Jump to content

Talk:2014 Crimean crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.63.169.154 (talk) at 03:37, 2 March 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cleanup and editing

"The international community widely condemned this move."

Wierd. The international community haven't really said anything yet really. Provide reliable sources for this. Have it removed from the lead section meanwhile. Accepted sources, or don't put it in. This is a sensetive article. Also, the international reactions should be edited to be short and concise, cut the large American additional information. This article needs to be rewritten in a concise manner, as of now, it looks like seperate lines of facts instead of a whole and cohesive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.247.103 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The international community

The story falls short. 1. The international community means the western world. 2. It is difficult no to see the parallels with the Georgian affairs six years ago. At least in part, both of these events were likely triggered by western intention to decrease Russia's influence in the area. It is surprising that this possibility is not discussed anywhere in the text.

2014 Crimea conflict

These should be merged... --Kuzwa (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


title should be changed to conflict now, beyond protests, gunmen just took over the crimean parliament and raised russian flags. this is an armed insurgency or something similar. --Львівське (говорити) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things That Make You Go Hmmm... & I Ain't Mad at Cha

Man, this article was a right mess till I started working on it 1 hour ago for 1 hour... Faults were: information completely out of chronology order, no dates given for when events happened en worst of all sources badly read (I assume good faith my friends!) before being used (at one point this article claimed that Russian troops were blocking roads when the source for that did not claim that....). I hope that whoever made these honest mistakes learns something from this. (Don't worry: I am not mad at cha; I know we are all hard working volunteers and do appreciate any effort on Wikipedia that is well intended.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the source clearly states that russian troops have military checkpoints set up on the highway outside of sevastopol, what source did you check? --Львівське (говорити) 01:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yulia, just want to explain why it seemed i omitted information: mark mackinnon changed the article after i used it, he never mentioned the volunteers part originally. He's been updating it throughout the day, "Published Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014, 6:37 AM EST Last updated Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014, 2:53 PM EST" when I wrote the content for the original article it was like 11AM EST --Львівське (говорити) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Ain't Mad at Cha! Besides I never now who introduced the source into the article — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you know. Only thing I really changed from the source article was 'checkpoint' to blockade, which I felt was synonymous and with other reports I read today with them laying down concrete blocks on the roads, it seemed blockadey.

language law did not cause demonstrations because the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea

I did read the Euronews source! And the source does not say "people are now protesting because last week, the parliament in Kyiv made Ukrainian once again the sole official language for all legal documents". Chairmen of the Supreme Council of Crimea Volodomyr Konstantinov stated in March 2013 that the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea.[1] Journalist make mistakes too; you know... And in this case I do believe it was the Euronews journalist.

  1. ^ Template:Uk icon "Мовний" закон Колесніченка-Ківалова нічого не дав Криму "Language" law Kolesnichenko-Kivalov gave Crimea nothing, Ukrayinska Pravda (27 March 2013)

If there is a conflict between the sources, we should give preference to the English language source over the foreign language source. --Tocino 02:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

infobox POV

I wasn't sure whether to change it or not so asking, but the infobox presents this dispute from the side of the pro-russian camp. Is it not two sides protesting against one another? Should it be NPOV or since the tatars/ukrainians protesting are for the status quo, we display the side who wants change? Just curious --Львівське (говорити) 06:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with it now.　It's following in the model of the Euromaidan and 2014 Ukrainian　revolution articles. This is the standard for protest articles across Wikipedia. --Tocino 07:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox makes it appear as if all Crimean Tatars are Russophobes, which is clearly wrong and too generalizing, especially with the Tatar flag. The list should go like this in my opinion:
Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this concern by substituting "Crimean Tatars" for the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People which is the activist group that were at the pro-Euromaidan protests. --Tocino 08:01, 27　February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the listing of Don Cossacks is also controversial. First of all, the reference is out-of-date, dating before the Crimean protests began, and secondly like listing Crimean Tatars on the counter side, it presents these peoples as a monolithic bloc. --Tocino 08:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i can find a recent ref, but they are unanimously on the side of the russians. It's an organization, not a broad ethnic group.--Львівське (говорити) 08:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The issue with the infobox is that it's protesters vs. protesters. To be like Euromaidan, it has to be [side with grievance] vs. government/side that has ability to make concessions. I think side 2 should be the government of ukraine/crimea (since thats who the protesters are against) and as supporting the provisional government would be pro-ukr revolutonaries & tatars. That, IMO, would be easier to comprehend and giving an equal view.--Львівське (говорити) 08:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Russia

Was blanked so starting a talk, should United Russia be included in the infobox? Source says MP stated "Arrived in Sevastopol, Crimea to support residents. Friends, Russia with you!" and then "There is an information war. We arrived in Sevastopol Hero City to personally interact with the residents to know the situation from within." Should it be included? Lokal made a good point that we didn't include EU/US politicians on the euromaidan article. Won't put it back without consensus, just wondering if it counts. --Львівське (говорити) 16:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2014 Crimean protests

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 Crimean protests'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 "Yanu'snewPMC":

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⚡ 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I moved this article to 2014 Crimean unrest now that heavily armed groups have become involved. An editor undid this with the only objection being that it should go to RM. Requested move discussions are for controversial decisions and I do not think it is even remotely controversial to suggest that you have gone beyond protests when organized militia units with RPGs and automatic weapons begin taking over buildings. That said, I am looking to see if there is anyone who considers it seriously controversial to suggest this can longer be described as "protests" given the recent developments.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial. Besides the occupations of parliament and the airport, there are still daily protests going on. Please consult with other editors before you decide to move a highly-viewed, current event article such as this. --Tocino 02:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what if there are still protests? Unrest can include protests, especially when the protests are violent and lead to deaths. That does not somehow magically change that armed groups seizing public facilities is now part of the event. It is hard to argue that the actions by armed groups are not part of the overall situation and it is especially hard to argue that they could be considered mere protests.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of ethnicities map

This Ukrainian-language map of the breakdown of ethnic groups by district was removed by User:Knowledgekid87, with the rationale being that it's in a foreign language and this not useful for English Wikipedia.

Distribution of ethnicities according to the 2001 census. Russian is in red (58%), Ukrainian in yellow (24%), Crimean Tatar in green (12%), and other ethnic groups in purple (6%).


I think with the explanation in the blurb, Russian - red, Ukrainian - yellow, Tatar - green, others - purple, one does not need an understanding of Ukrainian to be able to gain knowledge from this map. Unfortunately, there are no English equivalent maps on Commons, thus it's either this map with the English description attached, or no map at all. Thoughts? --Tocino 03:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I feel it does not help the article, even with what is shown in the map, you have to expand it to show it in detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The nationalistic or ethnic stand off is not present in Crimea. It something that is being provoked by the Kremlin junta. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support the map's inclusion or removal? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I've had enough of Putin's bullshit slathered over all hell's creation (note: this is a comment in general) -- and the pic lends undue weight to the propaganda that ex-patriot Russian ethnicities are clamoring en masse for their return to a reborn Soviet Union. --Froglich (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title

It's called a "standoff" by some RS. "Unrest" suggests that it is a civil conflict, and it appears it's more than just that → Reuters Voice of America BBC LA Times Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering uniformed Russian soldiers have seized at least two airports, blocked off at least one Ukrainian military base, and set up checkpoints on the highways into and out of the peninsula, I think it's pretty clear what we're seeing is -- depending on your point of view -- either an invasion or an intervention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it invasion or occupation or at the base level "conflict" --Львівське (говорити) 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term "invasion" still lies within accusations that are still unconfirmed and the claim is also denied by the Russian government. Can we call it "standoff" just for now? Because it's definitely not an unrest anymore. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian government has admitted to moving troops inside Crimea. BBC is reporting that phone systems have been shut down and a number of Russian transport aircraft have landed at Simferopol. "Invasion" seems reasonable - although I'd like to see "2014 Crimea crisis" or something more neutral as the title. Kiralexis (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian government confirmed the invasion (Article). Maybe we should rename it to the 2014 Crimean invasion or 2014 Crimean occupation since these events are more important than the original riots or the "unrest". [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to rename the title to the NPOV name 2014 Crimean crisis --78.1.92.163 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Kiralexis (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Crimea crisis would be fine, yet it could be easily called as an invasion (it is a fact). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...crisis is a good solution, in fact I proposed crisis for the whole 2014 Ukrainian thing. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Russian invasion seems to be happening (in near future)

A few hours ago Russian President Putin stated it was of "extreme importance of not allowing a further escalation of violence and the necessity of a rapid normalisation of the situation in Ukraine" in telephone calls with key EU leaders.[1]

So it is safe to say that Russia is not involved in seizing anything in Crimea or Putin is not telling key EU leaders the truth. Since the parliament and airports seem to be occupied by "gunmen unmarked" I think we should not assume they are Russian soldiers untill we can be sure (per WP:CHRYSTAL).

  1. ^ "Ukraine crisis live: Russia admits its troops are moving in Crimea". UK Telegraph. Retrieved February 28, 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked is called 'Ukraine crisis live: Russia admits its troops are moving in Crimea". Is it not about Russia being involved? [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read this part of the article:
15.50 BREAKING: The Russian foreign ministry has admitted that armoured units from the Black Sea Fleet base near Sevastopol had entered Crimea in order to protect fleet positions.
“The Ukrainian side was also passed a note regarding the movement of armoured vehicles of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, which is happening in full accordance with the foundation Russian-Ukrainian agreements on the Black Sea Fleet,” the ministry said in a statement posted on its website on Friday afternoon.
In the same note the Russian foreign ministry said it had declined a Ukrainian request for “bilateral consultations” on events in Crimea because they are “the result of recent internal political processes in Ukraine.”
So the Russian authorities claim to be not a part in the conflict! And the article says Russia claims Russia is not involved! We are editing articles based on content of sources; not by tittle of content... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia admitted to being involved, just not in the airports. Well, they only denied Simferopol. Russian military with Russian flags have been seen all over Crimea, and Russia has admitted to this "drill" --Львівське (говорити) 19:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we edit Infoboxes on the bases we believe the Russian foreign ministry is lying? What Russian officials are claiming that Russia is involved? If only journalist claim it, then the lead should have the information that Russian officials claim Russia is not involved. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to point out about the fact that Russian foreign ministry is lying. It should be left as is, because it portrays the facts that indeed took place. Analysis of events will develop later. We need to reform the infobox, however, from civil unrest to a military conflict. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian invasion of Crimea does not have to be with intent to annex the territory. Russian cannot simply occupy it without any legal basis. However, there is an evident attempt to interfere in interior affairs of Ukraine and Crimea, specifically (political influence). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not forget about the Russian interest in the Sevastopol naval base, existence of which could be compromised as it hangs on the scandalous Kharkiv agreements that extended military lease of the base until 2040s. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian officials admit troops are in the area on routine maneuvers, Ukraine says Russia is occupying buildings and also in the streets, the US has said that Russian troops are on the ground. Is someone in denial here? --Львівське (говорити) 22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Russian troops are based in Crimea.... But if Ukraine says Russia is occupying buildings and Russia says its not... Both opinions should be mentioned.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unmarked gunmen with assault weapons and not identified with a nation are usually called terrorists. Just saying. USchick (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 February 2014

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: Someone moved it. Red Slash 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


2014 Crimean unrest → 2014 Crimean crisis – With the claimed presence of Russian military forces and seizures of infrastructure by organized and armed groups, I believe this has surpassed civil unrest and has become a local, regional, and international crisis. Kiralexis (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Yahoo is quoting a Ukrainian official, not calling it an invasion themselves. Kiralexis (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Please remember that per Wikipedia:Article titles Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.

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.

Berkut shoulder insignia

No such unit with the portrayed shoulder patch exists. I agree that there might be defectors, information about which is not completely certain. There was created another municipal militia unit of Sevastopol city, which is also called Berkut (В Севастополе создают муниципальное подразделение милиции «Беркут», «Беркут» в Севастополе не будет расформирован, Російський мер Севастополя відмовився розформовувати "Беркут" в місті). Insignia of that particular unit is not yet known. There is some information that possible the SBU A Group sabotaged the procedure of disarming the Sevastopol Berkut. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UN Resolution 3314

I urged to check the act of aggression (war crime) definition that is very similar to the current events in Crimea. (original document) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Ukrainian sentiments

Yerevantsi, portrays information in the article as the Ukrainian and Tatar aggression against Crimean population. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevantsi, Dzhemilev, Chubarov, Kunitsyn are all residents of Crimea. Why are you identifying them under different flags? It is obvious aggression of Russia against Ukraine. Even Konstantinov was booed away in front of protesters. No Ukrainian central authorities are active. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Russians in Ukraine are pro-Russia. Third of the new government in Ukraine are people who were born in Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, your wording is pretty troublesome. Naming this section "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment" clearly shows your POV and is a direct accusation towards me. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Second, being a resident of Crimea does not mean they represent the government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the flag of which it is. If you have problems understanding, I'll repeat. Dzhemiliev is a Ukrainian (not Crimean) parliamentary deputy, Kunitsyn is an Ukrainian (not Crimean) official, Chubarov is a Crimean Tatar representative.

Third, the rest of your comment is a personal opinion having no connection with the flags. Keep your personal point of view out of Wikipedia, please and thank you. --Երևանցի talk 02:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is this article seems slanted in favor of the Russian side, I agree with you. Russian troops are occupying Crimea. Why are we burying the lede? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevantsi, Chubarov is a member of the Crimean parliament. The chairman of Crimean Council of Ministers is a Ukrainian official as much as Kunitsyn. That is exactly the point I was talking about. Crimea is not an independent entity and residents of Crimea are Ukrainians and then Crimeans. Kunitsyn was recently appointed the presidential representative in Crimea, but previously he headed the government of Crimea, twice. Is he a traitor? Of course, not. Your flag posting is inconsistent and portrays anti-Ukrainian sentiments in way that Ukraine tries to annex Crimea rather than Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevantsi, about personal attacks. I am not calling you names, am I? If you are taking it personal, I do apologize. It was not my intentions of insulting anybody. However, your edits have a slanted point of you and I want to discuss it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yerevantsi, you already see Crimea as an independent state (or such that is not part of Ukraine). For you people who are in Verkhovna Rada cannot be Crimeans. Is that right? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yerevantsi, I propose to get rid of flags until situation will be clarified. This way we will avoid disambiguation in interpretation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it. I'm not going to edit war over flags and get called anti-Ukrainian. --Երևանցի talk 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Green and AMTV

Some correspondent Christopher Greene accuses the new government of Ukraine in dictatorship, against which all people in Ukraine. He also accuses the United States and the Europe in instigating the recent events in Ukraine.

Are you suggesting a change to the article? Beach drifter (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Negative, I posted it for consideration that there are some alternative points of view on the given situation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a war were to occur

When the 2013 Korean crisis was happening, we agreed in the talk page that if war were to break out, a separate article would be made. This article would stay and act as a build-up to the war. If so, I recommend that the page would be called the "(2014) Russia–Ukraine war" instead of something like the "2014 Crimean war", as the article for the Russia–Georgia war was originally called "2008 South Ossetian war". [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that we wait to see what WP:RS call this conflict. "Russia-Ukraine War" sounds likes its the whole of Russia versus a united Ukraine, and if we can say one thing with clarity, it's that presently Ukraine is far from being a united, functioning nation-state. --Tocino, 17:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
For the Russia–Georgia war, it wasn't a "united Georgia" as Abkhazia and South Ossetia were fighting against Georgia. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 17:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but Georgia wasn't only a week off from a violent revolution before its president decided to invade South Ossetia. Not even taking Crimea into the equation, the post-revolution government in Kiev is not supported in many places in Ukraine proper (specifically Eastern and Southern Ukraine). This situation is just as likely to descend into civil war, than it is for Ukraine to suddenly overcome its internal problems and band together to fight for its separatist province against the foreign aggressor. Regardless, we should at least wait for the first known battle between armies, involving casualties on both sides, to occur before we make a drastic move to something like "Russia-Ukraine War". --Tocino 18:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be called the Russian-Ukrainian War.Alhanuty (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the other article is called the Russia–Georgia war, not the Russian–Georgian war. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 17:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for asking, but is the title "2014 invasion of Ukraine" viable, similar to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Wolcott (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me.--MillingMachine (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, or Russian invasion of Ukraine. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of just under 10 minutes ago, the Ukraine is reportedly initiating a full scale mobilization. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236054-2nd-attempt-at-the-Ukriane-discussion-thread&p=7065807&viewfull=1#post7065807 83.70.234.21 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title and Infobox

Should we already replace the civil conflict infobox with a military conflict one?

Is calling it a "crisis" still appropriate? Maybe we should rename it "Russian invasion of Crimea" or "Russian invasion of Ukraine"? There are already sources calling it an "invasion", but they are mostly citing the Ukrainian side [1][2][3] Thoughts? --Երևանցի talk 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait maybe a day or two before it's officially confirmed the invasion has already started. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Titled as occupation Kremlin Clears Way for Force in Ukraine; Separatist Split Feared, Soldier: Yes, I am a Russian. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AP is using the term "de facto military takeover" - I'd be comfortable with a military conflict infobox and possibly a name change (another! yay!) to something like "2014 Russian Occupation of Crimea." Kiralexis (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A military unit can be identified by insignia and belongs to a nation. Masked gunmen with assault weapons are either freedom fighters or terrorists. See Resistance movement. USchick (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Covert operations troops and Irregular military units routinely operate without obvious markings, often leaving means of ID down to observation of signature equipment and tactics. Private Military Contractors (which some suspect have been brought in by the Russians [through a certain Russian Naval office] to augment their initial manpower on the ground) would come under the later category. 83.70.234.21 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that! In order to stay neutral, I think we need to choose words very carefully and accurately. USchick (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the lede

Unmarked military seized the building and held a referendum to install a new Prime Minister. I think this is significant and needs to be incorporated in the lede. Opinions? USchick (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbesian trap

The situation is becoming a Hobbesian trap. Maybe somebody can work that into the text. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Security dilemma would also be relevant. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added links to both in the 'See Also' section. 83.70.234.21 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lets hope the people in power have read up on their Thomas Hobbes. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A forlorn hope, I fear. :( 83.70.234.21 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Budapest Agreement of 1994 [4] is a legal document about the territorial integrity of Ukraine. USchick (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article

This article should be called 2014 Ukraine crisis, the Crimea is part of Ukraine and the full scope of the issue is Ukraine, the Crimea is just one aspect of the full crisis. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The crisis in Ukraine is covered in the Euromaidan article. This crisis is limited to Crimea. I agree that all related articles can be better tied to each other. USchick (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be wise to have admins watch over this page for the potential of nationalist bickering

Measures on Wikipedia can be prepared for now, for the prospect of this page going completely out of control should war or other ethnic violence erupt in Crimea with ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian nationalists making their own claims of what is going on. This will especially be the case if the new government in Crimea declares independence from Ukraine that is not recognized by Ukraine. Precedents on how other controversial declarations of independence have been dealt with on Wikipedia such as on the topic of Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL See - Ukraine. Memorandum on Security Assurances [5] USchick (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not predicting what will happen. I am saying that it may be wise to prepare for what is possible to happen under existing circumstances. Wikipedia can decide to prepare for this, or it can decided not to. It may solve problems by preparing for potential circumstances now. The new Crimean government declared its intention to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine. (http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/28/ukraine-s-crimea-vote-to-hold-a-referendum-on-region-s-future/). To have some admins watch what is being added would be a wise precaution in my opinion.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new government was installed by masked gunmen with assault weapons. Whatever they decide is irrelevant. However, the same gunmen may be headed to Wikipedia, so I agree about admin oversight. USchick (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Europe has a history that is familiar with people with guns forming governments that have exercised influence, their influence should not be disregarded at this point. It is good though that we have some agreement on the need for admins to watch over this page.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better map

The Crimea peninsula.

I tried to make an improvement of the currently used map. I think it is a little more descriptive. I left away any mention of nation states so I hope the map remains neutral. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea blank.
I made a blank raster so people can do translations with Gimp or similar software. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this. We need to confirm where the borders are. according to other maps, the islands belong to Crimea as well. [6] Can we confirm? USchick (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the map uses a geographic definition of peninsula, separating it from the main land at the narrowest point, which would mean that the some of the small islands would be part of the peninsula. Do they have Wikipedia entries? The boundaries on my map are administrative (below nation state). --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This disagreement is about territorial integrity. I like the map you made, but if it's going to be translated to other languages, it needs to be extremely accurate. Maybe use it for English version only, for now? USchick (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take over

We have several sources which state explicitly that Russia has invaded Ukraine and has taken control of Crimea: [7] [8].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western press will call it a take over. Russian press will claim that they are acting legally under military agreements with Ukraine that permit Russian military forces to operate in Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine clearly doesn't share the Kremlin's unique perspective on said agreements, and Russian state-owned media are not reliable sources. If we have reliable sources calling this what it is -- a takeover of Crimea by the Russian military -- we should call it that, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed sources are reliable. It would help if editors actually read the proposed comments before stating an opinion. USchick (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new Ukrainian government that overthrew the previous government a matter of days ago does not share Russia's perspective. What about the ousted President Yanukovich who still claims power? What about people in Eastern Ukraine who are pro-Russian? This is a complex issue, it depends on what happens on the ground. Quoting several Western media outlets is not going to make the matter easier.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. What does that have to do with the map? USchick (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
There was an invasion, not by Armed forces, but by unidentified terrorists. USchick (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were invited by the acting prime minister as "peace keepers." No invasion according to them. USchick (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The acting "prime minister" was installed by the Russians after the previous one was removed at gunpoint. --Article editor (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the new government of Ukraine also came in at gunpoint. Now both governments claim to be legitimate. That's why this crisis is part of a revolution. USchick (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new government came in after the previous president was impeached by the legislature, including by members of his own party. --Article editor (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They both denounce each other, that's why its a revolution. USchick (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are you talking about? Please provide a few. --Երևանցի talk 00:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one. [10] --Article editor (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please reed the article you posted. According to the article, there was no invasion. Russia informed Ukraine in advance. USchick (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does informing in advance makes an invasion not an invasion? --Article editor (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At first, they were moving their existing troops, so they gave notification. Later, they were invited by the PM. In both cases, not an invasion according to the Russians. So far no one has challenged them. Except you. :) USchick (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I for one feel this needs to be a separate article. This Thug is blatantly ignoring the will of the Ukrainian People. Nice how he waited to act until after the closing of the Winter Olympics!--Subman758 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, the Olympic truce was still in effect, so Putin had to pay it at least lip service. 83.70.234.21 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is no "invasion". Crimea is ethnically solidly Russian. I think liberation is more accurate. Do you grasp the complex nationalist and racist (on the part of the Ukraine) issues here? Irondome (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Russia "liberate" Russian-speaking Ukrainians? --Article editor (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. If Russia is sending troops into Crimea, which is Ukrainian territory, then "invasion" is the appropriate and correct term. If.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnicity has eeverything to do with it considering the demonstrable racism that the Ukrainian Govt has expressed. We have Russian being banned as a the second langusge in the Ukraine, and openly neo-nazi elements operating in the Ukrainian administration. The largest proportion of Crimeans are ethnic Russians. They feel no loyalty to Kiev. The nuances of the situation are not being reflected in WP coverage at this point I feel. Irondome (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're not troops, they're "peace keepers" invited by the Prime Minister. USchick (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yerevantsi hasn't voted/commented in this survey. Are you confused or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Երևանցի USchick (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it looks like I'm the one who's confused. My apologies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "crisis" is the common name used in the news media.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - The word invasion is clearly taking a pro-west side in the conflict. Ask someone from one of the many cities in Eastern Ukraine and they'll call it liberation/protection from an anti-democratic removal of their country's leader. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral on such sensitive, rapidly developing issues. Even the typically biased western media isn't calling this an invasion. LokiiT (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. USchick (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comment by LokiiT. Support merging Russian invasion of Crimea into this article at least for the time being, it is just splitting the issue in two. This is a complex and volatile issue and as LokiiT says it is rapidly developing. Any decision to rename this should be exercised carefully, and consideration should be made about bringing in Wikipedia administrators to monitor this page.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This issue isn't as simple as "Russia invades Crimea". There are underlying issues that this article discusses, i.e. Crimean grievances with the new authorities in Kiev, long-term pro-Russian separatist feelings, etc. Besides, there has not been one direct engagement between the Russian and national Ukrainian armies as of yet. "Crisis" is the most neutral word that we can use while the situation still plays itself out --Tocino 03:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

For such an important article, the text is bad. Poor English, lack of flow, etc. Let's put some effort into the presentation as well as the facts. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Crimean_crisis&oldid=597760855"