edit-wars. If you disagree then state disagreement on the talk page, preferably with justification, and wait for further discussion and only then either revert or not depending on the result of the discussion. We're all biased one way or another, and shouldn't trust our split-second decisions as to what is POV or not without allowing discussion first, that only leads to self-defeating behaviour. Will you please stop doing that? And would you please reinstate Hechos' edits and ONLY revert/change the points on which agreement is already made (in as much as we can see agreement between the two of us as consensus), and just wait for discussion to resolve on the other points before reverting those?2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that changing "identified" to "branded" is also obvious POV pushing. "Identified" may be a little too strong as well though.

At the time they were certainly not identified since there was considerable confusion about it. Something like "the US accused the soldiers of being Russian special forces [insert source], which Russia later conceded [insert source]" seems better.

Your wording sounds fine to me (see, it's possible to work this stuff out here).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing "in Ukraine" from "began to take over the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine" is also obvious POV. Even if one believes all this stuff was 100% justified, in late February, the Crimean Peninsula was very much "in Ukraine" - I mean, even Russia recognized that at the time.

Any statement as to whether it is in Ukraine or not is POV, so removing the "in Ukraine" part seems legitimate, since that way it's not making any determination as to where Crimea belongs one way or the other. The other way to do it would be to say "intervened in the crimean peninsula which was up until recently certainly in ukraine and may now be either in ukraine or russia" which is just clutter. Simply saying "Crimean Peninsula" without any other remark as to where it belongs to seems the most neutral.

Disagree. I guess in some way one can argue about whether it is in Ukraine *now*. BUT the statement in question is referring to Crimea being in Ukraine BEFORE the referendum, annexation and all that. At that point, even the Russian government recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine. Hence, the removal is completely unjustified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it does specifically state 27 february at which time there was indeed no question about it.2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding "as the last democratically elected and as the current legitimate President" to Yanukovych is also POV.

Yes, but then again that sentence is expressing how Russia views it, and Russia views him as "the last democratically elected and current legitimate president". Seems fine by me. WP:NPOV is about presenting all POV's fairly, not not having any POV whatsoever. In a way it's all POV one way or the other here.

Maybe it just needs a better wording so that it doesn't seem like the "the last democratically elected and current legitimate president" part isn't being said in Wikipedia voice and stated as fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So agreed on keeping it but changing the wording to better reflect that it's Russian's view rather in WP's voice? Just removing the comma would seem to do the trick here.2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The next change I reverted is where the user removes the portion of the sentence which begins with "whose request for intervention has also been cited.". This text is sourced to Bloomberg News and the Guardian, both reliable source - so this is just restoring well sourced text.

I agree.

Good. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Next change I reverted: "Russia consistently states that it is prepared to, but has not yet undertaken military intervention to protect people living in the Ukraine and in particular ethnic Russians living there.", which is just bad writing and is sourced to a non-reliable source, back to "Russia contested that it has undertaken a humanitarian intervention to protect ethnic Russians in Crimea from threats to their safety.", sourced to a reliable source. The meaning is essentially the same but the former is semi-incoherent and sourced to crap, the latter is halfway decent writing and sourced to something legit.

I disagree about the source being unreliable. The source is a transcript and translation of a video of a press conference by Putin, the only way in which that source is not reliable (in as much as expressing what Russia states) is (1) the transcription and/or translation are inaccurate, (2) the video is not actually Putin making statements or (3) Putin is not a spokeperson for Russia. (2) and (3) seem accounted for, so there's only (1) to go. Not speaking Russian i can't verify, but unless someone can show that (1) is true i'd keep it as a reliable source (again, only in as much as it presents what the Russian government states - but then again, that is all that is claimed for it).

We should avoid primary sources. Additionally, the statement is just written very badly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is line with the policy of WP:PRIMARY so i don't think there's a ground for removal there, specifically as there's no interpretation going on here, the sentence merely claims "Russia stated X" which is exactly what Putin does in the source. But i would agree to a rewrite for better wording.2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed "However, western media has made it appear as though Russia has announced that it has intervened, particularly in Crimea and that humanitarian threats did not exist." back to "However, critics have claimed that such threats did not exist and that Russia's claim to humanitarian intervention is not valid. This doctrine stipulates that it is acceptable for a state to intervene into another state on exceptional circumstances of a grave humanitarian emergency to save a whole population whose lives are threatened." - this is also an obvious attempt to twist words in a POV way and it also replaced reliable sources by non-reliable ones. So we go back to NPOV version.

Somewhat agree, although we might keep "western media" as being more specific than the general "critics".

Ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the rest you more or less addressed and agreed with.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

revert? not a reliable source

user revmoing wsj and bbc and putting in "http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ informationclearinghouse.info]" which looks like a conspiracy site. Someone care to revert this? --Львівське (говорити) 01:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is a transcript and translation of a video posted here http://news.kremlin.ru/video/1723, just like it says in the article. The video clearly shows Putin talking to a bunch of people. I don't speak Russian, but anyone who does can easily check whether the transcript/translation is accurate or not. Would that not be a more objective criterium of the accuracy of the article rather than what the website may or may not publish otherwise? After all, all that's being claimed is that Russia stated something, the accuracy of which is easily checked by someone who knows Russian. 2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see Volunteer Marek already went ahead with the revert, objective criteria for assessing accuracy are apparently neither needed nor wanted. I see he also removed the, well-documented by NATO itself (just look at WP's article on NATO's bombing of Kosovo under the section of strategic bombing), statements that NATO targeted civilian infrastructure in its bombing campaign in Kosovo to make it appear as if only military targets were used. As well as numerous other issues about the latest revert, which anyone who has the ability to check up on things can easily determine. Just anything goes to remove anything not compliant with Marek's personal point of view. How anyone can still see this as anything other than a farce is beyond me. To be clear, I'm not talking about the edits by DagosNavy et al who are introducing simple factual information on troop movements etc, but the ridiculous POV-campaign by mostly Volunteer Marek. If this page ever needed protection from POV-pushing, it would be protection from him.2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AGF must be our vital compass, or we may as well forget the project and log out permanently. An editorial colleague should be treated with respect. Please try to remember that colleagues. We may disagree and we all have obvious POV's, every editor in the project, its human nature but lets ALWAYS AGF until seriously provoked. Then we use channels. Let us keep it polite. Regards all Irondome (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct and i apologize, frustration got ahead of me.2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sentence "Russia, which has various strategic interests ...." is convoluted.

Sentence currently reads:

Russia, which has various strategic interests in and historical ties to Crimea,[38] insists that the forces did not include Russian troops, but only local self defense forces,[39] and that the up to 25,000 troops Russia is allowed to station in Sevastopol and the Crimea[40] under the 1997 Russia-Ukraine Agreement extended in 2010 at Kharkiv remained uninvolved and within the treaty's limits prior to the referendum and reunification of Crimea with Russia.

which is pretty convoluted (i.e. it's poor English, hard to understand).

I suggest replacement with:

Russia, which has various strategic interests in and historical ties to Crimea,[38] insists that the forces did not include Russian troops, but only Ukrainian self defense forces.[39] It states that Russian troops already stationed in the Crimea (under treaties[40] which existed before the crisis) remained uninvolved.

This also removed the "reunification" language for reasons discussed above.

94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

End Date?

With Crimea now annexed by Russia should this article have an end date of March 26, 2014? Other than Crimea there is no evidence that Russia has intervened in Ukraine with their military (Border build up yes but not a go ahead). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

But if you mean that: once the "international community" accepts the de facto (if not de jure) separation of the Crimea from Ukraine and it's political attachment (by whatever means) to Russia, then that would be, roughly speaking, the end of the historical period encyclopedically described by this particular article, then I would agree with you. If that, for example, turns out to be, say 2 April 2014 (today), then the scope of the events described in this article would be roughly the period of the direct Russian military intervention, from about 1 March 2014 through 2 April 2014.

Having said that, I'm not sure there is even a de facto acceptance of it yet internationally, but I could be wrong about that. If you (or someone) thinks there is, I would recommend creating a new section with a simple proposal that, for purposes of this article, the Wikipedia community accepts xyz date as the date that de facto acceptance of the partition of Crimea from Ukraine and to Russia. Once that is in place, I think we will know the historical time period that this article then ought to cover. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, by end-date I am meaning the Russian military intervention, to me it ended when Crimea was annexed, unless other editors feel we should keep the status as ongoing as an occupation type of thing. The question would be is how is Russia's military still intervening in Ukraine? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is still a disputed territory not only because of the opinion of Ukraine on this matter but also because of what was stated during the general assembly of the UN this year (end of march if I remember correct). Because of that you cannot simply say "Crimea is part of Russia. End of story". Until an international recognition (United Nations) is a fact it would be a blunt propaganda to claim otherwise. But even if the UN says it is part of Russia it can still be viewed as disputed territory the same way Kosovo is even though it was recognized by the UN in 2008. Rbaleksandar (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic tag

I have tagged the "Other Troop movements" as being off topic as the events are not happening IN Ukraine around or near is not the same as inside the borders. Related to the conflict yes but in Ukraine? No - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The troop movements are clearly related to the conflict in Ukraine. The head of NATO even says Russia seems to be planning to invade. Relevant. Malick78 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

agreed. this is about russian military intervention and that content would be about russian military preparing to intervene. not off topic at all. --Львівське (говорити) 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Planning to invade is not the same as an invasion, I am seeing WP:CRYSTAL with your arguments. I agree that the troop movements are not helping but see no evidence that they are related to the conflict ongoing inside Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how its crystal balling, NATO and numerous countries and officials have talked about the potential invasion, Putin got approval to intervene in Ukraine (not just Crimea) + "the “right to use all means at our disposal to protect” Russian speakers in Ukraine." link and that "possibility still exists," to invade. It would be silly to pretend that the troop buildup against Ukraine is unrelated to the occupation in Ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 18:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Ukraine and Transnistria section

It was formerly the military section and I tried to clean it up here but it was reverted. This isn't an issue but this section is just a huge amount of clutter. We have entire articles on the 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, I don't see why we need to have a timeline of events from that article repeated on this article, which is specifically about Russian military intervention. A 'see also' link should suffice in detailing the non-military related protests (though I think it's fine to have info on separatist groups that have called on Russia to intervene, simply protesting alone is out of scope) --Львівське (говорити) 14:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine and Western governments claim that the men storming buildings in multiple cities are the result of Russian coordination and include Russian agents. The "intervention" is very much alleged, but these are relevant allegations by relevant groups.--Martin Berka (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)