Talk:2014 Crimean crisis

Unbalanced pro-intervention message in Crimean media

According to The Economist,

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21599061-kremlins-belligerence-ukraine-will-ultimately-weaken-russia-home-front

...

In preparation for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin cleared the last pockets of independent media. Ria Novosti, a state-news agency, which sheltered loyal but liberal-minded journalists, was purged and turned into a blunt propaganda instrument. TV Rain, a private television channel which provided the most objective coverage of the Ukrainian protests, was taken off the air by the main cable providers, acting on the Kremlin’s instructions. The internet, once free of Kremlin control, has been restricted by new, vague laws. On March 12th the editor of one of the most popular news sites, Lenta.ru, was replaced with a pro-Kremlin appointee. Its journalists threatened to resign in protest: “The trouble is not that we won’t have anywhere to work, but that you won’t have anything to read.” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Mr Putin, labelled anyone objecting to the Kremlin’s actions part of a “nano-sized fifth column”.

A patriotic frenzy whipped up by television muffles any dissent. Television executives who were trained as part of their Soviet-era military services in “special propaganda”, which sought to “demoralise the enemy army and establish control over the occupied territory”, created a virtual enemy in Crimea—fascist revolutionaries whose overthrow of the legitimate government justified the movement of real troops.

People close to Mr Putin say he had been harbouring the idea of taking Crimea since the war in 2008 with Georgia, which resulted in the de facto occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, its two breakaway republics. Yet the context is different. Kirill Rogov, a political columnist, argues that the war in Georgia served as a patriotic accompaniment to Russia’s economic resurgence. Ukraine serves as its substitute.

...

Russian state media

Wikipedia does not, AFAIK, recognize outlets like RT as reliable sources. They are subject to the editorial control of the government of a country well known for lacking freedom of the press, and they disseminate propaganda accordingly. Especially when they make extraordinary claims about "self-defense units" stopping "employees of the Ukrainian government" from vaguely nefarious activities, they should not be cited on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

RT is not under editorial control of the government. Moreover, there are many government operated/funded media outlets that are considered reliable sources, including BBC and CBC. You don't get to pick and choose whose state propaganda is legitimate. If you want to contest the usage of RT in this article, start an issue at the reliable sources noticeboard.LokiiT (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've edited dozens of articles on Wikipedia, and not once has a consensus of editors deemed RT to be an acceptable source. It's a Kremlin mouthpiece. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether the said source reliable or not should be discussed case by case (sentence by sentence) instead of banning them wholesale. The previous discussions over Russian (pro-Putin) media in reliable sources noticeboard does not regard RT instantly unreliable if they're not given undue weight on certain controversial fact. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And citing a report from RT to claim as fact that "self-defense units" stopped Ukrainian agents from some sort of terrorist act in the Kherson region definitely qualifies as "undue weight". -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

RT has never been an "unreliable source" on Wikipedia. Like all news sources, reliability is situational, and it's up to editors to see fit whether a source should be used. During the whole Edward Snowden event and the WikiLeaks cables release, the only sources available at a certain point in time were Al Jazeera and RT, since American media outlets had a blanket ban on the topic and information wasn't freely available. Back then, it was deemed by community consensus that RT was to be trusted on the WikiLeaks issue.

Just with any news source, determine whether or not the report is done accurately and fairly for the situation at hand; don't resort to arguments which address the country of origin. Just like how you would gauge the reliability of an article from Fox News or CNN, it's up to editors to analyse the reliability of RT article by article.

Proper usage of citations is supposed to be situational, and there is no universal set of rules for anything. Take Xinhua News Agency or the People's Daily, for example: There are some cases where you shouldn't use those two, but there are also times when usage is acceptable. I would consider the two to be unreliable when releasing information relating to dissidents or death tolls, but reliable on apolitical domestic issues, such as football match scores.

In summary: Don't jump on RT like it's the next Pravda or Der Fuhrer's Lugenblatt; analyse each report, and make an educated and intelligent decision from each one. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If our goal on Wikipedia is to promulgate verifiable, fact-based information in a neutral, encyclopedic way, couching radical claims in reports handed down from the Kremlin (or direct from any other government, especially those that restrict freedom of the press) is really going to get in the way of that. I am 100% opposed to basing any claims in an article like this off reports by RT or other Kremlin-controlled media. I don't even think it's appropriate to use sources like Voice of America that act as mouthpieces of the American government in situations where Washington has interests. This article, which covers a highly contentious topic, is going to be a lot less neutral if we consider that anything goes as far as sourcing, including propaganda from the intervening power. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet we cite sources from National Rifle Association in gun politics in the United States. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Have you discussed it on the reliable sources noticeboard or are you just here to argue? LokiiT (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting you to quote the OSE essay. The elimination of RT from Syrian Civil War would not apply here either according to this theory. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• NYT Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• SpiegelXx236 (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• The TelegraphXx236 (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? It's a given that western propaganda is going to criticize Russian propaganda and vice versa. The criticism in those articles is as legitimate as RT's criticism towards CNN and Fox News. LokiiT (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making points, I'm quoting and everyone can make his/her opinion.

You have written RT is not under editorial control of the government. May I ask your source?Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no West but the USA and a number of West European nations who poorly cooperate. There is no Western Propaganda Center and German media are different than the US ones. There is no symmetry: no Russian Assange, Anna Politkovskaya is dead. Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Again we have the arguments that RT is an underling of the Kremlin. I find it ironic that people in the west, particularly Americans, are oh so abhorred at the thought that the press in Russia has a different viewpoint to theirs, and is therefore a definite Kremlin mouthpiece. It's strange how it's accepted that the American media is largely considered as reliable and trustworthy 100% of the time. Meanwhile, everyone seems to have zero qualms that 90% of American media is controlled by a certain ethnicity. I personally find it alarming that one ethnic group is able to control the large majority of American media outlets. But oh no, those Russians! --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this does a better job at explaining it than any of us could. The illusion of this alleged "western objectivity" is far more dangerous to wikipedia's credibility than the inclusion of RT as a reliable source. LokiiT (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Intro keeps changing from wildly pro-Moscow bias to wildly pro-Kiev bias: intro needs to be stabilized in a neutral form

This intro needs to be stabilized by working out here what should be addressed in the intro and coming to some sort of consensus. This crisis has been going on for several weeks, at least a short summary of the key events that happened should be in the intro.

I have suggestions. For me it would be preferable to just have a description about what is actually happening less about what people "think" about it or what the opinions are. Anything controversial that is is making broad statements that could be subjective based on legal opinion, legal precedents, etc., should not be in the intro - the intro cannot do justice to that, such should be addressed within the article where more detail can be provided.

In regards to biased editors, for other editors less attached to the issues at hand, this is a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" effect. We can blame biased editors to try to push their agendas here, and that would be fair at the beginning. However this issue has been going on for weeks, by now there should be an effort by users able to attest to the existence of both pro-Kiev and pro-Moscow biases on this issue, to attempt to stabilize the article from the raids by biased users inserting "the truth" as they see it. The first start would be the intro.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is up with the colors on the International reactions map?

Right now there are 10 colors being used to describe the international reactions here. File:Crimea reaction clean.png So my questions are:

1. Do we need 10 colors?
2. Can we stop the color warring and come to a consensus?

To give an idea for the 2nd time in just 2 days the colors in the map legend in this article do not match the ones used on the map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Knowledgekid87,I feel 3 colors should suffice - pro russia,pro ukraine & neutral. Yohannvt (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in on the issue? I agree that three colors would be enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Three colors would work, but with different shades to represent the degree of support/opposition to Russia. --Rurik the Varangian (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crimea_reaction_clean.png

The colours and description are perfectly fine and understandable on the image's individual page (linked above). At some point they have been edited on the main article and they now make no sense whatsoever. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No they are not fine, we have three shades for Condemnation of Russian actions while only two shades for support, either balance them out or just make support or oppose a catch all term here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Several dozen countries have condemned Russia outright or supported Ukraine. Some more fiercely than others hence the need for three shades to cover the reactions of around 40 countries. Four countries have offered up a pro-Russian stance. I can't see the need for three shades to differentiate four international responses unless three out of those four nations have taken up very different positions on the matter. Unless you believe and can prove that they have I don't see any valid reason to take up issue?

There is already a "and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government" clause in the description. If you know which nation it applies to and are willing to add it into the image and description I fully support that. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Different stances are ok for depicting the countries, but by looking at the image, its very confusing.The colors should be such that by looking at the map,it should be easier for the reader to understand which country is either pro Russia, pro Ukraine or neutral.Colors with lighter shades for degree of support/condemnation of a country should be more appropriate. Yohannvt (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

SOS!!!

Someone, urgently, edit the "Revolution in Kiev" section. It contains lots of mistakes and is written entirely from the point of view of the Russian propaganda. Numerous people around the world are reading this article now, and they are getting a completely distorted picture. I wrote about the mistakes in this article on this page before. Impatukr (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Impatukr, "Revolution in Kiev" is not at all neutral. Someone please edit it quickly!! Yohannvt (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yo. Could you be more specific? What particular mistakes have you identified and do you have ideas on what to do? --Kizor 18:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Kizor For some reason I can't edit this article, don't know why. So someone should do it. I wrote extensively about the mistakes in the article on this talk page ("About some legal aspects" section). I see that some of them have been corrected, but much still needs to be done. The events were reflected very adequately in 2014 Ukrainian revolution, esp. the sections "21 February" and "Regime change and developments". Impatukr (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Hey, do you know if the text of the compromise between the government and the protesters is available in English? Shortly before I read this section of the talk page I removed a passage from the article that could imply the protesters were breaking the agreement by continuing to protest, which was not in the source cited (Russian Today). Looking up, that was one of the things you wrote about in the "About some legal aspects" section. I'd like to see the compromise myself.
And then someone put the article back as it was. I dropped them a note. --Kizor 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And now that editor is banned. (Wasn't me!) --Kizor

Hey. Looking into this, I found an English translation of the compromise on the pages of the German Foreign Ministry. You say above that the compromise did not forbid the protesters to leave the square, but could you tell me more about how that compares to item #5 in the compromise? --Kizor 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Why is a lot of the timeline listed in this article, when it is a subarticle? RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be in WP:SUMMARY style. I tried cutting out most of the trivial details, but someone reverted my edit.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be removed completely (since there is another article about the timeline) and replaced by a short summary. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundant

Is it only me but it seems that in this sentence:

Election officials said the turnout was a record high[71] although many Tatars and opponents of the referendum were reported to have boycotted the vote.

it is redundant to say that opponents of the referendum did not vote in the referendum? Wouldn't it be better to simply say "Tatars and opponents were reported to have boycotted the vote" ? I tried to make this change but it was reverted. Just asking...Cmoibenlepro (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Response of India (map)

The response of India is not corretly indicated on the map. Currently it stresses that India recognises the interest of Russia, although the exact citation is "We are watching what is happening in Ukraine with concern... The broader issues of reconcilling various interests involved and there are, after all, legitimate Russian and other interests involved and we hope those are discussed, negotiated and there is a satisfactory resolution to them" ["Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine: Shivshankar Menon, NSA". The Economic Times. 6 March 2014.] 'other interests' might as well point to the interests of Ukraine. Could someone update the legend below the map showing the responses of the countries so that instead "Recognition of Russian interests" it will be written "Recognition of Russian and other interests". 90.191.175.33 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Map of main language

I think that the current map of distribution of mother tongue in Ukraine is neither as informative nor biased on the Russian--non-Russian scale (as it is currently in the article) as it would be if it indicated the position of other languages as well, as it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png . For example, the current map gives an incorrect impression of homogeneity of Donetsk region (as being leaned towards Russian language), although the picture is much more heterogeneous. Could someone please replace the current map of the langues with the one I referred to. 90.191.175.33 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Update international reactions map to include Sri Lanka's postion

I added Sri Lanka's reaction to the 'International reactions' section which should qualify as "Recognition of Russian and other interests" or "Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government" for the map. Could someone please update the map? I don't know how. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Casualties in the infobox

In the infobox it says:

Casualties

• Dead: 1 civilian[43]

Dead: several civilians

Injured: dozens[41]

[44][45]

I think it would be better not to repeat "dead" 2 times. I suppose it is a mistake. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong information about the origin of the Crimean dilemma

The information in the right hand box is not correct. Dmitry Yarosh is not in the Government, he is a leader of the Patriotic movement of Ukraine. Also, the Party "Svoboda" was the member of parliament before revolution, so it is incorrect to state that the Crimean crisis began because the party was included into the parliament after president Yanukovich left. Parties "Udar", 'Svoboda" had very large representation in the Ukrainian government before the revolution. Further, there are no "far-right" radicals in the government. More, the party of Regions was not forbidden or demolished. Party of Regions has huge representation in the parliament. Further, the correct reasons for the start of the crisis should be the fact that president Putin cannot tolerate democratic changes in Ukraine, because his imperialistic ambitions will be hurt.Please, do not use information directly from Russian propaganda sources. All of the facts I have written above are the real world truths and not assumptions that are listed now in that article. Kranshteun (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your or other users' opinions of the motives of Putin and Russia are, WP:NPOV must be upheld. We have to uphold NPOV regardless if we are talking about widely condemned figures and governments like Hitler and Nazi Germany. Your comment here does not demonstrate that you are upholding NPOV, possibly because you have an attachment to the matters at hand in the crisis. Regardless, you voicing your opinions about Putin's and Russia's actions are not going to help you get support for making changes, and quite frankly will likely inflame tension as there will be others who will disagree with you. If you expect to make productive contributions here, you need to demonstrate an ability to temper your opinions and be willing to have dialogue with people with perspectives that differ from your own. If you cannot do that, you should not be contributing here on Wikipedia and should instead contribute to a blog or a website.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your personal point of view and opinions are not relevant to this article. We should strive to keep the article neutral as much as possible. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding some of your other claims: The infobox doesn't claim Dmytro Yarosh is in the goverment. He is listed under "Lead figures" in the Crimean crisis. And the infobox doesn't claim that the Crimean crisis began because Svoboda was included into the parliament. One of five listed causes says: "Opposition to inclusion of Svoboda and Right Sector in the Yatsenyuk Government". Parliament and government are different things. Svoboda was in opposition under Yanukovych. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"However, there were reports in Ukrainian media that Russian passports were accepted on occasion as sufficient identification to be allowed to vote."

"On occasion" makes it sound like that most of the time those showing up to vote with a Russian passport were turned away, but once in a while allowed to vote. The source quoted makes no mention of Russian passport holders being turned away most of the time. It only mentions that one Kiev reporter with a Russian passport successfully voted in the referendum. This "on occasion" wording makes it plainly obvious that the article is being edited by those with an agenda.