This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The lead used to say this is a diplomatic crisis. That link, however, is a redirect that actually takes the reader - surprise! - to the article "International crisis". When I first went there, I found a 1970's era definition that asserted a very precise definition. However, admittedly quickie research turned up a 2011 journal article saying that although it is bandied about on every street corner and news outlet, this phrase has no common definition. So its a meaningless bit of verbiage in the first sentence of what should be an insightful and pithy WP:LEAD summary. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see a reason to list so many articles to the crimson crisis, for example, Ukrainian Air Force Ukrainian Ground Forces and Ukrainian Marine Corps are already covered by the blanket term Internal Troops of Ukraine, Naval Infantry (Russia), Spetsnaz and Spetsnaz GRU should really just be covered by Russian armed forces, things like Hobbesian trap, Security dilemma are really too vague and all-encompassing terms, where should we stop? wouldn't Diplomatic crisis, International crisis, Military occupation, Military intervention and a whole lot of other terms and sociological 'war' theories like the hobbesian trap have to be included as well?
I'd like to keep it in the model of the 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis no need to go way overboard and mention the great games, unless maybe it does in fact, eventually, escalate into a cold war II but so far i don't see those links as warrented, and most don't even mention the 2014 crimean crisis in their respective articles, which they would if it were significant enough for them.
For now I'd like to keep it concrete and list those articles, not yet mentioned which are applicable, such as the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine which deserves a spot way more then any of the articles mentioned. — Wiki winkers ( talk) 19:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The Yatsenyuk Government has only been in power for a matter of days, and while it appears to have de facto control over much of Ukraine and much of the Ukrainian military, the issue of recognition of the government has arisen, with Russia saying it does not recognize the government, and there are those loyal to Victor Yanukovych who recognize him as the legitimate President of the Ukraine. I don't know if the UN has recognized the Yatsenyuk Government, but if it hasn't that raises issues about how to address the side of large parts of Ukraine that support the Yatsenyuk Government.
If it does not have UN recognition, but is widely regarded to be in charge of most of Ukraine, I recommend the table at the side of the page still using the word "Ukraine", but having a note reference beside it that says "De facto control over large parts of Ukraine is held by the Yatsenyuk Government and forces supporting it".
As for the Pro-Yanukovych elements, state "Pro-Yanukovych supporters" in the table.
So does the Yatsenyuk Government have recognition from the UN?-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead of the article states that "There were over 90 casualties, 320 missing and more than 1,700 injured" (without any source), while the info box says that there are "Several serious injuries, and 2–3 civilians dead" (and even this one has only sources in ukrainian or russian as I can not see the difference).
This is a serious mismatch. And this reduces the quality of the article. From an outside perspective like mine, this looks like propaganda..
Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 19:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that this is a complicated and fast-moving event, but as of March 5, there are over 880 words and ten paragraphs in the introduction. According to WP:LEADLENGTH, as a general rule of thumb, introductions should not be over four paragraphs long. We are six paragraphs over that limit at the moment. All in favor of doing a little trimming? -- Tocino 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
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 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
Whoever rewrote the lede didn't do a very good job. In the first paragraph, the number of casualties from another battle unrelated to Crimea…why is that in this article? The didn't "pledge" to hold a referendum, they VOTED. Can we restore it back to something more accurate please? USchick ( talk) 20:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
The commentary section is just a source of misinformation. Just because someone says something and there is a reference they said it doesn't mean it belongs here. For example,
Not sure who this guy is:
Volodymyr Panchenko, of the Kiev-based think-tank International Center for Policy Studies, says that the aim of Russia is for Crimea to be "more or less controlled by Russian troops," but that if or when a referendum is held "more than 80 percent" of votes would be for secession from Ukraine. The way events are unfolding in Crimea "is not a good precedent for the other provinces."[231]
But a recent Gallop poll http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf has only 23% percent wanting to to be part of Russia. The number of 80% is purely pulled out of his rear end and not worth putting in the article. Actually the whole section needs to be deleted if it just mean to be a bunch of opinion not based on facts. -- MarsRover ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@MarsRover, your poll is about people who want "be part of Russia", the commentary is about "secession from Ukraine" and troop presence, so your argument is very poor WP:SYN. Your next comment about "Ukrainians and Taters make up more than 30%" is violation of WP:OR. stick to sources. -- PLNR ( talk) 02:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Should anything be mentioned about the ICBM that Russia just tested over Astrakhan? They were said to be planed ahead of time, but so were the other Russian wargames, and they are mentioned. -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In the lead, there is this sentence:
There is some sources that confirm that masked gunmen took control of some buildings, and put russian flags in some places. But there is no source that said that the gunmen actually dismissed the government. This should not be in the lead. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
gunmen seized parliament, and then parliament voted for the PM under gunpoint (since they still occupied the building). -- Львівське ( говорити) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoever is writing this new lead is doing their best to present the pro-Kiev side of the conflict. A statement like "yet they had equipment exclusive to Russian high-readiness reconnaissance troops" is complete speculation and serves only to undermine the Russian point of view, especially since it's not attributed, but presented as an indisputable fact. We have no idea what equipment they had available to them. This whole lead needs to be re-written. It's not even a half-hearted attempt at being NPOV. LokiiT ( talk) 00:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Look at the map that shows the population. Sevastopol is almost half of the population, and even if all those people started to complain, they are not part of the Republic of Crimea. They belong to Ukraine. USchick ( talk) 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is here: [8]. This proposal may require this article to change the language used here if it distinguishes Crimea from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Not the guy that changed the map, but, the blue version was better, since it coincides with the map in the intoduction, where ukraine is portrayed with shades of green. — Wiki winkers ( talk) 19:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary [9] - no, there is no rule that Russian or Ukrainian sources can not be used because one or the other user can't read Russian or Ukrainian. Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I read many articles and watched TV news over the last days, and no source ever said that civilian were killed. Normally, this is the kind of information that will be told on mainstream media. Is it really true?
And the "2-3" number is very unspecific. What happened? One of these 3 is only partly dead? Or maybe they are missing, so someone thought that they were dead... I could understand if it was "thousands of casualties" as it is difficult to have a precise count, but "2-3" is not very clear. Also, the sources are of dubious unreadable sources, mostly in Cyrillic. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Then, is it 2? Or is it 3?. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/757-VII says February 22. Xx236 ( talk) 10:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Why 2014 Crimean "crisis"? Why not make the subject more specific of what this "crisis" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.57.134 ( talk) 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
News articles refer to this event as an "occupation" not a "crisis"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.57.163 ( talk) 08:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
On March 7, Reuters quoted Serhiy Astakhov, an aide to the Ukrainian border guards' commander, as saying there were 30,000 Russian troops in Crimea, compared to 11,000 permanently based in Sevastopol before the crisis. [11] Sca ( talk) 15:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"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) Reading the article, and seeing the biased presentation of "facts", and understanding that even *I* could (if I had the time) revise the article to be more even-handed, leads me to one conclusion. Russia doesn't have as good propaganda machine as many would suppose. I would think editing the Wiki article would be a priority for them. Nehmo ( talk) 11:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Serb Chetnik volunteers are in the crimea, helping the Russians patrol the roads and such http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEamSFsnHkA http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f90ru_pro-russian-serbian-volunteers-help-patrol-crimea-roads_news http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbian-fighters-head-to-crimea http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/who-is-milutin-malisic-leader-of-chetniks-in-crimea/
Should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.54.36 ( talk) 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
See here, but the same countries who argued this and won their argument then are now supporting the position Russia took at the time. But what are the legal experts writing about Crimea now? Count Iblis ( talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
What international law says about holding referendums at gun point(we still don't have any real confirmation about the votes in Crimea? Right now Crimea legal body isn't recognized by anyone and Russian troops controll of another sovereign state territory is an international law issue. -- PLNR ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Kosovo ruling implies more generally that International law does not necessarily have to agree with the consitution of a country in the sense that it will say that one or the other party is correct, even if one party clearly violates the national constitution. International law allows for a group to (attempt to) break away from a country in violation of the national constitution and also for that country to fight that breakaway attempt. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
A large block of text and references with this section's name in a leading comment was deleted in < https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=598498705 #598498705>. Was that intended/desired? Morfusmax ( talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
China is listed as a supporter of Russia, but the Chinese government has actually OPPOSED Russian direct intervention and the proposed referendum as interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. ludahai 魯大海 ( talk) 00:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to determine the most appropriate place to introduce material on the internet dimension to the Crimean crisis. There's some good reporting documenting attacks on website of state agencies and news organizations; disruptions of mobile communications; and censorship. Looking for input on whether this would be the most fitting article to add this info. TheBlueCanoe 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Soffredo moved this article to "2014 Crimean political crisis" [13], before I moved it back to the current title shortly afterwards. His reason for the move was to show "the difference from the military intervention article". I moved it back because: A) There was no WP:RM B) It was an attempt to make a clearer distinction between this article and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article, but the the fact that there are two articles about essentially the same subject is controversial and currently under discussion on the talk page of the other article. -- Tocino 04:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a link from Forbes about one way to get Putin's attention, as in, "You're next." Unlikely Obama would have the kohones, though. [14]. If someone thinks this belongs in the article, it could probably go in the comentary section. Although it seems 2 B a sort of op-ed. piece, the author has strong academic credentials. (See bio in article.) Paavo273 ( talk) 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
should the Serbian Chetniks Volunteers also be mentioned ? http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/crimea-crisis-group-of-serbs-arrived-in-sevastopol-to-support-local-self-defens-units/ -- Shumokuzame33 ( talk) 11:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The lead used to say this is a diplomatic crisis. That link, however, is a redirect that actually takes the reader - surprise! - to the article "International crisis". When I first went there, I found a 1970's era definition that asserted a very precise definition. However, admittedly quickie research turned up a 2011 journal article saying that although it is bandied about on every street corner and news outlet, this phrase has no common definition. So its a meaningless bit of verbiage in the first sentence of what should be an insightful and pithy WP:LEAD summary. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see a reason to list so many articles to the crimson crisis, for example, Ukrainian Air Force Ukrainian Ground Forces and Ukrainian Marine Corps are already covered by the blanket term Internal Troops of Ukraine, Naval Infantry (Russia), Spetsnaz and Spetsnaz GRU should really just be covered by Russian armed forces, things like Hobbesian trap, Security dilemma are really too vague and all-encompassing terms, where should we stop? wouldn't Diplomatic crisis, International crisis, Military occupation, Military intervention and a whole lot of other terms and sociological 'war' theories like the hobbesian trap have to be included as well?
I'd like to keep it in the model of the 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis no need to go way overboard and mention the great games, unless maybe it does in fact, eventually, escalate into a cold war II but so far i don't see those links as warrented, and most don't even mention the 2014 crimean crisis in their respective articles, which they would if it were significant enough for them.
For now I'd like to keep it concrete and list those articles, not yet mentioned which are applicable, such as the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine which deserves a spot way more then any of the articles mentioned. — Wiki winkers ( talk) 19:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The Yatsenyuk Government has only been in power for a matter of days, and while it appears to have de facto control over much of Ukraine and much of the Ukrainian military, the issue of recognition of the government has arisen, with Russia saying it does not recognize the government, and there are those loyal to Victor Yanukovych who recognize him as the legitimate President of the Ukraine. I don't know if the UN has recognized the Yatsenyuk Government, but if it hasn't that raises issues about how to address the side of large parts of Ukraine that support the Yatsenyuk Government.
If it does not have UN recognition, but is widely regarded to be in charge of most of Ukraine, I recommend the table at the side of the page still using the word "Ukraine", but having a note reference beside it that says "De facto control over large parts of Ukraine is held by the Yatsenyuk Government and forces supporting it".
As for the Pro-Yanukovych elements, state "Pro-Yanukovych supporters" in the table.
So does the Yatsenyuk Government have recognition from the UN?-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead of the article states that "There were over 90 casualties, 320 missing and more than 1,700 injured" (without any source), while the info box says that there are "Several serious injuries, and 2–3 civilians dead" (and even this one has only sources in ukrainian or russian as I can not see the difference).
This is a serious mismatch. And this reduces the quality of the article. From an outside perspective like mine, this looks like propaganda..
Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 19:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that this is a complicated and fast-moving event, but as of March 5, there are over 880 words and ten paragraphs in the introduction. According to WP:LEADLENGTH, as a general rule of thumb, introductions should not be over four paragraphs long. We are six paragraphs over that limit at the moment. All in favor of doing a little trimming? -- Tocino 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
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 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
Whoever rewrote the lede didn't do a very good job. In the first paragraph, the number of casualties from another battle unrelated to Crimea…why is that in this article? The didn't "pledge" to hold a referendum, they VOTED. Can we restore it back to something more accurate please? USchick ( talk) 20:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
The commentary section is just a source of misinformation. Just because someone says something and there is a reference they said it doesn't mean it belongs here. For example,
Not sure who this guy is:
Volodymyr Panchenko, of the Kiev-based think-tank International Center for Policy Studies, says that the aim of Russia is for Crimea to be "more or less controlled by Russian troops," but that if or when a referendum is held "more than 80 percent" of votes would be for secession from Ukraine. The way events are unfolding in Crimea "is not a good precedent for the other provinces."[231]
But a recent Gallop poll http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf has only 23% percent wanting to to be part of Russia. The number of 80% is purely pulled out of his rear end and not worth putting in the article. Actually the whole section needs to be deleted if it just mean to be a bunch of opinion not based on facts. -- MarsRover ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@MarsRover, your poll is about people who want "be part of Russia", the commentary is about "secession from Ukraine" and troop presence, so your argument is very poor WP:SYN. Your next comment about "Ukrainians and Taters make up more than 30%" is violation of WP:OR. stick to sources. -- PLNR ( talk) 02:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Should anything be mentioned about the ICBM that Russia just tested over Astrakhan? They were said to be planed ahead of time, but so were the other Russian wargames, and they are mentioned. -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In the lead, there is this sentence:
There is some sources that confirm that masked gunmen took control of some buildings, and put russian flags in some places. But there is no source that said that the gunmen actually dismissed the government. This should not be in the lead. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
gunmen seized parliament, and then parliament voted for the PM under gunpoint (since they still occupied the building). -- Львівське ( говорити) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoever is writing this new lead is doing their best to present the pro-Kiev side of the conflict. A statement like "yet they had equipment exclusive to Russian high-readiness reconnaissance troops" is complete speculation and serves only to undermine the Russian point of view, especially since it's not attributed, but presented as an indisputable fact. We have no idea what equipment they had available to them. This whole lead needs to be re-written. It's not even a half-hearted attempt at being NPOV. LokiiT ( talk) 00:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Look at the map that shows the population. Sevastopol is almost half of the population, and even if all those people started to complain, they are not part of the Republic of Crimea. They belong to Ukraine. USchick ( talk) 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is here: [8]. This proposal may require this article to change the language used here if it distinguishes Crimea from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Not the guy that changed the map, but, the blue version was better, since it coincides with the map in the intoduction, where ukraine is portrayed with shades of green. — Wiki winkers ( talk) 19:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary [9] - no, there is no rule that Russian or Ukrainian sources can not be used because one or the other user can't read Russian or Ukrainian. Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I read many articles and watched TV news over the last days, and no source ever said that civilian were killed. Normally, this is the kind of information that will be told on mainstream media. Is it really true?
And the "2-3" number is very unspecific. What happened? One of these 3 is only partly dead? Or maybe they are missing, so someone thought that they were dead... I could understand if it was "thousands of casualties" as it is difficult to have a precise count, but "2-3" is not very clear. Also, the sources are of dubious unreadable sources, mostly in Cyrillic. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Then, is it 2? Or is it 3?. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/757-VII says February 22. Xx236 ( talk) 10:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Why 2014 Crimean "crisis"? Why not make the subject more specific of what this "crisis" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.57.134 ( talk) 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
News articles refer to this event as an "occupation" not a "crisis"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.57.163 ( talk) 08:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
On March 7, Reuters quoted Serhiy Astakhov, an aide to the Ukrainian border guards' commander, as saying there were 30,000 Russian troops in Crimea, compared to 11,000 permanently based in Sevastopol before the crisis. [11] Sca ( talk) 15:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"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) Reading the article, and seeing the biased presentation of "facts", and understanding that even *I* could (if I had the time) revise the article to be more even-handed, leads me to one conclusion. Russia doesn't have as good propaganda machine as many would suppose. I would think editing the Wiki article would be a priority for them. Nehmo ( talk) 11:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Serb Chetnik volunteers are in the crimea, helping the Russians patrol the roads and such http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEamSFsnHkA http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f90ru_pro-russian-serbian-volunteers-help-patrol-crimea-roads_news http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbian-fighters-head-to-crimea http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/who-is-milutin-malisic-leader-of-chetniks-in-crimea/
Should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.54.36 ( talk) 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
See here, but the same countries who argued this and won their argument then are now supporting the position Russia took at the time. But what are the legal experts writing about Crimea now? Count Iblis ( talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
What international law says about holding referendums at gun point(we still don't have any real confirmation about the votes in Crimea? Right now Crimea legal body isn't recognized by anyone and Russian troops controll of another sovereign state territory is an international law issue. -- PLNR ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Kosovo ruling implies more generally that International law does not necessarily have to agree with the consitution of a country in the sense that it will say that one or the other party is correct, even if one party clearly violates the national constitution. International law allows for a group to (attempt to) break away from a country in violation of the national constitution and also for that country to fight that breakaway attempt. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
A large block of text and references with this section's name in a leading comment was deleted in < https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=598498705 #598498705>. Was that intended/desired? Morfusmax ( talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
China is listed as a supporter of Russia, but the Chinese government has actually OPPOSED Russian direct intervention and the proposed referendum as interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. ludahai 魯大海 ( talk) 00:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to determine the most appropriate place to introduce material on the internet dimension to the Crimean crisis. There's some good reporting documenting attacks on website of state agencies and news organizations; disruptions of mobile communications; and censorship. Looking for input on whether this would be the most fitting article to add this info. TheBlueCanoe 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Soffredo moved this article to "2014 Crimean political crisis" [13], before I moved it back to the current title shortly afterwards. His reason for the move was to show "the difference from the military intervention article". I moved it back because: A) There was no WP:RM B) It was an attempt to make a clearer distinction between this article and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article, but the the fact that there are two articles about essentially the same subject is controversial and currently under discussion on the talk page of the other article. -- Tocino 04:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a link from Forbes about one way to get Putin's attention, as in, "You're next." Unlikely Obama would have the kohones, though. [14]. If someone thinks this belongs in the article, it could probably go in the comentary section. Although it seems 2 B a sort of op-ed. piece, the author has strong academic credentials. (See bio in article.) Paavo273 ( talk) 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
should the Serbian Chetniks Volunteers also be mentioned ? http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/crimea-crisis-group-of-serbs-arrived-in-sevastopol-to-support-local-self-defens-units/ -- Shumokuzame33 ( talk) 11:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)