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 128.189.191.222 (talk) at 10:16, 24 March 2014 (→Violation of Neutral POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unbalanced pro-intervention message in Russian 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In summary: - an opinion isn't a summary. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great reasoning there mate, you sure got me. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:OSE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! --benlisquareT•C•E 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
In another words you both refuse to discuss the problems of Russian governmental media - "a certain ethnicity" and You Tube. No, thank you! Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can sum up how reliable Russia Today is by just reading the comments sections. Seriously take a shot everytime someone says the word Zion...you will have liver cancer in less than 10 minutes. 82.20.70.162 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're cherry picking, it's widely known that a significant portion of online commentators make silly comments. Why stop at RT, when you can look at the Disqus feed on CNN.com? Or the comments section at Huffington Post? Your comment addressing what online commentators say has nothing to do with the reliability and trustworthiness of media outlets, and you're essentially distracting away from the main issue. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that the RT is a Mr Putin propaganda tool and CNN isn't Mr Obama propaganda tool. The boss or RT declared that the RT is an army which participates in the war. Does CNN participate in the war? Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the хуй does that have to do with the point that I originally stated? If you have a source, you determine its value by reading it and critically appraising it. You don't brush it aside because of a label you give to the person or organization who made it. This is the fundamental principle behind neutrally assessing news and information sources without being partisan. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, even though your point regarding CNN was completely irrelevant, it appears to be misguided as well. CNN is a democrat-leaning agency that is often critical of the Republican Party. Sure, CNN isn't directly owned by the US Federal Government, however the CEO and Chairman have direct stakes in the Democrat Party, and have various links to individuals belonging to said party. Then there are agencies which are Republican-leaning that are often critical of the Democrat Party. Things are not as simple as you're making them out to be. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you bother to read CNN#Ratings and reception. Almost all news agencies have some sort of bias, including those in the "truly democratic" country. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN isn't a propaganda tool of an army which invided land X, RT is. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is really starting to venture into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have used a 4-letter word, please remove. Wikipedia talk pages are not for vulgarisms. Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of comment section. Recently many Western press like Reuters, the Guardian and CNN are plagued by enthusiastic anti-EU/US comments in every single report regarding Crimea. I think that hurts their credibility a lot. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Ukraine if you don't toe the line they'll personally come to your station and beat you up. If this is what they're doing in front of cameras, what are they doing off-camera? 99.226.48.235 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine has been invided by an enemy. Any nation has problems with freedom of opinions when attacked, compare the USA after 9/11 or Russian murdering of journalists and anti-freedem laws. Did Russia protest after the murder of Georgiy Gongadze the way it uses the beating?Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect flags (info box)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, why are you changing the flagicons on non-Ukrainian personages to the Ukrainian flag? Especially in the case of the turncoat Denis Berezovsky. 83.70.227.237 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Berezovsky is a Ukrainian citizen same as Timurgaliev and Yanukovych. All this regional area flags is inappropriate as there is no such sovereign state as Crimea or Tatarstan. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either remove the flags, or restore the regional ones. Using only Ukrainian and Russian flags is very confusing, especially when separatists have the Ukrainian flag. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done 83.70.227.237 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I say again. There is no such countries like Crimea nor Tatarstan. All of them are federal subjects. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they are federal subjects. The only purpose of the flags is to identify what the people represent. Putting Ukrainian flags on people who don't consider themselves Ukrainian doesn't give the reader information, it misleads them. This could be sidestepped by removing the flags altogether. RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to remove them, but speculating whether person consider himself Ukrainian or not is a personal point of view. Pledging allegiance does not necessarily change their consideration especially if it was done towards a non-existing country. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a certain procedure on obtaining a citizenship. Just because one considers to become a national of one country, it does not automatically make him that. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Aksyonov has officially adopted the citizenship of Russia, while before that he was the Ukrainian state serviceman. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's why it makes sense to remove the flags, and sidestep the issue. Can we do that? RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against. I am against of posting some weird flags for people, countries of which they do not represent. Did you see Crimea or Tatarstan participating in the Olympics? Of course, not. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. So let's remove the flags from people who are ambiguous. Can you list the people that you think are ambiguous in this regard? RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vitko is the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, but the article flies a Russian flag for him, while another military man from Tatarstan all of sudden has a different flag. What is that??? People from Crimea all have Crimean regional flag, while persons representing Tatar Mejlis all of sudden are under a different flag. Those people are still from Crimea. So, do you see that there is no consistency and it only adds ambiguity. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let me go ahead and remove them. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The referendum was recognized by no one and the country was admitted to the Russian Federation the very next day. Did not you see that coming that Russia had intentions to annex the Crimea from a get go?? It was not about self-determination, it was a pure farce. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you only listen to yourself alone... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? I understand that. But we have to have neutral point of view. Displaying Ukrainian flags for secessionist people violates NPOV. Having no flag doesn't do any harm, and sidesteps the issue. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you RGloucester. It is confusing to have inappropriate Ukraine flags next to non-Ukrainian secessionists.Canadianking123 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yanukovych in infobox

Yanukovych is currently listed as a lead figure on the Russian side. He is generally pro-Russian and certainly against the current government of Ukraine but in this context it gives the impression that he supports Crimea becoming part of Russia or independent from Ukraine. The listed reference [1] from 4 March only claims that "on Saturday" (that would be 1 March, before Crimea declared intention of independence), he requested Moscow's intervention to protect the country's Russian-speaking people. It isn't mentioned whether he requested intervention in Crimea or other parts of Ukraine. [2] from the day before says he "urged Russia to refrain from military intervention in the southern Crimea region". He was ousted before things escalated in Crimea and I think he should be removed from the infobox unless a better more recent source is given. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Take him out. RGloucester — ☎ 01:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed him from {{2014 Crimean crisis infobox}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KIA

Actually the same guy killed the ppl on both sides. If somebody looks for the first time at the article it's quite unclear what happened. Probably someone can change it.--Wrant (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reshat Ametov (38 years old) - kidnapped by the Crimean self-defense, later was found dead with signs of torture." Did you read article provided by link? Here nothing about that this men was kiddnepped by self-defense, nothing. It was we name as propaganda. West propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.64.188.122 (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it appears that there controversy about the so called Simferopol incident. I agree to remove the KIA as there is no proof that there even was any combat yet.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defectors

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140321/188640257/72-Crimean-Military-Units-Request-Joining-Russia.html --77.7.109.165 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of events needed

The timeline section is virtually blank as it only points to a separate article. This is ridiculous, because, as such, an article about the crisis doesn't even summarize what happened from mid February to now. For example, only the introduction lines mention the 2014 referendum directly. In the main body, while there are multiple mentions of it, none of directly says "there was a referendum" in the first place. There is no sentence in the main article like "on March 15, a referendum was held in Crimea and in Sevastopol".

While we keep a separate article for the time, I think we do need a short summary here, containing key events only. 128.189.191.222 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be at least some description of what happened during the crisis. The day by day description should remain in the other article though. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Neutral POV

I realize that most of the people are Americans who are being subjected to intense propaganda, or politically active Ukrainians who want to force their view of the story to the public, but in any case, let's stay rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.81.150 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write about editors but quote reliable sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please list some NPOV violations or other problems in the article. Randomly criticising other editors for forcing their view or not being rational doesn't help anything when you've offered no explaination of what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2014_Crimean_crisis_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=600956625 is not the best way to teach here neutrality.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A nice example to teach what neutrality is not. 128.189.191.222 (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Crimean_crisis&oldid=601011038"