![]() | 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 |
I found some of the phrases in this article inexact or even misleading.
"The elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced with leaders of the Yatsenyuk Government."
First of all, the Second Azarov Government (formed by Yanukovych) was dissolved on January 28. So in late February, there was NO government (the previous one continued only as a caretaker government). Second, the Yatsenyuk Government was formed and elected according to the 2004 Constitution by the legitimate, legally elected Verkhovna Rada. The phrase above seems to suggest that the Yatsenyuk government is sort of illegal, which is not true.
"It is unclear, however, whether the Russian troop movements within Crimea and Sevastopol are legitimate or not as Russia and Ukraine ratified a treaty that allows Russia to maintain up to 25,000 troops in the aforementioned territories."
As for 25, 000, that might be true. But it's very clear from all evidence that the Russian troops movements are observed all over Crimea, and not only in Sevastopol, where the troops can stay according to the treaty. Thus, all these maneuvers are definitely illegitimate.
"Under the agreement forces on both sides of the conflict should refrain from confrontation all illegal weapons should be handed within 24 hours. Despite the agreement thousands were still protesting in central Kiev and as President Yanukovich left for Kharkov to attend a summit of south-eastern regions,[101] they took full control of Kiev’s government district, they have taken over parliament, the president’s administration quarters, the cabinet, and the Interior Ministry.[102][100] On 21 February an impeachment bill was introduced in Ukrainian parliament,[103] but no details were provided and the Ukrainian parliament did not vote to impeach Yanukovich according to the legal procedure."
There are some crucial points, which should be reflected here:
1. Under the agreement, Yanukovych was OBLIGED to sign the bill about the return to the 2004 Constitution. The Rada adopted this bill, but Yanukovych did not sign the bill, thus breaking the agreement.
2. The agreement did NOT oblige the protesters to leave.
3. Kharkiv, not Kharkov.
4. Yanukovych definitely FLED Kiev. All evidence suggests that he prepared his leave from February 19.
5. The protesters took full control of the government district NOT by force, but because the legitimate, legally elected Verkhovna Rada voted to withdraw the police and troops from Kiev. The protesters took control of the buildings, but they didn't use force to influence any of the political decisions.
I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, but I hope that these apparent things will be corrected. I'm Ukrainian, and I followed the situation very closely, reading a variety of sources, Ukrainian, Polish, British, American, German, Russian, etc. Impatukr ( talk) 05:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I can provide credible links to prove what I said about these legal aspects, although these things are obvious and were reflected in multiple sources, including other Wiki articles. These inaccuracies can definitely mislead readers. Impatukr ( talk) 07:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Serious requests. I have not been able to find sources for this myself so if someone more knowledgeable and experienced about these matters can that would be really helpful.
Thanks in advance.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 18:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahnoneemoos Most of these things are obvious. Just do your research. 1. Your question has already been answered by Lvivske. In Ukraine, the Government doesn't include the President. Azarov resigned himself, and Yanukovych accepted his resignation. 2. The Yatsenyuk Government was formed by the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament. It was elected legitimately in 2012, although, apparently, there was some fraud, but it didn't influence the outcome significantly. Extensive information about this election, with necessary sources, can be found here: Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012. The Rada had the authority to form and elect the government, after the constitutional change, agreed with Yanukovych under the compromise agreement and approved by the Rada. It's all covered very well in: /info/en/?search=Constitution_of_Ukraine#2004_and_2010_amendments_and_2014_return_to_2004_amendments and 2014 Ukrainian revolution. 3 & 4. I was a bit wrong. Russians do have bases outside Sevastopol in Crimea, but under that agreement Russia is obliged to station troops and naval personnel on its bases, but not to use troops outside them without the permission of Ukraine. Now there's massive evidence (hundreds of reports and photos) that Russian troops are controlling administrative buildings, roads, institutions, they are blocking and threatening Ukrainian troops. Other troops and military equipment, not mentioned in the agreement, are coming from Russia. There are so many credible links (as well as hundreds of reports on the social media): http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/the-putin-way-of-lying.html http://time.com/16294/russia-crimea-sevastopol/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26515049 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uks-response-to-the-situation-in-ukraine Russian troops are blocking Ukrainian institutions, blocking and threatening the Ukrainian army, urging them to surrender and are issuing ultimata. Obviously, no treaty could allow it:).
Impatukr ( talk) 20:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
PLEASE: There was a long long long discussion, but very few changes have been made to the article. I can't edit it, so someone experienced in Wikipedia should do it. Impatukr ( talk) 20:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
To put the numbers in context, total populations should be added (from the official Ukraine government website).
Autonomous Republic of Crimea: 2,018,400
http://mfa.gov.ua/en/about-ukraine/info/regions/1-crimea
Ukraine: 47,732,079
http://mfa.gov.ua/en/about-ukraine/info/general-facts
71.23.178.214 (
talk) 16:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
After reading an article in Aljazeera, I just hastily slapped together something on passportization, the practice by which the Russian government induced citizens of other countries to take up Russian citizenship, then used to justify military intervention. It seems like a really fundamental concept to understand this whole chain of events. I'd welcome if someone would integrate it here, and any help fleshing out the new article. Wnt ( talk) 16:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.81.150 ( talk) 22:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
128.189.191.222 ( talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
This talk page isn't the place to be writing Hokkien poetry. The above is written in Pe̍h-ōe-jī and Chinese in rhyming stanza form, and is not constructive towards improving this article. -- benlisquare T• C• E 03:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I’ve added this map of the Russian Empire census of 1897 to show the ethnic balance in Crimea (and Kherson oblast, both fused into the Taurida governorate at the time) before Holodomor, the Holocaust, Surgun and the expulsion of the Germans. The internal texts of the image are in Ukrainian, but I think that as the same way that happen in other maps with no-English text in Englsih-language maps in Wikipedia, it can be reasonably understood.-- MaGioZal ( talk) 05:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that this article and the article on the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine can be merged or the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine be deleted. It is irritating for readers to see 2 articles with similar content (it is better to put everything in one article).— Khabboos ( talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
We have hacked e-mail correspondence of US Army Attache Assistant in Kiev Jason Gresh and a high ranking official from Ukrainian General Staff Igor Protsyk. It appears that they are planning to conduct a series of attacks on Ukrainian military bases in order to destabilize the situation in Ukraine. Particularly, Jason Gresh writes to Igor Protsyk that it’s time to implement a plan that implies “causing problems to the transport hubs in the south-east of Ukraine in order to frame-up the neighbor. It will create favorable conditions for Pentagon to act”, says Jason Gresh. In his turn, Protsyk writes to some Vasil and tells him to arrange an attack on an airbase of 25 aviation brigade of Ukrainian air force stationed in Melitopol. This Vasil is responsible for arranging the details of the attack, gathering of the gunmen and providing them with a map of sites that are chosen to be attacked. We strongly recommend everyone to look through these documents. There you will find all the details. (Anon)
source Details of the alleged hacked emails (in Ukrainian) here. LokiiT ( talk) 02:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
(And also, as a personal opinion: assuming there really was a covert false-flag operation plan: what kind of idiot would discuss it over public mail, especially given the fact that both Protsyuk and Gresh are located in Kiev and could meet at any time?)
When the hell did Wikipedia become a place where you just list events point by point in seperate lines according to various dates? Seriously, this shit needs to be rewritten into an article like all articles on Wikipedia is supposed to be. Not just a long list of events. 85.165.227.94 ( talk) 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Neither footnote refer to it as a treaty. One refers to a "memorandum." The other correctly identifys Trilateral Statement. The disclaimer (or "executive agreement" for purposes of US law) is offensive. The source referring to it as a memorandum is clearly BBC. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is correctly identified on its page as a "political agreement." The use of treaty is incorrect not just in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.36.191 ( talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This intro needs to be stabilized by working out here what should be addressed in the intro and coming to some sort of consensus. This crisis has been going on for several weeks, at least a short summary of the key events that happened should be in the intro.
I have suggestions. For me it would be preferable to just have a description about what is actually happening less about what people "think" about it or what the opinions are. Anything controversial that is is making broad statements that could be subjective based on legal opinion, legal precedents, etc., should not be in the intro - the intro cannot do justice to that, such should be addressed within the article where more detail can be provided.
In regards to biased editors, for other editors less attached to the issues at hand, this is a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" effect. We can blame biased editors to try to push their agendas here, and that would be fair at the beginning. However this issue has been going on for weeks, by now there should be an effort by users able to attest to the existence of both pro-Kiev and pro-Moscow biases on this issue, to attempt to stabilize the article from the raids by biased users inserting "the truth" as they see it. The first start would be the intro.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is a lot of the timeline listed in this article, when it is a subarticle? RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now there are 10 colors being used to describe the international reactions here. File:Crimea reaction clean.png So my questions are:
1. Do we need 10 colors?
2. Can we stop the color warring and come to a consensus?
To give an idea for the 2nd time in just 2 days the colors in the map legend in this article do not match the ones used on the map. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Knowledgekid87,I feel 3 colors should suffice - pro russia,pro ukraine & neutral. Yohannvt ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crimea_reaction_clean.png
The colours and description are perfectly fine and understandable on the image's individual page (linked above). At some point they have been edited on the main article and they now make no sense whatsoever. Sunshinenevercomes ( talk) 00:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The response of India is not corretly indicated on the map. Currently it stresses that India recognises the interest of Russia, although the exact citation is "We are watching what is happening in Ukraine with concern... The broader issues of reconcilling various interests involved and there are, after all, legitimate Russian and other interests involved and we hope those are discussed, negotiated and there is a satisfactory resolution to them" ["Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine: Shivshankar Menon, NSA". The Economic Times. 6 March 2014.] 'other interests' might as well point to the interests of Ukraine. Could someone update the legend below the map showing the responses of the countries so that instead "Recognition of Russian interests" it will be written "Recognition of Russian and other interests". 90.191.175.33 ( talk) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that the current map of distribution of mother tongue in Ukraine is neither as informative nor biased on the Russian--non-Russian scale (as it is currently in the article) as it would be if it indicated the position of other languages as well, as it is here: /info/en/?search=File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png . For example, the current map gives an incorrect impression of homogeneity of Donetsk region (as being leaned towards Russian language), although the picture is much more heterogeneous. Could someone please replace the current map of the langues with the one I referred to. 90.191.175.33 ( talk) 21:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I added Sri Lanka's reaction to the 'International reactions' section which should qualify as "Recognition of Russian and other interests" or "Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government" for the map. Could someone please update the map? I don't know how. Stephen J Sharpe ( talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
In the infobox it says:
I think it would be better not to repeat "dead" 2 times. I suppose it is a mistake. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 04:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
The information in the right hand box is not correct. Dmitry Yarosh is not in the Government, he is a leader of the Patriotic movement of Ukraine. Also, the Party "Svoboda" was the member of parliament before revolution, so it is incorrect to state that the Crimean crisis began because the party was included into the parliament after president Yanukovich left. Parties "Udar", 'Svoboda" had very large representation in the Ukrainian government before the revolution. Further, there are no "far-right" radicals in the government. More, the party of Regions was not forbidden or demolished. Party of Regions has huge representation in the parliament. Further, the correct reasons for the start of the crisis should be the fact that president Putin cannot tolerate democratic changes in Ukraine, because his imperialistic ambitions will be hurt.Please, do not use information directly from Russian propaganda sources. All of the facts I have written above are the real world truths and not assumptions that are listed now in that article. Kranshteun ( talk) 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
These claims are in the infobox as "causes". Yet, they are not supported by reliable sources. First, because opinion pieces are not reliable sources for factual claims (and pretty much everything in an infobox is a factual claim) and second because what you need a reliable source for is *not* just that something happened. What you need a reliable source for is that that something - even if it did happen - is a *cause* for the crisis. Dog farted in Odessa. There's an article about it somewhere on the internet. That's doesn't mean we put it into the infobox as a "cause" of the crisis unless there's actual reliable sources which say "dog farts in Odessa caused a crisis". See the difference? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone, urgently, edit the "Revolution in Kiev" section. It contains lots of mistakes and is written entirely from the point of view of the Russian propaganda. Numerous people around the world are reading this article now, and they are getting a completely distorted picture. I wrote about the mistakes in this article on this page before. Impatukr ( talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Impatukr, "Revolution in Kiev" is not at all neutral. Someone please edit it quickly!! Yohannvt ( talk) 18:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Kizor For some reason I can't edit this article, don't know why. So someone should do it. I wrote extensively about the mistakes in the article on this talk page ("About some legal aspects" section). I see that some of them have been corrected, but much still needs to be done. The events were reflected very adequately in 2014 Ukrainian revolution, esp. the sections "21 February" and "Regime change and developments". Impatukr ( talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: the sanctions list sub-section should be better presented using tables, e.g.
Nationallity | Name | Sanctioned by Cadada | Sanctioned by the E.U. | Sanctioned by the U.S. |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Sergey Glazyev |
![]() |
![]() |
128.189.191.222 ( talk) 22:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"On occasion" makes it sound like that most of the time those showing up to vote with a Russian passport were turned away, but once in a while allowed to vote. The source quoted makes no mention of Russian passport holders being turned away most of the time. It only mentions that one Kiev reporter with a Russian passport successfully voted in the referendum. This "on occasion" wording makes it plainly obvious that the article is being edited by those with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.126.12 ( talk) 03:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The history section starts at Catherine the Great's conquest and highlights Stalin's deportations, which leaves the false impression that Crimean Tatars are the ousted "rightful" natives of the land. I think something needs to be mentioned about the Golden Horde's conquest of Kievan Rus, the Ottoman Empire/Crimean Khanate, and their conquests and ensuing enslavement of Muscovites and Eastern European peoples, in order to give a more rounded historic picture. LokiiT ( talk) 22:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm native crimean. The list of sides is not completed. On the side of Sevastopol and crimeans was serbian chetniks. Proof : http://www.kp.ru/daily/26201.7/3089865/ 46.35.242.64 ( talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yanukovych is currently listed as a lead figure on the Russian side. He is generally pro-Russian and certainly against the current government of Ukraine but in this context it gives the impression that he supports Crimea becoming part of Russia or independent from Ukraine. The listed reference [5] from 4 March only claims that "on Saturday" (that would be 1 March, before Crimea declared intention of independence), he requested Moscow's intervention to protect the country's Russian-speaking people. It isn't mentioned whether he requested intervention in Crimea or other parts of Ukraine. [6] from the day before says he "urged Russia to refrain from military intervention in the southern Crimea region". He was ousted before things escalated in Crimea and I think he should be removed from the infobox unless a better more recent source is given. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev, why are you changing the flagicons on non-Ukrainian personages to the Ukrainian flag? Especially in the case of the turncoat Denis Berezovsky. 83.70.227.237 ( talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140321/188640257/72-Crimean-Military-Units-Request-Joining-Russia.html -- 77.7.109.165 ( talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The timeline section is virtually blank as it only points to a separate article. This is ridiculous, because, as such, an article about the crisis doesn't even summarize what happened from mid February to now. For example, only the introduction lines mention the 2014 referendum directly. In the main body, while there are multiple mentions of it, none of directly says "there was a referendum" in the first place. There is no sentence in the main article like "on March 15, a referendum was held in Crimea and in Sevastopol".
While we keep a separate article for the time, I think we do need a short summary here, containing key events only. 128.189.191.222 ( talk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there should be at least some description of what happened during the crisis. The day by day description should remain in the other article though. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 00:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I realize that most of the people are Americans who are being subjected to intense propaganda, or politically active Ukrainians who want to force their view of the story to the public, but in any case, let's stay rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.81.150 ( talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Many of the points listed here are not 'results' but moments of the crisis -- certainly if this was a more historical article I doubt they would be listed there. Here's what's currently there:
Of these I would say that 1 and 6 are really the main outcome of the crisis -- though I'd be inclined to simplify them to one point reading something like "Ukraine loses effective control of Crimea; Republic of Crimea declares independence and joins the Russian Federation after a referendum" -- and 7 possibly counts as a result as well. The rest seem to me to just be stages of the crisis itself. What do others think? -- 131.111.184.8 ( talk) 15:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this bit doesn't deserve a whole section in the article, and probably just be deleted. It has little to do with the actual conflict in Crimea. And Zhirinovsky is well known within Russia as the Duma's court jester. Nothing he says should be taken seriously. He's famous for making outrageous proposals. Ex: He was behind a proposed a bill that Russian women who marry a foreigner should be stripped of their citizenship and deported. Nouvelle Planète ( talk) 01:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Re the world map reflecting positions of various nations on Russia's action, most African nations are in grey (unknown or neutral presumably, though I believe there's a color for neutral). Does this connote "no information"? Should there be a note re originally (at time of "Ukrainian Revolution") the African Union's position was that Yanukovich was the legitimate head of state? It appears, for me anyway, that Google can find no citation of this AU position earlier on, which I find strange. Apuleius3 ( talk) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
UN General Assembly passed resolution regarding Crimea crisis http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/ . I guess it's must be written in article about it. 46.71.4.197 ( talk) 18:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The following section has been repeatedly deleted from the lead:
As this is an article about the Crimean crisis, the change in leadership of Crimea warrants inclusion in the lead. To address the alternative POV, I have added a sentence, "This version of events is disputed by Russia." However, I can find no sources giving an alternative version of events. Can someone enlighten me? Nomadic Whitt ( talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, we don't need -- and it looks bad -- to write the intro as if it's a full-length article. It should be cut down to no more than four paragraphs and provide a summary of the situation, rather than stray quotes from Tymoshenko and Singh and whoever else and recentist details. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 05:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia manual of style recommends to have a short lead, with no more than 4 paragraphs. As there are currently 7, I propose to remove some details. There is currently too much POV (e.g. discussions about whether the Ukrainian and Crimean governments are legitimate, "parliament took over by gunmen"/"coup d'état in Kiev"). Do we absolutely need to include all these details in the lead?
2 opposite POV in the same paragraphs do not turn that into NPOV... These should be left in the body of text, in respective Ukrainian and Russian reactions sections, not in the lead.
Please let me know your opinion. Canadianking123 ( talk) 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC) I will try to transfer some to the background.-- Martin Berka ( talk) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
"Before resigning, Tenyukh(minister of defense Ukraine) said he had received requests to leave Crimea from about 6,500 soldiers and family members- meaning about two-thirds of the 18,800 military personnel and relatives stationed there were so far taking their chances in the peninsula newly absorbed by Russia."
"About 4,300 Ukrainian servicemen and 2,200 of their relatives have asked to leave Crimea, Tenyukh(minister of defense Ukraine) said Tuesday. That means about two-thirds of the 18,800 military personnel and relatives that he said were stationed on the Black Sea peninsula were taking their chances in Crimea."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ukraine-orders-troop-pullout-from-crimea/2014/03/25/7b712628-b3ef-11e3-bab2-b9602293021d_story.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.191.192.161 (
talk) 10:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article about the US intelligence on the situation on Crimea. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304026304579453331966405354?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304026304579453331966405354.html -- Wrant ( talk) 00:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually the same guy killed the ppl on both sides. If somebody looks for the first time at the article it's quite unclear what happened. Probably someone can change it.-- Wrant ( talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
"Reshat Ametov (38 years old) - kidnapped by the Crimean self-defense, later was found dead with signs of torture." Did you read article provided by link? Here nothing about that this men was kiddnepped by self-defense, nothing. It was we name as propaganda. West propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.64.188.122 ( talk) 09:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually it appears that there controversy about the so called Simferopol incident. I agree to remove the KIA as there is no proof that there even was any combat yet. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 00:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Should be added as pink. [3] -- Kuzwa ( talk) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
about supposed "US funding": [7]
Look, this is stupid. First, neither source says the revolution was "US funded" so the IP editor is clearly willfully misrepresenting sources in an attempt to push a POV. Second, the first source just says that Ron Paul thinks something or other. Who cares what Ron Paul thinks? His opinions are known for being out there, do not represent mainstream, and have no place in the article, much less the lede. The second source is just a report about some vague allegations made by Kucinich made on the O'Reilly show. Again, who cars what Kucinich thinks, and seriously, stuff said on the O'Reilly show has no place on Wikipedia. It's a notch below full blown conspiracy-shows. But only a notch.
Removing this junk and please don't restore it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:38, 31 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 |
I found some of the phrases in this article inexact or even misleading.
"The elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced with leaders of the Yatsenyuk Government."
First of all, the Second Azarov Government (formed by Yanukovych) was dissolved on January 28. So in late February, there was NO government (the previous one continued only as a caretaker government). Second, the Yatsenyuk Government was formed and elected according to the 2004 Constitution by the legitimate, legally elected Verkhovna Rada. The phrase above seems to suggest that the Yatsenyuk government is sort of illegal, which is not true.
"It is unclear, however, whether the Russian troop movements within Crimea and Sevastopol are legitimate or not as Russia and Ukraine ratified a treaty that allows Russia to maintain up to 25,000 troops in the aforementioned territories."
As for 25, 000, that might be true. But it's very clear from all evidence that the Russian troops movements are observed all over Crimea, and not only in Sevastopol, where the troops can stay according to the treaty. Thus, all these maneuvers are definitely illegitimate.
"Under the agreement forces on both sides of the conflict should refrain from confrontation all illegal weapons should be handed within 24 hours. Despite the agreement thousands were still protesting in central Kiev and as President Yanukovich left for Kharkov to attend a summit of south-eastern regions,[101] they took full control of Kiev’s government district, they have taken over parliament, the president’s administration quarters, the cabinet, and the Interior Ministry.[102][100] On 21 February an impeachment bill was introduced in Ukrainian parliament,[103] but no details were provided and the Ukrainian parliament did not vote to impeach Yanukovich according to the legal procedure."
There are some crucial points, which should be reflected here:
1. Under the agreement, Yanukovych was OBLIGED to sign the bill about the return to the 2004 Constitution. The Rada adopted this bill, but Yanukovych did not sign the bill, thus breaking the agreement.
2. The agreement did NOT oblige the protesters to leave.
3. Kharkiv, not Kharkov.
4. Yanukovych definitely FLED Kiev. All evidence suggests that he prepared his leave from February 19.
5. The protesters took full control of the government district NOT by force, but because the legitimate, legally elected Verkhovna Rada voted to withdraw the police and troops from Kiev. The protesters took control of the buildings, but they didn't use force to influence any of the political decisions.
I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, but I hope that these apparent things will be corrected. I'm Ukrainian, and I followed the situation very closely, reading a variety of sources, Ukrainian, Polish, British, American, German, Russian, etc. Impatukr ( talk) 05:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I can provide credible links to prove what I said about these legal aspects, although these things are obvious and were reflected in multiple sources, including other Wiki articles. These inaccuracies can definitely mislead readers. Impatukr ( talk) 07:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Serious requests. I have not been able to find sources for this myself so if someone more knowledgeable and experienced about these matters can that would be really helpful.
Thanks in advance.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 18:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahnoneemoos Most of these things are obvious. Just do your research. 1. Your question has already been answered by Lvivske. In Ukraine, the Government doesn't include the President. Azarov resigned himself, and Yanukovych accepted his resignation. 2. The Yatsenyuk Government was formed by the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament. It was elected legitimately in 2012, although, apparently, there was some fraud, but it didn't influence the outcome significantly. Extensive information about this election, with necessary sources, can be found here: Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012. The Rada had the authority to form and elect the government, after the constitutional change, agreed with Yanukovych under the compromise agreement and approved by the Rada. It's all covered very well in: /info/en/?search=Constitution_of_Ukraine#2004_and_2010_amendments_and_2014_return_to_2004_amendments and 2014 Ukrainian revolution. 3 & 4. I was a bit wrong. Russians do have bases outside Sevastopol in Crimea, but under that agreement Russia is obliged to station troops and naval personnel on its bases, but not to use troops outside them without the permission of Ukraine. Now there's massive evidence (hundreds of reports and photos) that Russian troops are controlling administrative buildings, roads, institutions, they are blocking and threatening Ukrainian troops. Other troops and military equipment, not mentioned in the agreement, are coming from Russia. There are so many credible links (as well as hundreds of reports on the social media): http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/the-putin-way-of-lying.html http://time.com/16294/russia-crimea-sevastopol/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26515049 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uks-response-to-the-situation-in-ukraine Russian troops are blocking Ukrainian institutions, blocking and threatening the Ukrainian army, urging them to surrender and are issuing ultimata. Obviously, no treaty could allow it:).
Impatukr ( talk) 20:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
PLEASE: There was a long long long discussion, but very few changes have been made to the article. I can't edit it, so someone experienced in Wikipedia should do it. Impatukr ( talk) 20:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
To put the numbers in context, total populations should be added (from the official Ukraine government website).
Autonomous Republic of Crimea: 2,018,400
http://mfa.gov.ua/en/about-ukraine/info/regions/1-crimea
Ukraine: 47,732,079
http://mfa.gov.ua/en/about-ukraine/info/general-facts
71.23.178.214 (
talk) 16:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
After reading an article in Aljazeera, I just hastily slapped together something on passportization, the practice by which the Russian government induced citizens of other countries to take up Russian citizenship, then used to justify military intervention. It seems like a really fundamental concept to understand this whole chain of events. I'd welcome if someone would integrate it here, and any help fleshing out the new article. Wnt ( talk) 16:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.81.150 ( talk) 22:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
128.189.191.222 ( talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
This talk page isn't the place to be writing Hokkien poetry. The above is written in Pe̍h-ōe-jī and Chinese in rhyming stanza form, and is not constructive towards improving this article. -- benlisquare T• C• E 03:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I’ve added this map of the Russian Empire census of 1897 to show the ethnic balance in Crimea (and Kherson oblast, both fused into the Taurida governorate at the time) before Holodomor, the Holocaust, Surgun and the expulsion of the Germans. The internal texts of the image are in Ukrainian, but I think that as the same way that happen in other maps with no-English text in Englsih-language maps in Wikipedia, it can be reasonably understood.-- MaGioZal ( talk) 05:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that this article and the article on the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine can be merged or the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine be deleted. It is irritating for readers to see 2 articles with similar content (it is better to put everything in one article).— Khabboos ( talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
We have hacked e-mail correspondence of US Army Attache Assistant in Kiev Jason Gresh and a high ranking official from Ukrainian General Staff Igor Protsyk. It appears that they are planning to conduct a series of attacks on Ukrainian military bases in order to destabilize the situation in Ukraine. Particularly, Jason Gresh writes to Igor Protsyk that it’s time to implement a plan that implies “causing problems to the transport hubs in the south-east of Ukraine in order to frame-up the neighbor. It will create favorable conditions for Pentagon to act”, says Jason Gresh. In his turn, Protsyk writes to some Vasil and tells him to arrange an attack on an airbase of 25 aviation brigade of Ukrainian air force stationed in Melitopol. This Vasil is responsible for arranging the details of the attack, gathering of the gunmen and providing them with a map of sites that are chosen to be attacked. We strongly recommend everyone to look through these documents. There you will find all the details. (Anon)
source Details of the alleged hacked emails (in Ukrainian) here. LokiiT ( talk) 02:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
(And also, as a personal opinion: assuming there really was a covert false-flag operation plan: what kind of idiot would discuss it over public mail, especially given the fact that both Protsyuk and Gresh are located in Kiev and could meet at any time?)
When the hell did Wikipedia become a place where you just list events point by point in seperate lines according to various dates? Seriously, this shit needs to be rewritten into an article like all articles on Wikipedia is supposed to be. Not just a long list of events. 85.165.227.94 ( talk) 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Neither footnote refer to it as a treaty. One refers to a "memorandum." The other correctly identifys Trilateral Statement. The disclaimer (or "executive agreement" for purposes of US law) is offensive. The source referring to it as a memorandum is clearly BBC. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is correctly identified on its page as a "political agreement." The use of treaty is incorrect not just in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.36.191 ( talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This intro needs to be stabilized by working out here what should be addressed in the intro and coming to some sort of consensus. This crisis has been going on for several weeks, at least a short summary of the key events that happened should be in the intro.
I have suggestions. For me it would be preferable to just have a description about what is actually happening less about what people "think" about it or what the opinions are. Anything controversial that is is making broad statements that could be subjective based on legal opinion, legal precedents, etc., should not be in the intro - the intro cannot do justice to that, such should be addressed within the article where more detail can be provided.
In regards to biased editors, for other editors less attached to the issues at hand, this is a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" effect. We can blame biased editors to try to push their agendas here, and that would be fair at the beginning. However this issue has been going on for weeks, by now there should be an effort by users able to attest to the existence of both pro-Kiev and pro-Moscow biases on this issue, to attempt to stabilize the article from the raids by biased users inserting "the truth" as they see it. The first start would be the intro.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is a lot of the timeline listed in this article, when it is a subarticle? RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now there are 10 colors being used to describe the international reactions here. File:Crimea reaction clean.png So my questions are:
1. Do we need 10 colors?
2. Can we stop the color warring and come to a consensus?
To give an idea for the 2nd time in just 2 days the colors in the map legend in this article do not match the ones used on the map. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Knowledgekid87,I feel 3 colors should suffice - pro russia,pro ukraine & neutral. Yohannvt ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crimea_reaction_clean.png
The colours and description are perfectly fine and understandable on the image's individual page (linked above). At some point they have been edited on the main article and they now make no sense whatsoever. Sunshinenevercomes ( talk) 00:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The response of India is not corretly indicated on the map. Currently it stresses that India recognises the interest of Russia, although the exact citation is "We are watching what is happening in Ukraine with concern... The broader issues of reconcilling various interests involved and there are, after all, legitimate Russian and other interests involved and we hope those are discussed, negotiated and there is a satisfactory resolution to them" ["Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine: Shivshankar Menon, NSA". The Economic Times. 6 March 2014.] 'other interests' might as well point to the interests of Ukraine. Could someone update the legend below the map showing the responses of the countries so that instead "Recognition of Russian interests" it will be written "Recognition of Russian and other interests". 90.191.175.33 ( talk) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that the current map of distribution of mother tongue in Ukraine is neither as informative nor biased on the Russian--non-Russian scale (as it is currently in the article) as it would be if it indicated the position of other languages as well, as it is here: /info/en/?search=File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png . For example, the current map gives an incorrect impression of homogeneity of Donetsk region (as being leaned towards Russian language), although the picture is much more heterogeneous. Could someone please replace the current map of the langues with the one I referred to. 90.191.175.33 ( talk) 21:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I added Sri Lanka's reaction to the 'International reactions' section which should qualify as "Recognition of Russian and other interests" or "Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government" for the map. Could someone please update the map? I don't know how. Stephen J Sharpe ( talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
In the infobox it says:
I think it would be better not to repeat "dead" 2 times. I suppose it is a mistake. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 04:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
The information in the right hand box is not correct. Dmitry Yarosh is not in the Government, he is a leader of the Patriotic movement of Ukraine. Also, the Party "Svoboda" was the member of parliament before revolution, so it is incorrect to state that the Crimean crisis began because the party was included into the parliament after president Yanukovich left. Parties "Udar", 'Svoboda" had very large representation in the Ukrainian government before the revolution. Further, there are no "far-right" radicals in the government. More, the party of Regions was not forbidden or demolished. Party of Regions has huge representation in the parliament. Further, the correct reasons for the start of the crisis should be the fact that president Putin cannot tolerate democratic changes in Ukraine, because his imperialistic ambitions will be hurt.Please, do not use information directly from Russian propaganda sources. All of the facts I have written above are the real world truths and not assumptions that are listed now in that article. Kranshteun ( talk) 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
These claims are in the infobox as "causes". Yet, they are not supported by reliable sources. First, because opinion pieces are not reliable sources for factual claims (and pretty much everything in an infobox is a factual claim) and second because what you need a reliable source for is *not* just that something happened. What you need a reliable source for is that that something - even if it did happen - is a *cause* for the crisis. Dog farted in Odessa. There's an article about it somewhere on the internet. That's doesn't mean we put it into the infobox as a "cause" of the crisis unless there's actual reliable sources which say "dog farts in Odessa caused a crisis". See the difference? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone, urgently, edit the "Revolution in Kiev" section. It contains lots of mistakes and is written entirely from the point of view of the Russian propaganda. Numerous people around the world are reading this article now, and they are getting a completely distorted picture. I wrote about the mistakes in this article on this page before. Impatukr ( talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Impatukr, "Revolution in Kiev" is not at all neutral. Someone please edit it quickly!! Yohannvt ( talk) 18:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Kizor For some reason I can't edit this article, don't know why. So someone should do it. I wrote extensively about the mistakes in the article on this talk page ("About some legal aspects" section). I see that some of them have been corrected, but much still needs to be done. The events were reflected very adequately in 2014 Ukrainian revolution, esp. the sections "21 February" and "Regime change and developments". Impatukr ( talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: the sanctions list sub-section should be better presented using tables, e.g.
Nationallity | Name | Sanctioned by Cadada | Sanctioned by the E.U. | Sanctioned by the U.S. |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Sergey Glazyev |
![]() |
![]() |
128.189.191.222 ( talk) 22:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"On occasion" makes it sound like that most of the time those showing up to vote with a Russian passport were turned away, but once in a while allowed to vote. The source quoted makes no mention of Russian passport holders being turned away most of the time. It only mentions that one Kiev reporter with a Russian passport successfully voted in the referendum. This "on occasion" wording makes it plainly obvious that the article is being edited by those with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.126.12 ( talk) 03:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The history section starts at Catherine the Great's conquest and highlights Stalin's deportations, which leaves the false impression that Crimean Tatars are the ousted "rightful" natives of the land. I think something needs to be mentioned about the Golden Horde's conquest of Kievan Rus, the Ottoman Empire/Crimean Khanate, and their conquests and ensuing enslavement of Muscovites and Eastern European peoples, in order to give a more rounded historic picture. LokiiT ( talk) 22:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm native crimean. The list of sides is not completed. On the side of Sevastopol and crimeans was serbian chetniks. Proof : http://www.kp.ru/daily/26201.7/3089865/ 46.35.242.64 ( talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yanukovych is currently listed as a lead figure on the Russian side. He is generally pro-Russian and certainly against the current government of Ukraine but in this context it gives the impression that he supports Crimea becoming part of Russia or independent from Ukraine. The listed reference [5] from 4 March only claims that "on Saturday" (that would be 1 March, before Crimea declared intention of independence), he requested Moscow's intervention to protect the country's Russian-speaking people. It isn't mentioned whether he requested intervention in Crimea or other parts of Ukraine. [6] from the day before says he "urged Russia to refrain from military intervention in the southern Crimea region". He was ousted before things escalated in Crimea and I think he should be removed from the infobox unless a better more recent source is given. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev, why are you changing the flagicons on non-Ukrainian personages to the Ukrainian flag? Especially in the case of the turncoat Denis Berezovsky. 83.70.227.237 ( talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140321/188640257/72-Crimean-Military-Units-Request-Joining-Russia.html -- 77.7.109.165 ( talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The timeline section is virtually blank as it only points to a separate article. This is ridiculous, because, as such, an article about the crisis doesn't even summarize what happened from mid February to now. For example, only the introduction lines mention the 2014 referendum directly. In the main body, while there are multiple mentions of it, none of directly says "there was a referendum" in the first place. There is no sentence in the main article like "on March 15, a referendum was held in Crimea and in Sevastopol".
While we keep a separate article for the time, I think we do need a short summary here, containing key events only. 128.189.191.222 ( talk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there should be at least some description of what happened during the crisis. The day by day description should remain in the other article though. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 00:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I realize that most of the people are Americans who are being subjected to intense propaganda, or politically active Ukrainians who want to force their view of the story to the public, but in any case, let's stay rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.81.150 ( talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Many of the points listed here are not 'results' but moments of the crisis -- certainly if this was a more historical article I doubt they would be listed there. Here's what's currently there:
Of these I would say that 1 and 6 are really the main outcome of the crisis -- though I'd be inclined to simplify them to one point reading something like "Ukraine loses effective control of Crimea; Republic of Crimea declares independence and joins the Russian Federation after a referendum" -- and 7 possibly counts as a result as well. The rest seem to me to just be stages of the crisis itself. What do others think? -- 131.111.184.8 ( talk) 15:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this bit doesn't deserve a whole section in the article, and probably just be deleted. It has little to do with the actual conflict in Crimea. And Zhirinovsky is well known within Russia as the Duma's court jester. Nothing he says should be taken seriously. He's famous for making outrageous proposals. Ex: He was behind a proposed a bill that Russian women who marry a foreigner should be stripped of their citizenship and deported. Nouvelle Planète ( talk) 01:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Re the world map reflecting positions of various nations on Russia's action, most African nations are in grey (unknown or neutral presumably, though I believe there's a color for neutral). Does this connote "no information"? Should there be a note re originally (at time of "Ukrainian Revolution") the African Union's position was that Yanukovich was the legitimate head of state? It appears, for me anyway, that Google can find no citation of this AU position earlier on, which I find strange. Apuleius3 ( talk) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
UN General Assembly passed resolution regarding Crimea crisis http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/ . I guess it's must be written in article about it. 46.71.4.197 ( talk) 18:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The following section has been repeatedly deleted from the lead:
As this is an article about the Crimean crisis, the change in leadership of Crimea warrants inclusion in the lead. To address the alternative POV, I have added a sentence, "This version of events is disputed by Russia." However, I can find no sources giving an alternative version of events. Can someone enlighten me? Nomadic Whitt ( talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, we don't need -- and it looks bad -- to write the intro as if it's a full-length article. It should be cut down to no more than four paragraphs and provide a summary of the situation, rather than stray quotes from Tymoshenko and Singh and whoever else and recentist details. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 05:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia manual of style recommends to have a short lead, with no more than 4 paragraphs. As there are currently 7, I propose to remove some details. There is currently too much POV (e.g. discussions about whether the Ukrainian and Crimean governments are legitimate, "parliament took over by gunmen"/"coup d'état in Kiev"). Do we absolutely need to include all these details in the lead?
2 opposite POV in the same paragraphs do not turn that into NPOV... These should be left in the body of text, in respective Ukrainian and Russian reactions sections, not in the lead.
Please let me know your opinion. Canadianking123 ( talk) 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC) I will try to transfer some to the background.-- Martin Berka ( talk) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
"Before resigning, Tenyukh(minister of defense Ukraine) said he had received requests to leave Crimea from about 6,500 soldiers and family members- meaning about two-thirds of the 18,800 military personnel and relatives stationed there were so far taking their chances in the peninsula newly absorbed by Russia."
"About 4,300 Ukrainian servicemen and 2,200 of their relatives have asked to leave Crimea, Tenyukh(minister of defense Ukraine) said Tuesday. That means about two-thirds of the 18,800 military personnel and relatives that he said were stationed on the Black Sea peninsula were taking their chances in Crimea."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ukraine-orders-troop-pullout-from-crimea/2014/03/25/7b712628-b3ef-11e3-bab2-b9602293021d_story.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.191.192.161 (
talk) 10:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article about the US intelligence on the situation on Crimea. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304026304579453331966405354?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304026304579453331966405354.html -- Wrant ( talk) 00:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually the same guy killed the ppl on both sides. If somebody looks for the first time at the article it's quite unclear what happened. Probably someone can change it.-- Wrant ( talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
"Reshat Ametov (38 years old) - kidnapped by the Crimean self-defense, later was found dead with signs of torture." Did you read article provided by link? Here nothing about that this men was kiddnepped by self-defense, nothing. It was we name as propaganda. West propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.64.188.122 ( talk) 09:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually it appears that there controversy about the so called Simferopol incident. I agree to remove the KIA as there is no proof that there even was any combat yet. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 00:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Should be added as pink. [3] -- Kuzwa ( talk) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
about supposed "US funding": [7]
Look, this is stupid. First, neither source says the revolution was "US funded" so the IP editor is clearly willfully misrepresenting sources in an attempt to push a POV. Second, the first source just says that Ron Paul thinks something or other. Who cares what Ron Paul thinks? His opinions are known for being out there, do not represent mainstream, and have no place in the article, much less the lede. The second source is just a report about some vague allegations made by Kucinich made on the O'Reilly show. Again, who cars what Kucinich thinks, and seriously, stuff said on the O'Reilly show has no place on Wikipedia. It's a notch below full blown conspiracy-shows. But only a notch.
Removing this junk and please don't restore it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)