Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

User:Irondomes immediate reaction on reading this, 21 hours ago.

This entire article needs to be drastically re-written. At the moment it stinks. totally Ukrainian dominated POV, with no insight into the Crimeas effectively Gibraltar like status. Its almost exclusively ethnically Russian, so self determination issues come in here too. You cannot invade when your military is already there. I would suggest NPOV input. A renaming to Russian reinforcement of Crimean military bases is NPOV. Invasion is laden with issues. Irondome (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Irondome since when Crimea has a Gibraltar like status? Only half of population in Crimea is Russian, so stop your false remarks. There are heavily armed Russian soldiers without clear identifications who are trying to disarm the Ukrainian military. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Irondome, Crimea is more like Cornwall in England. Ukraine is an unitary state see the Constitution of Ukraine. There is a limit how much Russians may keep number of troops in Crimea which they over exceeded. Any "reinforcement" that you call it prohibited. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Irondome, in Crimea cannot be any military units other than Russian or Ukrainian. Plus, it is prohibited in Ukraine for private individuals to carry arms. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Doubts have evaporated

Whatever doubts about a real/actual Russian military intervention in the Crimea that may have existed when this article was created 20 hours ago, have pretty much evaporated now with multiple worldwide major media reliable sources covering the matter, and numerous nation-state governments commenting on it and responding to it.

So I think this particular Talk page section entitled What????, may not be the best place to continue discussing article improvement. I would think that many other sections below, or added to this section after this time, will shed more light and less heat. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

i agree. I suggest it be closed via admin. As to the other sections spreading light at this point, time will tell..Irondome (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

9 March continuation on new topic

Aleksandr Grigoryev, You call solders without identification Russian... Why? They are without identification. Hence you can not be certain that they are Russian. Lets keep to the facts - unidentified solders, anything else is just speculations. AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
AlphaOmega2211, no. Those are indeed Russian soldiers without identification. You see, soldiers from Russia and Ukraine know well each other by name, because many of them study at the same military academies, participate in sport events for military and various joint military training exercises. Also, there were incidents of detaining those Russian green armymen and they have the Russian military documents. The lack of identification is for international community. Let's really keep to the facts which across the world confirm that unidentified soldiers are from Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr GrigoryevArmed forces of Russian Federation - 1 million, Republic of Ukraine - 300,000. Both armies conscript-based. For last 20 years Russian officers been studying in Russian academies and Ukrainian officers - in Ukrainian. I have heard, that Ukraine conduct annual exercises with NATO, but I never heard of exercises with Russia (or other CIS countries for that matter). Hence only senior officers (in both senses) know might know each other by name. Facts, hugh?
The incidents you've mentioned of these men detained.. Cant recall of that ever coming up either on BBC, Sky News or RussiaToday... Please post a link.
As for the "facts" from "around the world" that confirm that little green men are indeed Russian without citing credible sources... Cant recall media coverage ever being more biased - on all sides. Russian first channel reported people fleeing Ukraine, CNN found Russian tanks near Sevastopol, Arseny Yatsenyuk found not only tanks n Ukraine, but also nukes in Iran, while BBC announced that Russian will stay in Ukraine for as long as it takes - out of the blue, no sources, no author. --AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
AlphaOmega2211, what are you talking about?? Just because you are not familiar with joint training exercises does not prove anything, but the fact that you dont know anything about military. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev Aha, now we getting somewhere! What I said was what I don’t know whether Ukrainian army hold joint exercises with your northern neighbour. You perverted it and lashed out on me personally. Are you sure you wish to make it personal? --AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
AlphaOmega2211, what?? Lashed out, perverted? Make it personal? You need to calm down. I was talking about things that you interpreted as facts when they are not. Didn't you say "I have heard, that Ukraine conduct annual exercises with NATO, but I never heard of exercises with Russia (or other CIS countries for that matter). Hence only senior officers (in both senses) know might know each other by name." How do you call other than assumption? There is an annual exercise that takes place in Sevastopol and is called "Waterway of Peace" (Waterway of Peace: renewing training with Russia, BBC), plus there are many more information on which can also be found. There is sports competition as Spartakiads for friendly armies in which participate teams from the post-Soviet republics. As for the facts, the credible sources that I use are press releases made by officials. So, before jumping here with threats, you need to first listen to what I am saying. And why do you thing just because you are threatening somebody will back away? What is that all about?? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev Threats?? Oh no, I was about to propose you to marry me (to get personal and all that) ;-P --AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev Seriously though its like with these solders without insignia. Crimea is taken over by a pro-Russian government led by Sergey Aksyonov. Only option for central government to restore constitutional order was to call in the army. This is when these solders come in. They effectively cancelled out Ukrainian army out of this equation. There is no need to interfere in politics - Aksyonov with his referendum of his is in a "do or die" situation, he will do anything to pull it of. New government in Kiev made a mistake to antagonise Moscow before firmly establishing itself. Troops in question are a function here, be thy Russian, Zimbabwean or indeed Crimean (native or hired). Thank you for the link to an interesting article. --AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
AlphaOmega2211, since when information from the Ministry of Defense lost its credibility. If you have facts that prove different that needs to be included in the article. But just labeling it disinformation or POV or western Ukraine POV is nothing more than POV. Don't you see? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev Its not possible to loose something that isnt there in a first place. If a politician tells something that is not true he is telling lies. When a military person tells something that is not true its disinformation. One example of disinformation is when Ukrainian MoD told the press that Black Sea fleet commander gave Ukrainian troops in Crimea 24 hours to surrender. Hence it is a good practice to doublecheck information from alternative sources. --AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute. How do you explain the fact that Serry was forced out Simferopol? How do you explain sunken Russian ships in Donuzlav Lake? How do you explain attacks on journalists in Crimea (Stop attacks on journalists, de-escalate situation by allowing media to report freely in Ukraine, says OSCE representative. OSCE.) and OSCE delegation (Pro-Russia Forces Occupy Ukraine as Separatist Vote Looms. Bloomberg)? Do you really think it is normal to conduct any type elections or referendums at a gunpoint? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if your military already has a presence by using a port in another country, it doesn't mean you can occupy its government institutions. There's a difference between that and just being there. --Article editor (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, there are issues with the legitimacy of that local administration. Is it Ukrainian colonial or is it accountable to the Crimean population. In elections, I doubt they would survive anyway. Its Russia. Irondome (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Its Russia. . Um... no. Let's have some fun. Find a source for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no "fun" in an issue where lives are being lost. But quite literally, in terms of facts on the ground, it is. Im sure sources backing that would roll in BTW, but lets keep it civil and on point. Ok VM? I respect you as a WP stalwart, so lets keep it cool. Irondome (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Call it "dark humor". Now, can you find a reliable source which states that Crimea is part of Russia? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Generally agree with Irondome, its a western Ukraine POV dominated article. Paid bloggers? [1] SaintAviator talk 07:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? How is that POV??? At least I am not hiding unlike somebody else who accuses me groundlessly in POV. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Здравствуйте. Прошу прощения, что пишу на русском, но я не могу промолчать, а с английским у меня не настолько хорошо, чтобы быстро создать адекватный текст. Я ОЧЕНЬ надеюсь, что среди вас найдется кто-нибудь, кто сможет это перевести на английский.
Google Translate tells me that Ain-th, the person who wrote this and the message below, is sorry that they're writing in Russian, but they can't keep silent and (something something) in English. They very much hope that there's someone among us that can translate it into English. --Kizor 19:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is America being singled out?

Why do we have a section exclusively for America? America is not involved in this intervention. Why is it being singled out? Are we going to have a separate section for Turkey too, which scrambled fighter jets to the Black Sea? The USS Truxtun was already scheduled to enter the Black Sea before all this started. This section fails WP:UNDUE, one of our integral policies. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a simple question. America is a de-facto superpower. Turkey is not. Thus America is making much news, whether wikipedians like America or not. If Turkey's activity will be considerable, then the amount of information available about Turkey will warrant a separate section. - Altenmann >t 04:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed the American section tagged. It's an easy way to fix it. I'm doing it now. You are welcome to add Turkey into new section structure. - Altenmann >t 04:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification requested regarding Russian as an official language

The last sentence of the following is unclear. Is Russian now an official language of Ukraine or not?

On 23 February, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the law on languages of minorities, including Russian, was abolished.[47] In so doing, Russian-speaking regions were infuriated that the new government made Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels, seemingly pressing ahead with Ukrainian nationalism.[48] On 1 March 2014 the bill repealing the law was vetoed by Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov.[49]

P. Henkel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.95.157 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. Just rephrased the whole thing. Russian was never removed as an official language. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, vetoed after shit hit the fan. - Altenmann >t 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Quoting merely two Western international law scholars is not representative of the international law academic community at large

Currently two Western international law scholars are quoted in detail in the section on legal aspects of the intervention. It appears as if their positions reflect the international law academic community at large. This is not a fair representation of it. Either a balanced section showing a spectrum of diverse international law academic perspectives should be included, or if this is not done then no academic perspectives should be shown at all. NPOV must be upheld.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. I rehauled the whole thing and split the legal opinions into their own section called "Commentary". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved stuff to avoid wp:content forking

I moved 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#East Ukrainian oblasts to 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I did this to avoid wp:content forking. + these protest don't fall under the scope "military intervention". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not know why it was called "Russian Spring" but I have moved the title to the more neutral 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Just moved the Odesa stuff too to 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine... It will be good to have 1 good article covering these protest then it done in various ones... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OMFG. That's a contradiction in terms. Putting similar re related content into a separate article is more and not less likely to become a content fork. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue of article name and NPOV with Republic of Crimea's secession from Ukraine

What should the name be if after March 16th, the Crimean government considers itself part of Russia while Ukraine rejects it? This is a widely expected outcome.

I have an idea for a neutral name that avoids ascribing what territory Crimea is within: 2014 Russian military intervention in the Crimean Peninsula and Southern Ukraine

Any determination of what to do would here have to wait until to see what will happen with the referendum. However this is a start to address such issues.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of one or two extremely minor incursions along the Crimean border with Kherson, there has been no Russian military presence at any point outside Crimea. No reason to include "Southern Ukraine" or really anything other than "Crimea" after the first part of the title. It is an intervention in Crimea and not in any other part of Ukraine.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: The acting Crimean government has declared independence from Ukraine, it is now claiming to be a sovereign state called the Republic of Crimea. The upcoming referendum will determine whether or not it joins Russia. But as of now, the Crimean government does not regard the Republic of Crimea to be in the Ukraine.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that this title should be changed to "in Crimea". This is not to dispute Ukrainian territorial sovereignty or to support the unrecognized Republic of Crimea, but to be more geographically accurate. If Russia moves troops into the rest of Ukraine, then we can certainly change the name back. Sebastopol is in the Crimea. It is not in the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", but it is in the geographic location. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting survey from May 2013

I just found a very interesting series of polls conducted in Crimea in May 16–30, 2013 by the International Republican Institute, Baltic Surveys Ltd./The Gallup Organization, Rating Group Ukraine with funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Here are some of the most relevant questions:

  • p. 8: " Regardless of your passport, what do you consider yourself?" - 40% Russian, 24% Crimean, 15% Ukrainian, 15% Crimean Tatar, 5% other, 1% DK/NA
  • p. 14: "If Ukraine was able to enter only one international economic union, which entity should it be with?" - 53% Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, 17% EU, 8% Other, 22% DK/NA
  • p. 17 "In your opinion, what should the status of Crimea be?" - 53% Autonomy in Ukraine (as today), 23% Crimea should be separated and given to Russia, 12% Crimean Tatar autonomy within Ukraine, 2% Common oblast of Ukraine, 10% DK/NA

If this data is appropriate, please include it in this and Crimean referendum, 2014 articles. --Երևանցի talk 22:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't already in the article, it at least used to be. It doesn't seem too significant to me considering all that has taken place over the past few months. LokiiT (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not done. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine → 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea – The title currently used gives the misleading impression that the whole of Ukraine is involved or at least a significant part of Ukraine. A single province is at issue here and the title should reflect as much. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Depends on what "Crimea" you're referring to. Administratively and geopolitically, yes, the Crimean Republic and the Special City of Sevastopol are separate, however if we are talking about geography, there is only one Crimean peninsula, which in everyday language can also be referred to as simply "Crimea". Compare Korea (Korean peninsula) with Republic of Korea, DPR Korea. I don't have a firm opinion regarding this RM, however in the case the page is moved, it should be made clear that we are talking about geographical Crimea, and not political Crimea. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the offered rationale. Crimea is "a significant part of Ukraine." By the same reasoning presented here, we might be led to replace "Russian military" with a description of the individual units involved. Dekimasuよ! 01:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sevastopol is not a part of Crimea. In addition there are reports that Russian troops have entered into a village north of Crimea [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose there appear to be Russian paramilitaries in eastern Ukrainian oblasts too, and the article covers this. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, let's be clear here for a moment. Crimea constitutes a fairly small portion of Ukraine's territory and there is no Russian military presence outside that region. Sevastopol being administratively separate from the province is quite meaningless as it is indisputably part of the Crimea. Minor incursions that are simply about shoring up defenses along the border of Crimea are merely extensions of the Crimean intervention and not some general intervention in Ukraine. Three of the four opposes are just technical nit-picks that are really not sufficient reason against the rename and the other is just factually wrong. To characterize it as a "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" creates the impression of wider intervention than has actually occurred.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment There have been statements claiming that Russian forces have entered into Chonhar of the Kherson Oblast. Whether they are paramilitary forces or Russian military forces does not seem clear at this point. Indeed elsewhere Russia is claiming that many forces that the West claims are Russian military forces, are paramilitary.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Either way, this is a small village right on the border of Crimea and it appears the sole purpose of the incursion was to build defenses along the border of Crimea. It would be like calling the Iraq War the Middle East War because there were incursions into other countries all along its border over the course of the conflict.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: The acting Crimean government has declared independence from Ukraine, it is now claiming to be a sovereign state called the Republic of Crimea. The upcoming referendum will determine whether or not it joins Russia. But as of now, the Crimean government does not regard the Republic of Crimea to be in the Ukraine.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I also agree that this title should be changed to "in Crimea". This is not to dispute Ukrainian territorial sovereignty or to support the unrecognized Republic of Crimea, but to be more geographically accurate. If Russia moves troops into the rest of Ukraine, then we can certainly change the name back. Sebastopol is in the Crimea. It is not in the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", but it is in the geographic location. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

~−

  • Oppose. I'm pretty much in line with the rest. Crimea does constitute a fairly small portion of Ukraine's territory, but still counts as a significant one. I would back merging this article with 2014 Crimean crisis - or at least reshuffling our coverage of this mess so that the Russian occupation, the predominant subject of the Crimean crisis, isn't fenced outside the main article of the Crimean crisis - but that's another discussion. --Kizor 16:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It isn't the main subject. Demonstrations by civilians are the main topic of the "crisis", and what initiated it. The intervention is only a small subset of what has actually occurred. Regardless, a merge discussion was already closed as "no consensus". RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Closed as "no consensus" at that moment, with a note that we can have another shot at it if events demonstrate the possibility for a different outcome.
Anyway, I'm a bit confused by what you said about civilian demonstrators being the main topic - it's my understanding that Crimea's occupation by totally-not-Russian-really-honestly forces, with all its surrounding events like the shutdown of Ukrainian TV channels in the Crimean peninsula and their replacement with Russian state television, has had a much larger effect on the course of events, has been the main subject of diplomatic tensions, negotiations and protests, and is what the man on the street likely thinks of when he hears the words "Crimean crisis." --Kizor 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This and arguments to the effect that "Crimea is a significant part of Ukraine" are why this title is a problem. Clearly this is an NPOV issue where the intention is to paint this as Russian aggression against the whole of Ukraine because it is more suitable for partisan purposes than treating it as an intervention limited to a single geographic area with a complicated history. Wikipedia is not supposed to be some propaganda outlet.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that this was my motive for making an argument to that effect. Thank you for letting me know. --Kizor 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And the Malvinas son Argentinas, Dokdo is Korean, Kosovo je Serbia, etc etc etc etc etc. Doesn't really fit in much about how we should name this article, however, so I don't see the point of this argument. Nobody is using a title change to claim that X isn't Y, the title change is merely an attempt to make things more specific. We're referring to geographical Crimea here, not making a political statement using the article title in regards to ownership. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As of today it's unlikely that Crimea will be part of Ukraine according to part of the world and most Crimean residents. By using Ukraine in the article name, "Crimea is Ukraine" becomes English Wikipedia's official stance, which regardless of whether or not we agree with it personally, cannot objectively be considered neutral. On the other hand, using the name Crimea in the title makes no assertions as to who Crimea "belongs" to one way or another; it's entirely neutral. With that said, if Russian military intervention in non-Crimea Ukraine becomes a significant enough event, we should then either move the article back to the current name, or start a new article. LokiiT (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This is circular reasoning. Once Russia wrests control of Crimea away from Ukraine, it is no longer part of Ukraine, and therefore Russia did not invade Ukraine? That doesn't hold water. In addition, Russia has already seized territory in non-Crimea Ukraine. How significant does it need to be? lzagreus (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding you first point, a referendum in which 95% of the votes are for joining Russia does not indicate a forceful annexation. Also, I did not dispute the article's name yesterday. Today is a different story. As for your second question, personally, I think this article should be merged with 2014 Crimean crisis (there is already a ton of redundancy) and a separate article started in which only events in Ukraine proper are discussed. LokiiT (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Russia has already invaded Ukraine outside of Crimea. They took control of Strilkove yesterday, a village in Kherson Oblast.

[[3]--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose We would have to call it Russian military intervention in Crimea and Kherson. The effects of the referendum, regardless of recognition, are not retroactive.--Martin Berka (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you tell me what the Kosovo War, Iraq War, Vietnam War, and Nagorno-Karabakh War, all have in common? Every last one of them included conflict outside of the nations and territories for which they are named. Any incursions into Kherson are not part of some wider intervention, but merely extensions of the intervention in Crimea. There is nothing significant about incursions into Kherson. Let us say, for argument's sake, that Russia launched a wider intervention into Ukraine. This article would probably be kept focused on Crimea-related actions, akin to a single event within a wider conflict, and a new article created to cover the general intervention.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Echoing this. We don't call the Vietnam War the "Vietnam, East Cambodia and North Laos War", even though fighting took place in more than just Vietnam. Has everyone here ever heard of the Ho Chi Minh trail? How about Operation Menu, Operation Commando Hunt and the Cambodian Campaign? One of the most important aspects of the Vietnam War took place on Cambodian territory. Simply put, the military intervention is largely occurring within Crimea; any mention of neighbouring oblasts is merely playing with semantics. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Very good point, and I would agree with the pattern if the proposed title included "war".--Martin Berka (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This article describes events specifically in Crimea (and related incidents just over its border). Referring to Crimea is NPOV - in spite of international recognition of Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine, I understand Russia and its supporters consider it as a separate entity. If Russia expands its invasion to eastern Ukraine, the title can be reverted.Nomadic Whitt (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine is disputed. The proposed title has no NPOV concerns as it simply states the geographic area and is more focused. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – Has Crimea been split from Ukraine yet? Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Specificity. This article title move is not a squabble over who owns what, or any of that nonsense; the title should be clear, precise and specific in regards to what it is describing, and simply "Ukraine" isn't specific enough. We don't call the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami the "2011 Japan earthquake" (we refer to the region of Japan where it happened, namely the Tōhoku region), and we don't call the 2008 Sichuan earthquake the "2008 China earthquake" (we refer to the province where it happened, Sichuan), so why should there be an exception here? What makes this case so special that we need to do things differently? --benlisquareT•C•E 17:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Self-Determination

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination Since residents of Crimea who participated in the referendum chose to join Russia (96%) isn't blocking such a move wrong under International laws of right to self-determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.34.68 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. This is for the encyclopedic entry only. 203.110.235.135 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Invasion not Intervention

Under international law this is an illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Intervention is soft-coating the truth! 198.103.184.76 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • No invasion or intervention. Russian troops in Crimea by Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine may enter only for breach of contract, but evidence of a violation has not yet been charged. This article about media fiction. ASDFS (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The dispute is not over the number of troops, but what they are doing. Good or legal, setting up a new border in the Kherson area and enabling a binding vote in Crimea is an intervention - it changes the shape of Ukraine. Intervention is a neutral word meaning that they are involved.--Martin Berka (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is definitely not an "invasion". Such a characterization would be a serious distortion and POV push.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
According to sources it's an invasion [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] even Russian sources call it an invasion [9]. USchick (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Are there officially recognized and published evidence of violations of the treaty on the presence of Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine? ASDFS (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This is an Invasion borderline War with the first Ukrainian soldier shot and killed by Russian troopsNolephin (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No any Rus army troops at Ukraine. Its private military company. ASDFS (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, instead is should be "war crimes" as Russian troops are shooting Ukraine troops without declaring a war.
    • Absolutely wrong! Please count the Russian soldiers acting there ! --House1630 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Americans invaded Iraqi.. Afghanistan.. and none was done by UNO!
As USchick pointed out the majority of reliable sources refer to this as an invasion. This is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Our opinions on the matter are not relevant nor is whether or not anyone's actions are legal or illegal by international law. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pro Russian troops attacking Ukrainian bases using women

I find it quite obscene that something like this could be added to the page of a website such as Wikipedia. An event such as this and the blatant disrespect to the human life it implies are so big it is unimaginable to think that such a scandal would go unnoticed by any other media. We can not just add information of this weight to the page citing only one source, which has over the course of the whole crises taken a strictly Pro-Ukrainian stance. Another point I would like to stress is the language and the light in which people write these sentences. I do assume that every editor on the website is sufficiently educated to use English language in a neutral manner, without trying to cause any implications. The sentence that I am referring to seems to imply that Pro-Russian troops charged the compound guns blazing while using women as human shields, which in turn prevented the Ukrainian troops from shooting back (it further implies that Ukrainian troops WOULD have shot back if there weren`t any women). It further implies that women were taken against their will (if in fact there were any women at the head of the "attacking" force). Therefore I would like to ask for this particular piece of information to be removed until a greater number of sources can be cited of rewritten in a way that reflects its uncertainty and possibly biased sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzraeL9128 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Under WP:REDFLAG, I would be inclined to agree. I don't know about removing the sentence. Maybe slap a nice fat tag on it instead? Unfortunately I think a lot of the editing is coming from Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic-speaking editors who might not have had that much education in English. I'm basing this off both the gravity of the situation for the area and the fact that a lot of subjects are missing articles within the article. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

Here's an important press release of the U.S. Department of State, which describes : "President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine", document of March 5, 2014 Călușaru' (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Western propaganda

Welcome to the new Wikipedia, where blatant lies and propaganda can go undisputed. So far I was a fan of the Wikipedia project, but this article shows the project is failing. Where is the self-control of contributors, when only the view of one side (the Western propaganda) has room? Why is key information not even mentioned in this article (e.g. fascists have taken over the government in Kiev)? And finally, who decides whose view is acceptable and whose view isn't? If these things are not clarified, then why not admit it: Wikipedia has become a propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.93.32 (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Putin's stooges should stop stooping to that "fascist" name calling against anyone that opposes them. And WP:NPOV is a policy on Wikipedia, articles shouldn't be pro-anything.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia has gone bad to worse, everywhere is propaganda. hopefully it will go down soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.218.91 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As a person from the West who is alert to bias of any kind, I agree that there has been substantial Western bias imported onto these pages just as there has been pro-Russian bias. Especially extremely arrogant assertions that "most" of the international community condemns Russia's actions. India hasn't, Venezuela hasn't, China has been neutral, and there is no reporting on what the views of major African countries like South Africa, Nigeria, or Egypt have on the issue. There is an amazingly arrogant tendency in the West to equate significant solidarity between EU countries and the United States as equating international solidarity probably for propaganda purposes but maybe also because they don't consider other countries to be significant. Wikipedia is what its users make it to be - on contentious issues there will be die-hards pressing their biases, the issue is resisting those efforts.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article is wrong, there was no military intervention until proven otherwise. The organised self-defence Crimea forces are all Ukraine citizens. And they didn't even fight anyone. Wilemyvu (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with both this criticism and the one above. Even AlJazeera is towing the party line. I think we need to find some sources that aren't Russian or Western that might have a more NPOV view of it all. With all the Russian speaking ex-military and/or gun toting Crimeans, I don't think they needed actual Russian military intervention. I have to doubt the whole premise of this article. Obviously, they could have finessed the timing and "propaganda" effort around the vote to get more international support, but there has been some Western precedent, and there was little doubt which way this vote would go. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk pages are not for discussing politics, but rather how to improve this specific article.

If you have specific concerns about a statement, or a paragraph, in the existing article, suggest specific improvements, and please use the techniques identified in the Tagging and improving POV concerns section above. N2e (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Al-Jazeera criticism gives the impression that it's more a matter of disliking the information. Al-Jazeera is probably one of the only actual trustworthy news-sources you can find these days... except for Israel-Palestine issues. There's no good media outlet for that. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

We need to have reliable soures which consider the intervention in details if we want to avoid original research. Debi07 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents

"Support" lists should be removed, or it looks like World War. Claimed "supports" are just their official opinions on issue. Compare with pages on other military conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.181.226.149 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Should it really be removed? I think that the belligerents - NATO, the European Union, the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and others - are helping Ukraine by imposing sanctions on Russia. Also, should the United States be on the list of pro-Ukrainian supporters anyway? TehPlaneFreak! talk 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Imposing targeted sanctions doesn't make a state a "belligerent". -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't get what this IP fellow meant at first, but looking at the list it does make this look like a real shooting war between Ukraine and Russia with the support list looking like those nations are providing material support. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Compare, let's say, with Kosovo_War or Russia–Georgia_war. Probably most countries had their favorite in these clashes and supported them in some way, diplomatic, in media etc, but they are not listed there as "belligerents". --topicstarter 109.161.50.150 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

These lists just continue growing. Cuba fighting Chinese Taipei in Crimea. Is it encyclopedia or what? Are you agree to remove it? There is whole section for international reaction. I can do it but I'm just anonymous and don't want to start editwar. Better someone with more authority to do it. --topicstarter 109.161.71.60 (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a military conflict infobox and those countries should be removed immediately because they offer diplomatic support only and no form of combat support whatsoever. There's also a special article for that → International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuthemvar reverted my talk page edit

With this edit Lugnuthemvar reverted my edit on the talk page where I requested he assume good faith. This is entirely unacceptable behaviour. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not knowingly or on purpose. Someone(probably you) edited the section before I finished my sentence, so I must've copy edited my own unsaved edits on yours. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith and accept that explanation. Note how I'm not accusing you of conspiring against me - let that be a lesson in proper behaviour for you. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
lol. Not patronizing at all. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_3&oldid=1145967777"