Talk:2014 Crimean crisis

Revolution in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this report by Polish think tank from 2011 Centre for Eastern Studies (which if funded by Polish government and thus can't be seen as pro-Russian), the Svoboda party program includes ethnic discrimination of non-Russians in Ukraine by limiting their numbers in administration, military, state organs and dramatically reducing their civil rights, Svoboda according to them is radically anti-Russian while also anti-Polish[1]

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

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

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

Legal aspects section; be careful

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

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

• Never said systemic bias was a policy. Besides, I'm not the author: User:FT2 included the text on this edit: [2] It was extremely lopsided so I tried to rephrase it to make it neutral but it was difficult, hence why I made this post here: to request help. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You have a very skewed understanding of how Wikipedia works. First of all, the {{systemic bias}} template was not created by me. It was created by User:SMcCandlish on this edit: [3]. Second, whenever you find something on Wikipedia that you beleive to be WP:OR or unsourced then either tag it with the {{cn}} template or the {{OR}} template so that we can find a source for it and remove any doubts. I'm not a lawyer, but I tried to balance the prose as much as I could per WP:FIVEPILLARS (our core) and its extension WP:FIXIT but came up short. This is exactly why I made this post here: to request help from the community to balance the section into a neutral point of view and to find sources that provide a perspective different than Weller's. Stop accusing me of this or that, and understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative work. Each and everyone of us doesn't have the answers to everything: hence why we request help from the community in cases like this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Kiev and pro-Moscow POV

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

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

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

This edit [4] by Owner Ming also includes a very strong anti-Kiev and pro-Russian POV. Every user must uphold NPOV, if they are incapable of doing that because of strong connection or attachment to the situation at hand, then they should not be contributing here and instead publish their perspective on a website or blog.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deforkification

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

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

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

Timeline march 9th

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

I would suggest re-editing along the lines of

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry being used to insert NPOV-violating material

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

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

Nonsense, your editing behaviour is clearly exactly the same using exactly the same tag of "Getting Started" [5] [6] [7]. You are lying when you are suggesting that you are not the same person.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move to "Crimean crisis"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From 2014 Crimean crisis → Crimean crisis

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

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

What's everyone's opinion?

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

克里木翠青 Khik lí bo̍k chhùi-chhiⁿ

Oo khik sai lo̍k hái pak-huānn ,

歐 克 西 諾 海 北 岸，

Bí-lē Puàn-tó Khik lí bo̍k chhùi-chhiⁿ.

美 麗 半 島　克 里 木　 翠　　青。

Chá-chêng hō͘ gōa-pang thóng-tī,

早　 前　　受　外 邦　　 統　 治，

Kián-kok taⁿ teh chhut-thâu-thiⁿ.

建　 國　 今　在　 出　　頭　 天。

Kiōng-hô-kok hiàn-hoat ê ki-chhóu,

共　　和　國　 憲　 法　的 基　 礎，

Koh-chokk-kûn pêng-téng saⁿ hia̍p-chō͘.

各 　族　 群　 平　 等　 相　 協　　助。

Jîn-lūi bûn-hòa sè-kài hô-pêng,

人　 類　文　化　世 界　和　 平，

Kok-bîn hiòng-chêng kòng-hiàn châi-lêng.

國　 民　向　　 前　　貢　 獻　 才　 能。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BnaiBrithChai (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to tell if I agree or not, as I'm having trouble understanding you. This is the English Wikipedia. Did you take a wrong turn? Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not speak Chinese. Did you post to the wrong place, perhaps? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a native Chinese speaker. The above Mandarin is a little bit strange and the place names are incorrect (at least nonstandard). Here is a rough translation:

To the north of the Black Sea

stands the beautiful peninsula Crimea

Earlier ruled by a foreign country

today declared their independence

The foundation of the constitution of the Republic

lies in the equality and mutual aide between different peoples

(For the sake of) Human culture and world peace

the people march on, contributing their talents

128.189.191.222 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Military units

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

Phone Call Urmas Paet to Catherine Ashton

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

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

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

Map addition

The linguistic composition of the uyezds (povits) of Taurida Governorate (today split in Crimea and the Kherson oblast) of the Russian Empire in 1897. Ukrainians in yellow, Russians in red, Crimean Tatars in green, Germans in gray, Yiddish speakers in blue, and others in purple. Template:Uk icon

I’ve added this map of the Russian Empire census of 1897 to show the ethnic balance in Crimea (and Kherson oblast, both fused into the Taurida governorate at the time) before Holodomor, the Holocaust, Surgun and the expulsion of the Germans. The internal texts of the image are in Ukrainian, but I think that as the same way that happen in other maps with no-English text in Englsih-language maps in Wikipedia, it can be reasonably understood.--MaGioZal (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This map is not-understandable for non-Russian-speaking people like me. I do not understand it personally, and I think the layout is horrible and confusing Cmoibenlepro (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

About some legal aspects

I found some of the phrases in this article inexact or even misleading.

"The elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced with leaders of the Yatsenyuk Government."

First of all, the Second Azarov Government (formed by Yanukovych) was dissolved on January 28. So in late February, there was NO government (the previous one continued only as a caretaker government). Second, the Yatsenyuk Government was formed and elected according to the 2004 Constitution by the legitimate, legally elected Verkhovna Rada. The phrase above seems to suggest that the Yatsenyuk government is sort of illegal, which is not true.

"It is unclear, however, whether the Russian troop movements within Crimea and Sevastopol are legitimate or not as Russia and Ukraine ratified a treaty that allows Russia to maintain up to 25,000 troops in the aforementioned territories."

As for 25, 000, that might be true. But it's very clear from all evidence that the Russian troops movements are observed all over Crimea, and not only in Sevastopol, where the troops can stay according to the treaty. Thus, all these maneuvers are definitely illegitimate.

"Under the agreement forces on both sides of the conflict should refrain from confrontation all illegal weapons should be handed within 24 hours. Despite the agreement thousands were still protesting in central Kiev and as President Yanukovich left for Kharkov to attend a summit of south-eastern regions,[101] they took full control of Kiev’s government district, they have taken over parliament, the president’s administration quarters, the cabinet, and the Interior Ministry.[102][100] On 21 February an impeachment bill was introduced in Ukrainian parliament,[103] but no details were provided and the Ukrainian parliament did not vote to impeach Yanukovich according to the legal procedure."

There are some crucial points, which should be reflected here:

1. Under the agreement, Yanukovych was OBLIGED to sign the bill about the return to the 2004 Constitution. The Rada adopted this bill, but Yanukovych did not sign the bill, thus breaking the agreement.

2. The agreement did NOT oblige the protesters to leave.

3. Kharkiv, not Kharkov.

4. Yanukovych definitely FLED Kiev. All evidence suggests that he prepared his leave from February 19.

5. The protesters took full control of the government district NOT by force, but because the legitimate, legally elected Verkhovna Rada voted to withdraw the police and troops from Kiev. The protesters took control of the buildings, but they didn't use force to influence any of the political decisions.

I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, but I hope that these apparent things will be corrected. I'm Ukrainian, and I followed the situation very closely, reading a variety of sources, Ukrainian, Polish, British, American, German, Russian, etc. Impatukr (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

3. I hope you and your compatriots stop this boringly stale argument: Unless most natively English dictionaries and journalists prefer Kyiv, Kharkiv, etc. over other spellings, the manual of style requires all editors to use Kiev, Kharkov, etc. regardless of origin of the terms. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Take into account that there is no "Kharkov" article in Wikipedia. The city is consistently called "Kharkiv": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv. Spelling is a trifle. I talked about much more important things. However, this argument is not "boringly stale". It's important. If you noticed, I did not write "Kyiv". I wrote, "Kiev". Let's stick to the spellings in Wikipedia: Kiev and Kharkiv.Impatukr (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I admit I didn't research before replying. After some search there is no definite preference of Kharkov/Kharkiv among the (natively, I stress) English media. Presumably when the MOS of use English didn't mature enough, the article Kharkiv in en.wp was "merged in" to Kharkov on 19 August 2003 without any discussion (the article was still stub after merging without a single source or category at all). The more recent (2012) discussion also didn't reach any consensus. One thing I want to note is that "Kharkiv" is not recognized by the spellchecker used by Mozilla suite, Kharkov however is accepted as the correct English spelling. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Most Ukrainian cities in English Wikipedia are called by their Ukrainian, not Russian names (including most of the cities located in the Russian-speaking regions of the country): Lviv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kharkiv, Ternopil, Cherkasy, Chernihiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Chernivtsi, Kirovohrad, Kremenchuk, Kryvyi Rih, Rivne, Uzhhorod, Ivano-Frankivsk. Apparently, there was some consensus about that... Impatukr (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

+ Note the spelling in: 2010 Kharkiv Pact and Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. Impatukr (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please... Wikipedia itself is NOT a source to your claims. 2010 Kharkiv Pact mostly uses sources from Kyivpost and RIA, both are not natively English and have clear political bias/preferences which do not reflect the native English usage. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is natively english. Do your research. If you think you're going to turn Kharkiv into Kharkov, go to the city's article and argue new common use. You'll lose, but it's better than arguing a tired point here. --Львівське (говорити) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Kyiv Post" uses "Kyiv" intentionally rather than "Kiev" in its articles. How natively English can that be? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Kyiv is the native english spelling of the city. Euronews, CBC, Toronto Star, CTV, New York Daily News, Interfax', etc all use Kyiv as the English spelling. --Львівське (говорити) 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiev is still the preferred name in native English, just like we say Moscow not Moskva. For example [8] just my 2 cents. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I can provide credible links to prove what I said about these legal aspects, although these things are obvious and were reflected in multiple sources, including other Wiki articles. These inaccuracies can definitely mislead readers. Impatukr (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Kharkiv is common use and the variety used on Wikipedia. Kharkov is an archaism that isn't used in the English speaking world anymore. The only cities where the Russian-English form trumps are Kiev and Odessa. That said, for points 1-5, all of these statements are correct. I haven't reviewed the article, it seems to have been infected by POV pushing users so I was waiting for them to go away before doing any substantial edits, but the above suggestions are indeed factual (as someone who largely wrote the revolution article and know what occurred). --Львівське (говорити) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Technically, I can't edit this article, so please do it when you can. Not only points 1-5 but also what I wrote before it. The sentence "The elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced with leaders of the Yatsenyuk Government" is the strangest and the most misleading one. Impatukr (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Impatukr, thank you for inviting me for the discussion. I want to pointed out the fact that there is no 2004 Constitution of Ukraine and there never was such constitution. There were important amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine that drastically changed a political structure of the Ukrainian government by shifting more power to parliament rather than concentrate most of authority to the president. During the agreement between Yanukovych and opposition Yanukovych had 24 hours to enforce procedure of restore those amendments. Moreover the agreement was signed by representatives from Germany, Poland and France, while the Russian representative who participated in discussion never signed it. The parliament of Ukraine went along to return the amendments and after that reelected the new government. For that law draft voted MPs not only from the opposition parties, but from the Party of Regions. Yanukovych fled to Kharkiv where Dobkin had intentions to conduct the Severodonetsk congress and possibly to secede from Ukraine. But Yanukovych changed his mind and instead of attending the congress tried to flee from the country and in the way trowing his party colleagues pretty much "under the bus". He was given sanctuary by the "patriotic officers" in Sevastopol, possibly, representing the Black Sea Fleet and later was given a chance to emigrate to Rostov upon Don. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

About the naming of Kharkiv and Kharkov is similar to name Beijing as Pekin. There is a transition of changing the Ukrainian cities from its colonial toponyms to their national Ukrainian names. Still there is an ongoing disagreement in Wikipedia in regards to Kyiv as well as Luhansk and Chernihiv. It was agreed to leave the name for Odessa in its Hellenic-like version, while its Ukrainian version is Odesa. Number of cities in Ukraine still carry Russian toponyms even in Ukrainian language such as Mariupol, Melitopol, Simferopol, Sevastopol, Pervomaisk, and many others. One should be aware that some political faction refer to some Ukrainian cities in alternative way. For example, nationalistic parties refer to Dnipropetrovsk as Sicheslav. Also adaptation of Ukrainian national names for cities are officially adopted by the regional and local councils and there is no forceful enforcement the process. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev Thank you. In fact, there was no discussion (except for "Kharkiv"). I live in Ukraine and I know the situation very well, but thank you for pointing out these things to those who don't know them. Yes, you're right about "the 2004 Constitution"; but people refer to it this way in colloquial speech. I was just a little shocked by POV pushing in this article, but found out that I couldn't edit it. Impatukr (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Impatukr:

1. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the Second Azarov Government was legally (in the sense of following established law), formally (in the sense of a legal document signed by legal authorities), orderly (in the sense of order in law; not related to the protests), and properly (in the sense of "following proper procedure") dissolved on January 28?
2. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the institution that "formed and elected" the Yatsenyuk Government was legally elected by the people of Ukraine and had the authority to form and elect said government?
3. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the movement of troops within Crimea is a violation of the Partition Treaty?
4. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the Partition Treaty applies only to Sevastopol?

Serious requests. I have not been able to find sources for this myself so if someone more knowledgeable and experienced about these matters can that would be really helpful.

Thanks in advance.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

1: CNN, Azarov government resigns. Even the wiki page for the Azarov government has sources, so not sure why you couldn't find this... Львівське (говорити)

OK I'm confused. When Ukrainians refer to a "[name] Government" does that "Government" NOT include the President? So, in essence, the PM and the Council of Ministers were dissolved but the incumbent President (Yakunovych) still remained? How was Yakunovych removed from his power then in legal terms? I know he fled but I wanna know what's the legal base used to not consider him President anymore. For example, in Puerto Rico the governor can only be removed from power if he "is incapable of performing his job" (death, illness) or impeached. But just being out of Puerto Rico doesn't mean he is no longer governor. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)