This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 Crimean crisis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 CrimeaVolodomyr 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.
If there is a conflict between the sources, we should give preference to the English language source over the foreign language source. --Tocino02:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
2014 Crimea conflict
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
infobox POV
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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:
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. --Tocino08:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
United Russia
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
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)
Rename
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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 Advocatetlk.cntrb.02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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. --Tocino02:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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 Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Berkut shoulder insignia
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Requested move 28 February 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion
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.
Support - Accurately describes the situation at present and nobody in media calls it "crimea unrest" so WP:COMMON doesnt even apply --Львівське (говорити) 22:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - I think "crisis" is rather mild -- it's an armed takeover -- but "unrest" is certainly no longer an acceptable descriptor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy. -- This is an invasion; and so ought be called that bluntly and without timidity. "Unrest" and "crisis" are banal weasel words; and astute encyclopedias should not being taking their naming cues from media preponderances anyway. Edit: at least Yahoo is now calling it an invasion. --Froglich (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that per Wikipedia:Article titlesArticle 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.
Anti-Ukrainian sentiments
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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. --Երևանցիtalk02:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
Title and Infobox
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
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? --Երևանցիtalk17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Take over
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
Strategic issues should be looked into as to causes of the crisis
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So far there are a lot of claims here of national grievances, etc., but nothing addressing strategic issues. For instance the issue of the new Ukrainian government aligning itself with the West and what role that might have in affecting Russia's military agreements with Ukraine involving its Black Sea Fleet being based in Crimea. This is something that should be looked into.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Some of us here were involved in the Ghouta chemical attack WP article back in august. I see some similarities in our intial responses. We by consusus avoided the use of loaded terms, and deeply debated media sources, POVs very frankly. We had to have admin protection, (we will need semi protect within hours I suspect now) We basically saved and rebuilt to a good WP standard, what was a mess, to a balanced real time evolving article. I suggest we revisit our methodologies there. Represent both sides! Do not reflect either camps media grouphink! Provide a more nuanced and highly cited narrative, bringing in more background! I was literally just back from a 3 month Wikibreak, and it is nice to encounter this. The joys of WP..Irondome (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Clarification on Councils
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
"The Crimean parliament approved a no-confidence vote for regional Prime Minister Anatoly Mogilev’s government and replaced him with Sergey Aksyonov of Crimea's Russian Unity party." [6]USchick (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
More sources [7][8] :According to this article, Aleksei Chalyi is the Mayor of Sevastopol [9] Which council?
1. In a plenary session, the Supreme Council of Crimea passed a motion of no confidence in the Council of Ministers of Crimea and adopted a resolution to terminated its powers.
2. In addition, the parliament dismissed Anatoliy Mohyliov as the chairman of the Crimean Council of Ministers pursuant to Article 136 of the Constitution of Ukraine. [11]USchick (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Sergey Aksyonov, has been voted in as the new Chairman of the Council of Ministers.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.169.154 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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]19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Crisis is good for now only but if things go bad in these days it should be changed to "2014 Russian invasion of Crimea" or something like that. Adnan Hz 97 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the Budapest Memorandum (actually made up of three intergovernmental memorandums) is increasingly a dead letter, unfortunately. 83.70.254.132 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No Russian invasion seems to be happening (in near future)
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
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).
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]19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia would be wise to have admins watch over this page for the potential of nationalist bickering
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
Admins should be on the lookout for openly biased editors here. I already see ones on this page denouncing the actions of Russia or Ukraine. This is not a place for general discussion of what is going on, but for discussing adding content. Users who are openly denouncing the Russian or Ukrainian governments, or Crimean government for that matter, are not demonstrating their ability to calmly address the situation in neutral, non-inflammatory language. No doubt that will be difficult for people with strong sympathies in this crisis, but our business here is to uphold NPOV, and inflammatory language here is not acceptable. Users who use such inflammatory language here should get get the boot by administrators.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Better map
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Thank you for doing this. We need to confirm where the borders are. according to other maps, the islands belong to Crimea as well. [15] Can we confirm? USchick (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think the territorial dispute is one level above what my map shows. Nobody is disputing the borders between the regions and municipalities. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There's the Peninsula of Crimea and the Republic of Crimea. In English Wiki they are treated the same, which is a mistake. Other languages treat them separately. Sevastopol is not part of the republic of Crimea, but it's located on the Peninsula. No one is disputing the borders between municipalities…. yet. Seems like there are other maps you can use. USchick (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The lines on the map appear to be accurate. However, Sevastopol seems to be the Municipality of Crimea, and it's not. It'c a municipality of Ukraine. USchick (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Armed Forces of Ukraine in crimea
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The Ukraine Navy seems to have disintegrated, or so it seems. It's main HQ and practically all major combat units including it's flagship (Hetman Sahaydachniy) and it's only submarine (Zaporizhzhia) appear to have gone over to the pro-Russian forces or been captured by same. A very large chunk of it's logistical and support infrastructure looks like to have gone the same way. It's command structure is in a mess, if it can be considered to still exist. A least a mention of the current unclear status of the Navy should be made in the article. 83.70.254.132 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Lokalkosmopolit, if the Navy is possibly (even likely) hors de combat, then said possibility should be mentioned, with the qualifier that the actual status is still unclear, whatever your personal feelings on the matter may be. I'll leave your edit alone for the moment though, to allow others to have their say first. 83.70.254.132 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It may be that the Ukrainian Navy has disintegrated, but I haven't seen a source for that apart from some Russians who claim ″victory in Iraqover Ukraine″. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately this seems to be true [16]. The article about him says he was appointed as commander-in-chief of the navy by President Oleksandr Turchynov on 1 March 2014. I expected dangerous results once the power sharing agreement broke down in Kiev but Putin has been way more aggressive than even analysts expected. I couldn't find the article now but a politologist suggested some weeks ago that Putin won't violate territorial integrity in favour of separatists as he's conservative and against all kinds of revolutions. The politologist was proven wrong. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There is military maneuvering and deployment, but no shots have yet been fired. It does not yet fit the definition of a war. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If Russian military maneuvering inside the sovereign territory of Ukraine, it is an invasion.--PLNR (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You do realize the first article link I mentioned took place before Coalition forces invaded Iraq right? Hostilities didn't start until 19 March 2003. So how can they call it anti-war protest if they took place on days like February 15? Wolcott (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Two Articles?
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Do we need a 2014 Crimean Crisis article and a 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article? The Russians have intervened as part of the Crisis, after all. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It seems illogical to have two separate articles about two events the are so intertwined with each other, one ties to the other. Russia states it is protecting its interest in the regions. This all has to do with the conflict in Crimea. It is not neutral to all sides that we call this an invasion. How exactly are the Crimean "crisis" and "invasion" different? Viller the Great (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The only reason the other article exists is because someone decided to prematurely start a Russian invasion of Crimea article, and instead of being deleted it was renamed to something more based in reality. I agree however that these two articles should be merged into one, as there is a huge amount of redundancy and they are essentially the same topic. LokiiT (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is an official summary about a telephone conversation between Lavrov and Minister Wang Yi from earlier today here. It says that Lavrov presented Russia's position about the recent situation in Ukraine, that there was an intensive exchange of opinions, and both sides agree that a careful handling of the current crisis is very important for maintaining regional peace and stability.
Not sure if it is relevant to the article. It adds little to yesterday's remarks by Qin Gang, on the other hand it obviously sounds quite different from the "broad agreement" that Lavrov claimed earlier today. Yaan (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Nazi Germany comparisons
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
In my opinion, I think we should avoid comparisons with Nazi Germany, especially in the lead.
Perhaps, this could be suitable in the 'Reactions' section (I am ambivalent), but we should avoid any nazi comparisons in the introduction.
This should apply to both sides:
Comparison of Ukraine invasion by Russia with the Poland invasion by Nazis following the 1936 olympics.
Referring to the Ukrainian government as 'fascists'.
I agree this (if kept) should go into reactions. Furthermore the 'Prominent figures' (or at least the major ones) should be named in the article, no point having a reaction simply labeled as 'Prominent figures', one should be more specific then that. 95.91.248.229 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Having that Nazi Germany comparison in the lede is way OTT, and should be removed immediately. I would broadly agree that such comparisons are seriously unhelpful. I would include that category specious and factually innapropriate comparisons such as the annexation of Sudentenland, or that the Ukraine is some new nazi Germany. However, I think mention of far-right groups and their relationship with the new Ukrainian Govt would be legitimate areas to develop if this was echoed by unfolding events and coverage of any Western unease in the MSM. The BBC already made a short 2 min piece, about 4 days ago, interviewing a neo-nazi street patrol in Kiev. If there is RS indicated a Russian equivalence, that should of course be covered too. But no whole-state comparisons with the nazis crap Irondome (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If it is reliably sourced, and the comparison is made by public figures or other well-known personalities, then it is notable and must be in the article. But probably not in the lead. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
if it's reliably sourced and widely compared, why not? Russian media talking about phantom fascists is one thing, but comparing military maneuvers that are similar to provide useful historical context is another. --Львівське (говорити) 22:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
What is a phantom fascist? The Right Sector is openly fascist and openly anti-semetic/russophobic. They have made public statements calling on terrorist leaders to attack Russia. This is a lot more concrete and based in reality than yet another tired Putin = Hitler comparison. LokiiT (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not say that the source was unreliable, or that it is completely irrelevant, but in my opinion there should not be any Nazi comparison in the lead. There is already a comment in the 'Reactions' section, I think it is enough. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If major world leaders are making the comparison and the comparison is being reported in reliable sources, then there is no reason to remove it.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
These comparisons get stale and meaningless when they're made every time a major power uses its military. I see no harm in leaving this in the article, as they are indeed prominent figures and the sources seem reliable enough. However it does not belong in the lead and should not be given prominence. LokiiT (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave changes to this article out of my hands, but I do recall in my own readings about Germany seizing Sudetenland (part of the then Czechoslovakia, and which had ethnic Germans) and Austria (latter event was the "Anschluss").
Move to Occupation of Crimea - Requested move 03 March 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion
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.
Oppose Maybe we should wait some time. There is still no formal war yet, and no casualties in Crimea that I am aware of. Maybe in a couple of days there will be a diplomatic solution, and not a real occupation like in South Ossetia Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry for my wrong English.) I think it can wait some time (maybe to tomorrow). In my opinion, a military occupation does not matter whether the war is declared, it is crucial factual situation. The occupation and war is something else. During the occupation it may not make war. Porolissum-DE (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that in a few days to find a diplomatic solution and that, therefore, this occupation will only take a few days. For occupation, if it meets the definition, is not required casualties. Porolissum-DE (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked. It is actually also a possible option. Why the article is named "Russian military intervention in Ukraine", if "military intervention" is redirected to "peacekeeping"? The current situation in Crimea is certainly not peacekeeping. I don't understand it. I think, that we can wait a few days (here is a term of 7 days) and during that time discuss it. Porolissum-DE (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This would be POV pushing. There is a dispute on whether Turchynov (Euromaidan movement) or Yanukovych (elected) is the legal president, and it has been reported that Russia has recieved a signed document by Yanukovych where Russian military has been requested. Anonimski (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that several leaders of Czechoslovakia in 1968, also signed the letter to Brezhnev, to occupy Czechoslovakia? Does not the President of Ukraine the right to claim a foreign state on the occupation of their country? Similarly, the president of the USA do such a thing? I do not know, as in England or the USA, but we in Central Europe, we call it high treason. Porolissum-DE (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If someone takes power over airports, offices, military installations and other important buildings, he effectively takes power over the whole territory. Porolissum-DE (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Wait for adoption by the majority of mainstream news outlets and other third-party reliable sources. What the situation "looks like" in reality has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, it needs to be demonstrated that "Occupation of Crimea" is the WP:COMMONNAME in the English language first. --benlisquareT•C•E22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait a few days and possibly the Russian army will do "friendly visit" even in America or Australia. We in Prague had a visit from both the Germans (Hitler, 1939) and the Russians (Brezhnev, 1968). You just have to experience for yourself, the experience is not transferable. Porolissum-DE (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't give a damn what the Russian army will do to America. When I'm discussing Wikipedia policy, it would be great if you don't reply with a splurge of irrelevant talk. --benlisquareT•C•E23:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Support As per 1. "In Crimea, more Russian troops arrived, surrounding military posts and other facilities and taking effective control of the peninsula from Ukrainian authorities. What they planned to do next remained unclear. Up to 12 trucks full of Russian troops crossed into the eastern Crimean city of Kerch from Russia Monday, Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov told CNN.
Additionally, Ukrainian Border Service Assistant Chief Col. Sergei Astakhov said he saw Russian troops move by ferry from Russia across the Strait of Kerch.
As the ferries approached the port, 10 heavily armed troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet attacked the border post from land and used force to overwhelm Ukrainian border guards, Astakhov said.
In another ominous incident, a Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman said the commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet boarded a blocked Ukrainian warship and issued a threat."[1]. 2. All of[2]. 3. In Crimea, meanwhile, Russian troops and aircrafts were already creating “facts on the ground.”[3] 4. "European Union foreign ministers, condemning Russia’s actions, called on Moscow to return its troops to their bases"[4]
These are major media outlets reporting on 2014 occupation of Crimea. To my understanding all English speaking countries by now agree that Russian troops are occupying Crimea, and this is English Wikipedia. Most succesful aggressions start undeclared, and declaration of war is frankly speaking, irrelevant.Psubrat2000 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The situation in Crimea is definitely a "crisis", but we should wait a couple of days/weeks before we could tell that there is a "war" or an "occupation". The situation is too recent, and we do not know yet how it will end. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:34, 3 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.
Copyediting
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Suggestion If there is a desire to trim this article, and I agree that its rapid expansion is a concern, how about we make an "International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis" article, moving the reactions of most states off this article, so that we can keep more valuable details (i.e. actual events happening in Crimea) from being moved away? For me, it's more important to read about the protests, resignations, troop movements, causes of the conflict, etc., than to read about what the foreign ministers of Ireland and Spain have to say. --Tocino02:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
