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 | Archive 6 |
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.
2014 Crimean crisis → 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea – This has changed from a purely political crisis into a military intervention by a foreign power. Article editor ( talk) 23:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Is it really necessary to have 2014 in the title... almost every source simply is referring to it as the Crimean Crisis, it should be renamed similar to the Suez Crisis... There is no other Crimean Crisis that I am aware of, unless we are trying to differentiate from the Crimean War which was quite different… -- Kuzwa ( talk) 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of citation overkill, especially in the first paragraphs. This is probably because the topic is very polarizing, instigating edit wars. Then, editors add more and more sources to "prove" a piece of information is valid. While it is important to make sure information is properly cited, too many citations can impede readability and put off those who are not edit-warring. In order to maintain readability, we should either remove excess citations or merge them. B14709 ( talk) 17:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The new sentence added is a more direct explanation of Russia's position in regards to Svoboda's presence in the new Ukrainian government. Though it is from a Western source, an article on CNN, it explains the concerns addressed by Russia and the European Parliament of the EU over Svoboda. This party is by in large what Russia is referring to in media statements that calls them "fascists" or "Nazis" in the Ukrainian government. In some cases Russia may be referring to the far-right in Ukraine in general, including the Right Sector movement. Svoboda's presence is an issue involved in Russia's claims of justification for intervention. I accept that perhaps a shortened version of that material could be in the intro. However the role of Svoboda in this crisis needs to be addressed in detail in the article given that both Russian and Western press are addressing it.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 00:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
On File:Crimea reaction clean.png the shades of green look almost alike is there a way to fix this with more color contrast? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who takes issue with the colour scheme? Green = good, red = bad? LokiiT ( talk) 23:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As of now, 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine have meaningless huge overlapse. Unfortunately neither of the pages is a clear sub-article of another one. Still, forking the whole section is very bad idea. Clearly it is a current event and not everybody pays attention to WP:Summary style, and the texts may be fixed when the dust settles.
Nevertheless I feel that one such overlap (in fact, 100% mirror) must be nipped in the bud, namely, legal aspects. It looks like the identical text was cut'n'pasted into both articles, but afterwards the efforts of fixers-uppers started to diverge. Therefore, for the purposes of maintenance I suggest to grow this section in one place. - Altenmann >t 06:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Currently the revolution described as pro-Russian vs pro-European Union, unless it is specifically tailored for the protests in the next sentence IMO it rather in accurate. The protest were mostly about government corruption and Russian intervention. It only became as Pro-Russians vs the rest, after the clashes started and healthy dose of propaganda from Russian media.-- PLNR ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In this report by Polish think tank from 2011 Centre for Eastern Studies (which if funded by Polish government and thus can't be seen as pro-Russian), the Svoboda party program includes ethnic discrimination of non-Russians in Ukraine by limiting their numbers in administration, military, state organs and dramatically reducing their civil rights, Svoboda according to them is radically anti-Russian while also anti-Polish [8]
I suggest adding information on program of Svoboda based on non-Russian source coming from NATO and EU aligned country, it seems that Russian objections and concerns for Russian population in Ukraine didn't come from nowhere.It shows that Russian sources informing about nature of Svoboda's government aren't isolated in their assessment.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The user Owner Ming is resorting to sockpuppetry including the account Daithicarr to insert NPOV-violating material into the article 2014 Crimean Crisis while avoiding detection. Daithicarr like Owner Ming is abusing Wikipedia:Getting Started to somehow justify altering material in the article. A discussion on the talk page of that article criticized Owner Ming's editing behaviour. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry clearly states that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. This user must adhere to Wikipedia policy by using one account and cease using multiple accounts at once. However given the repeated editing behaviour and the tenacity to evade detection, I believe this user will not stop voluntarily and therefore they should be reported.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 11:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Im Daithicarr, I am new, im desperately trying to figure out how I can prove im not Userming. It is the first time i edited something. I felt it was so reliant on a very biased news source(RT) that someone should edit it. How can I show im not some other user and what makes you think I am that user? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Daithicarr (
talk •
contribs) 11:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This is infuriating. This is the first time I ever tried to contribute to wikipedia. I set up my account this morning on reading a very biased section of the crime article which only sourced Russia today and claimed that the pro Ukrainian protests were Nazis from western Ukraine. I copied and pasted the section, edited with new references, then re pasted. Please explain how the links you provide illustrate I am some other user. Just for a minute consider maybe I am new to this and haven't a clue what youre on about or how to refute youre ludicrous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that since the article has been changed back to the heavily biased account, you dont agree with my editing, have changed it and then accuse me of being some other user in order to dismiss my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the apology, I in turn apologies for stating that youre accusation was based on disagreeing with the content of my edit. I wrongly assumed it was some way to discredit my attempted contribution. Daithicarr ( talk) 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Be careful with the legal aspects section. It seems to be falling to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. We also need to be extremely careful on legal matter as we cannot in any way or form provide legal opinions (see WP:NOLEGAL). — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
systemic bias}}
template was not created by me. It was created by User:SMcCandlish on this edit:
[13]. Second, whenever you find something on Wikipedia that you beleive to be
WP:OR or unsourced then either tag it with the {{
cn}}
template or the {{
OR}}
template so that we can find a source for it and remove any doubts. I'm not a lawyer, but I tried to balance the prose as much as I could per
WP:FIVEPILLARS (our core) and its extension
WP:FIXIT but came up short. This is exactly why I made this post here: to request help from the community to balance the section into a neutral point of view and to find sources that provide a perspective different than Weller's. Stop accusing me of this or that, and understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative work. Each and everyone of us doesn't have the answers to everything: hence why we request help from the community in cases like this. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 13:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)The description of events around the protests in Crimea itself on the 9th of March seem to be extremely one sided. It is more in keeping with a RT news broadcast.
I would suggest re-editing along the lines of
On March 9 2014 in Sevastopol, at a rally celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko was held by local people opposed to the Russian occupation of Crimea. [1] Russian state owened media denounced the pro-Ukrainian rally as a group of radicals from Western Ukraine started shouting Nazi slogans [2] They also reported that other pro-Maidan activists also opened fire near by the rally before being detained by self-defense squads. [3] However most independent news reports speak of the mainly elderly protestors being confronted by a pro-Russian crowd who then attacked them and threw missiles at a car as they tried to flee the scene, smashing its windows, while cossacks and other pro Russian demonstrators cased and beat other pro-Ukrainian supporters. [4] [5] [6]
What makes you think that, What NPOV material have I added? And how do I go about proving I am a new User not some other guy your referring too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
So apart from supposedly being User Ming, is there any other reason why a version similar to what I have pasted above should not be put in place of the existing heavily Biased Version which is sourced from Russia Today. Daithicarr ( talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Owner Ming (the real one) is continuously reverting any changes back to the original , which is highly biased and comes from one source which isint very reliable given its owned by one of the party's in the conflict. His account also ignores parts of another source he uses which are completely at odds with the information present in the paragraph. Daithicarr ( talk) 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
From
2014 Crimean crisis →
Crimean crisis
Reason: This is the first and only event referred to as "Crimean crisis". Furthermore, we have already established naming conventions for this kind of articles already. Examples include:
What's everyone's opinion?
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have just reviewed an article, its called List of military units on Crimea, I am quite sure that some of the content can be moved to this new page. Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why have the Serbian Chetniks been ommited from the "Parties to the civil conflict" table? They were there until midday March 7th. I demand that they be returned, they are even mentioned in the article as members supporting the Russian forces under Other (non-Russian) involvement: "A group of Chetniks, a Serbian nationalist paramilitary force, have travelled to Crimea to support Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukisuzuki ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As said above, this POV has been inserted multiple times. I suggest that the edit(s) that did this be found and the article reverted to prior to those edits. The editor who did this should be given a clear warning not to insert blatant NPOV-violating material in the article. The same should be the case for editors inserting blatantly anti-Moscow, pro-Kiev POV as well. Wikipedia users must adhere to its principles of NPOV, or else they are violating it. This is a very relevant article for a current event that should not be permitted to be an exception to the rule.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Again using the same double standards than in Syrian civil war-related articles? Again saying that RT is unreliable but Kyiv Post is reliable? Try not to be so partisan, some editors are ruining the declining credibility of WP...-- HC PUNXKID 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that having articles like this one in WP:Getting started is not a very bright idea? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Owner Ming is repeatedly editing the entire article in a manner which is clearly Pro Moscow's point of view. Daithicarr ( talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This article seems very pro-russian so far, it fails to mention many issues, such as the presence of suspected Russian forces in depth and also fails to have neutral point of view. I understand this is another article, but surly at least a paragraph should be dedicated to this subject. I also think this article should be locked, I forget the term for it but I think it's called "protected." 208.97.212.65 ( talk) 14:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the whole paragraph referring to this leaked wiretapped phone call because it has been very thoroughly dealt with in the Ukrainian Revolution page. I don't think it has much relevance to Crimea and, since the quoted source has effectively flatly denied the most important claims, the only explanation I can think of is that Paet was carrying out Moscow's active measure. The story appears in the Russian language page on the Ukrainian Revolution but without the denial, and it seems the page cannot be edited by non-Russians. PussBroad ( talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This is NOT an official move request I just wanted to ask how people felt about this idea? Looking at the sources there seems to be a slight edge with "Ukrainian crisis" over "Crimean crisis" Here is a chart to compare the two: [15]. Also this crisis has not just effected Crimea but other parts of Ukraine as well. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead was corrected, but then someone wrote again:
"The crisis unfolded in late February 2014 in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution: after months of protests by Euromaidan and days of armed violence by protesters in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, the democratically elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced by the Yatsenyuk Government in a procedure that Russia contends was done improperly and was, therefore, according to Russia, "unconstitutional" and "illegal".[b]
Please change it. This sentence is simply wrong. Please read the discussion above. According to Russia, Yanukovych was impeached improperly, but it has nothing to do with the government, which was dissolved by Yanukovych himself on January 28! And the Yatsenyuk government was elected later, in a legal procedure. Impatukr ( talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines suggest to have 4 paragraphs in the lead. It is currently very long with 6 paragraphs. My opinion is to remove completely from the lead any POV about legitimacy of the current authorities in both Crimea and Ukraine. Any suggestions? Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Due to the blatant POV pushing can someone with the authority please protect or semi-protect this article. We already have people pushing thier ideals into this and it is not good for the integrity of the article. I will also be reporting this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. This is getting out of hand with the edits. Avion365 ( talk) 04:27, 14 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 | Archive 6 |
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.
2014 Crimean crisis → 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea – This has changed from a purely political crisis into a military intervention by a foreign power. Article editor ( talk) 23:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Is it really necessary to have 2014 in the title... almost every source simply is referring to it as the Crimean Crisis, it should be renamed similar to the Suez Crisis... There is no other Crimean Crisis that I am aware of, unless we are trying to differentiate from the Crimean War which was quite different… -- Kuzwa ( talk) 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of citation overkill, especially in the first paragraphs. This is probably because the topic is very polarizing, instigating edit wars. Then, editors add more and more sources to "prove" a piece of information is valid. While it is important to make sure information is properly cited, too many citations can impede readability and put off those who are not edit-warring. In order to maintain readability, we should either remove excess citations or merge them. B14709 ( talk) 17:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The new sentence added is a more direct explanation of Russia's position in regards to Svoboda's presence in the new Ukrainian government. Though it is from a Western source, an article on CNN, it explains the concerns addressed by Russia and the European Parliament of the EU over Svoboda. This party is by in large what Russia is referring to in media statements that calls them "fascists" or "Nazis" in the Ukrainian government. In some cases Russia may be referring to the far-right in Ukraine in general, including the Right Sector movement. Svoboda's presence is an issue involved in Russia's claims of justification for intervention. I accept that perhaps a shortened version of that material could be in the intro. However the role of Svoboda in this crisis needs to be addressed in detail in the article given that both Russian and Western press are addressing it.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 00:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
On File:Crimea reaction clean.png the shades of green look almost alike is there a way to fix this with more color contrast? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who takes issue with the colour scheme? Green = good, red = bad? LokiiT ( talk) 23:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As of now, 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine have meaningless huge overlapse. Unfortunately neither of the pages is a clear sub-article of another one. Still, forking the whole section is very bad idea. Clearly it is a current event and not everybody pays attention to WP:Summary style, and the texts may be fixed when the dust settles.
Nevertheless I feel that one such overlap (in fact, 100% mirror) must be nipped in the bud, namely, legal aspects. It looks like the identical text was cut'n'pasted into both articles, but afterwards the efforts of fixers-uppers started to diverge. Therefore, for the purposes of maintenance I suggest to grow this section in one place. - Altenmann >t 06:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Currently the revolution described as pro-Russian vs pro-European Union, unless it is specifically tailored for the protests in the next sentence IMO it rather in accurate. The protest were mostly about government corruption and Russian intervention. It only became as Pro-Russians vs the rest, after the clashes started and healthy dose of propaganda from Russian media.-- PLNR ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In this report by Polish think tank from 2011 Centre for Eastern Studies (which if funded by Polish government and thus can't be seen as pro-Russian), the Svoboda party program includes ethnic discrimination of non-Russians in Ukraine by limiting their numbers in administration, military, state organs and dramatically reducing their civil rights, Svoboda according to them is radically anti-Russian while also anti-Polish [8]
I suggest adding information on program of Svoboda based on non-Russian source coming from NATO and EU aligned country, it seems that Russian objections and concerns for Russian population in Ukraine didn't come from nowhere.It shows that Russian sources informing about nature of Svoboda's government aren't isolated in their assessment.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The user Owner Ming is resorting to sockpuppetry including the account Daithicarr to insert NPOV-violating material into the article 2014 Crimean Crisis while avoiding detection. Daithicarr like Owner Ming is abusing Wikipedia:Getting Started to somehow justify altering material in the article. A discussion on the talk page of that article criticized Owner Ming's editing behaviour. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry clearly states that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. This user must adhere to Wikipedia policy by using one account and cease using multiple accounts at once. However given the repeated editing behaviour and the tenacity to evade detection, I believe this user will not stop voluntarily and therefore they should be reported.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 11:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Im Daithicarr, I am new, im desperately trying to figure out how I can prove im not Userming. It is the first time i edited something. I felt it was so reliant on a very biased news source(RT) that someone should edit it. How can I show im not some other user and what makes you think I am that user? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Daithicarr (
talk •
contribs) 11:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This is infuriating. This is the first time I ever tried to contribute to wikipedia. I set up my account this morning on reading a very biased section of the crime article which only sourced Russia today and claimed that the pro Ukrainian protests were Nazis from western Ukraine. I copied and pasted the section, edited with new references, then re pasted. Please explain how the links you provide illustrate I am some other user. Just for a minute consider maybe I am new to this and haven't a clue what youre on about or how to refute youre ludicrous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that since the article has been changed back to the heavily biased account, you dont agree with my editing, have changed it and then accuse me of being some other user in order to dismiss my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the apology, I in turn apologies for stating that youre accusation was based on disagreeing with the content of my edit. I wrongly assumed it was some way to discredit my attempted contribution. Daithicarr ( talk) 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Be careful with the legal aspects section. It seems to be falling to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. We also need to be extremely careful on legal matter as we cannot in any way or form provide legal opinions (see WP:NOLEGAL). — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
systemic bias}}
template was not created by me. It was created by User:SMcCandlish on this edit:
[13]. Second, whenever you find something on Wikipedia that you beleive to be
WP:OR or unsourced then either tag it with the {{
cn}}
template or the {{
OR}}
template so that we can find a source for it and remove any doubts. I'm not a lawyer, but I tried to balance the prose as much as I could per
WP:FIVEPILLARS (our core) and its extension
WP:FIXIT but came up short. This is exactly why I made this post here: to request help from the community to balance the section into a neutral point of view and to find sources that provide a perspective different than Weller's. Stop accusing me of this or that, and understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative work. Each and everyone of us doesn't have the answers to everything: hence why we request help from the community in cases like this. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 13:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)The description of events around the protests in Crimea itself on the 9th of March seem to be extremely one sided. It is more in keeping with a RT news broadcast.
I would suggest re-editing along the lines of
On March 9 2014 in Sevastopol, at a rally celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko was held by local people opposed to the Russian occupation of Crimea. [1] Russian state owened media denounced the pro-Ukrainian rally as a group of radicals from Western Ukraine started shouting Nazi slogans [2] They also reported that other pro-Maidan activists also opened fire near by the rally before being detained by self-defense squads. [3] However most independent news reports speak of the mainly elderly protestors being confronted by a pro-Russian crowd who then attacked them and threw missiles at a car as they tried to flee the scene, smashing its windows, while cossacks and other pro Russian demonstrators cased and beat other pro-Ukrainian supporters. [4] [5] [6]
What makes you think that, What NPOV material have I added? And how do I go about proving I am a new User not some other guy your referring too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
So apart from supposedly being User Ming, is there any other reason why a version similar to what I have pasted above should not be put in place of the existing heavily Biased Version which is sourced from Russia Today. Daithicarr ( talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Owner Ming (the real one) is continuously reverting any changes back to the original , which is highly biased and comes from one source which isint very reliable given its owned by one of the party's in the conflict. His account also ignores parts of another source he uses which are completely at odds with the information present in the paragraph. Daithicarr ( talk) 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
From
2014 Crimean crisis →
Crimean crisis
Reason: This is the first and only event referred to as "Crimean crisis". Furthermore, we have already established naming conventions for this kind of articles already. Examples include:
What's everyone's opinion?
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have just reviewed an article, its called List of military units on Crimea, I am quite sure that some of the content can be moved to this new page. Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why have the Serbian Chetniks been ommited from the "Parties to the civil conflict" table? They were there until midday March 7th. I demand that they be returned, they are even mentioned in the article as members supporting the Russian forces under Other (non-Russian) involvement: "A group of Chetniks, a Serbian nationalist paramilitary force, have travelled to Crimea to support Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukisuzuki ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As said above, this POV has been inserted multiple times. I suggest that the edit(s) that did this be found and the article reverted to prior to those edits. The editor who did this should be given a clear warning not to insert blatant NPOV-violating material in the article. The same should be the case for editors inserting blatantly anti-Moscow, pro-Kiev POV as well. Wikipedia users must adhere to its principles of NPOV, or else they are violating it. This is a very relevant article for a current event that should not be permitted to be an exception to the rule.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Again using the same double standards than in Syrian civil war-related articles? Again saying that RT is unreliable but Kyiv Post is reliable? Try not to be so partisan, some editors are ruining the declining credibility of WP...-- HC PUNXKID 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that having articles like this one in WP:Getting started is not a very bright idea? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Owner Ming is repeatedly editing the entire article in a manner which is clearly Pro Moscow's point of view. Daithicarr ( talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This article seems very pro-russian so far, it fails to mention many issues, such as the presence of suspected Russian forces in depth and also fails to have neutral point of view. I understand this is another article, but surly at least a paragraph should be dedicated to this subject. I also think this article should be locked, I forget the term for it but I think it's called "protected." 208.97.212.65 ( talk) 14:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the whole paragraph referring to this leaked wiretapped phone call because it has been very thoroughly dealt with in the Ukrainian Revolution page. I don't think it has much relevance to Crimea and, since the quoted source has effectively flatly denied the most important claims, the only explanation I can think of is that Paet was carrying out Moscow's active measure. The story appears in the Russian language page on the Ukrainian Revolution but without the denial, and it seems the page cannot be edited by non-Russians. PussBroad ( talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This is NOT an official move request I just wanted to ask how people felt about this idea? Looking at the sources there seems to be a slight edge with "Ukrainian crisis" over "Crimean crisis" Here is a chart to compare the two: [15]. Also this crisis has not just effected Crimea but other parts of Ukraine as well. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead was corrected, but then someone wrote again:
"The crisis unfolded in late February 2014 in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution: after months of protests by Euromaidan and days of armed violence by protesters in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, the democratically elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced by the Yatsenyuk Government in a procedure that Russia contends was done improperly and was, therefore, according to Russia, "unconstitutional" and "illegal".[b]
Please change it. This sentence is simply wrong. Please read the discussion above. According to Russia, Yanukovych was impeached improperly, but it has nothing to do with the government, which was dissolved by Yanukovych himself on January 28! And the Yatsenyuk government was elected later, in a legal procedure. Impatukr ( talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines suggest to have 4 paragraphs in the lead. It is currently very long with 6 paragraphs. My opinion is to remove completely from the lead any POV about legitimacy of the current authorities in both Crimea and Ukraine. Any suggestions? Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Due to the blatant POV pushing can someone with the authority please protect or semi-protect this article. We already have people pushing thier ideals into this and it is not good for the integrity of the article. I will also be reporting this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. This is getting out of hand with the edits. Avion365 ( talk) 04:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)