![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
There is following sentence in the article: U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution. What a nonsense !! All resolutions of UN General Assembly are non-binding by themselves. No need to mention it specially. It's like there are some binding Resolution, but this one is non-binding. The words non-binding must be removed. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 11:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. Please comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not, AFAIK, recognize outlets like RT as reliable sources. They are subject to the editorial control of the government of a country well known for lacking freedom of the press, and they disseminate propaganda accordingly. Especially when they make extraordinary claims about "self-defense units" stopping "employees of the Ukrainian government" from vaguely nefarious activities, they should not be cited on Wikipedia. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 23:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Just with any news source, determine whether or not the report is done accurately and fairly for the situation at hand; don't resort to arguments which address the country of origin. Just like how you would gauge the reliability of an article from Fox News or CNN, it's up to editors to analyse the reliability of RT article by article.
Proper usage of citations is supposed to be situational, and there is no universal set of rules for anything. Take Xinhua News Agency or the People's Daily, for example: There are some cases where you shouldn't use those two, but there are also times when usage is acceptable. I would consider the two to be unreliable when releasing information relating to dissidents or death tolls, but reliable on apolitical domestic issues, such as football match scores.
In summary: Don't jump on RT like it's the next Pravda or Der Fuhrer's Lugenblatt; analyse each report, and make an educated and intelligent decision from each one. -- benlisquare T• C• E 07:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In Ukraine if you don't toe the line they'll personally come to your station and beat you up. If this is what they're doing in front of cameras, what are they doing off-camera? 99.226.48.235 ( talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
EVERYTHING is "state media". See
Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA pays journalists in places such as Fox news or CNN. How sneaky of Wikipedia to make up policies that favor state propaganda of the West to sites like RT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.191.189.195 (
talk) 05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Please explain your position. Xx236 ( talk) 11:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Possibly, most of you already know about the currently acting administrative restrictions aimed to decrease the number of en.wiki articles about the crisis. I hope that the community is healthy enough to eventually reopen a legitimate discussion about the fate of Republic of Crimea (country) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and controversial redirects and ridiculous protections on that page, as well as on Political status of Crimea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), will be rectified. But is it true that the number of subtopics (you can see their fair number in this navbox version under “Main topics”) is inflated? Can anybody cast a reasonable merger proposal, or propose some rearrangement of the content? Should I develop “Political status of Crimea” further (in the talk page, sandboxes, or so), or this article will likely be merged after the normalization?
In my opinion, the crisis and the status are the same thing today, but will be different things after just a couple of weeks. The former will become a history, the latter will remain a piece of politics. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"Crisis" implies that the incident is a bad thing. It was only a bad thing for the West as it saw Crimean transfer of sovereignty. It also implies danger, except there was no force involved but rather a democratic process. It also pushes the POV that Russia took the peninsula by force, (rather than the Crimeans themselves wanted to leave for fear of the Nazi coup, as evidenced by Tymoshenko's "kill all Russians leak"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 ( talk) 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
For clarification: it's a crisis not because it's a bad thing (which is subjectivity, Ru. views is as a historic achivement and reunification/"restoration of historic justice", while Ukr. views it as loss of territory/separatism, threat to it's state power), but because it involves tension (international tension, intra-Ukrainian tension, tensions on Crimea itself after seccession, economic consequences, etc.), or, in short, " unstable and dangerous situation". Note my emphasis on word unstable. Seryo93 ( talk) 18:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"The official Russian response was mixed.[248]" This sentence is so wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.212.0 ( talk) 19:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I edited the lead, "Revolution in Kiev" and some other things. I added some facts, which, as I believe, are necessary for the understanding of the events, corrected some inexact phrases and removed sentences which obviously sounded like pro-Russian POV-pushing. I'm not pushing my own POV. I'm trying to make the article as balanced and objective as possible. I think we should lock this article and propose all the changes only on the Talk page. Otherwise, this article will become an object of constant, everyday POV-pushing. Impatukr ( talk) 12:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
See for example this video which documents clearly how BBC MADE UP a video depicting a chemical attack in Syria. Given it's track record for lying, alternate sources should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 ( talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The Crimean crisis is only part of a much bigger crisis, I think it's time we create a new main article about the whole crisis which began with Euromaidan and now threatens to destabilise the whole region. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
According to current events it may be better to remain the paper to the pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Partition_of_Poland 91.77.40.192 ( talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This whole lead should be removed, its a mess and very one sided and more to the point unnecessary here. Links to 2014 Ukraine Revolution are sufficient and appropriate. Cachi43 ( talk) 01:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Info on hostages tortured by pro-Russian militias should be added [1] [2]. Andriy Shchekun might be notable enough now to warrant his own article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Reuters not RS?
Are you serious?
Seryo93 (
talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
>> NATO satellite images of Russian troops allegedly deployed en masse at present on Ukrainian borders were taken in August 2013 - Russian Military Lihaas ( talk) 16:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Do we need to read about Pauls family dispute? Xx236 ( talk) 10:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Wat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like we have a small revert war over the opinion of the "International Centre for Defence Studies". A new user insists that we should put the qualifier "US-backed" before the Orange Revolution. The source does not talk anything whether the Orange Revolution is US-backed or not. I do not think we should put our own synthesis into the source's mouth. I have put "Tallinn-based think tank" before the "International Centre for Defence Studies" to address possible concerns over the neutrality of the source.
The other edit of the same new editor is about "Russia's opinion", I think it can be kept, it is reasonably well-sourced and relevant. I would only changed Russia's opinion to Russian government's or Vladimir Putin's. Russia is a big country and different people there have different opinions Alex Bakharev ( talk) 01:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Can this article be merged anyplace? It seems out of place to me. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This reeks of yellow journalism, but here goes nothing:
Apparently a suggestion has been made by the local Crimean party "Russian Unity" (which has pro-RF sentiments) to rename the city to "Putin". That said, I personally don't really think this will happen, and it's too early to say if anything will progress beyond the suggestion. -- benlisquare T• C• E 08:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What is the connection between Legal aspects and Putin's opinion about a Kosovo verdict? What about the other opinion? Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 11:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the event box stretches for far too long. Most of results are actually events that happened and should be removed or placed in another section. The number of participants and the whole thing seems quite messy as well. I would edit it myself but I feel that I am not experienced enough in this type of editing. -- AzraeL9128 ( talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Why, exactly, are all the mentions of illegal Russian troop military actions being replaced by the use of "Pro-Russian militias"?
These Russian soldiers have already been identified, by near all foreign journalists and UN observers in the regions, as well as by repeated photographic evidence, as Russia military. Almost all cases they are carrying Russian military weapons, wearing Russian military uniforms, that are unavailable in the region. They've even been caught a few times with Russian flags on their vehicles and insignias.
In fact, if I recall, it's a war crime for these Russian soliders to have removed their insignias. Yet a few Russian sock puppets here have been removing all sourced references and replacing them with "Pro-Russian militias".
Can I ask, for the betterment of this article, why this serious (defiantly against Wikipedias policies) issue isn't being addressed? 124.148.223.74 ( talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Now that the majority of the events in Crimea are finished, it seems time to start orienting this article toward a historical perspective. Would anyone be opposed to doing this? RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
All major news outlets seem to be focusing more on South-Eastern Ukraine and what is going on there, and it seems that the Crimean Crisis has resulted in the illegal transfer of Crimea into Russia. The time zone in Crimea has already changed and Ukraine and Russia will continue to disagree over the status of Crimea for the time being. So, should we consider the Crimean crisis to have ended after the UN resolution declaring it illegal on March 27, due to the facts that Ukraine seems to be unwilling to continue further discussion over Crimea and seems to have surrendered it to Russia? Zbase4 ( talk) 00:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that this article must have generated a vast amount of hot headed users and i find it natural for people to get angry about what the newspapers of their opposite side of the newspaper influence say (in terms of western vs eastern media)
It is alarming that, for example the user 77.51.99.2 with a russian ip has only ever contributed to wikipedia by recently editing articles related to the Ukraine crisis, removing any references criticizing the Russian front or restating the facts in order to contribute to the positive Russian profile.
I believe this behavior may be dangerous for keeping the neutrality of the wikipedia intact and advice to revise or revert the edits made by this user. I have purposely not in engaged in such action, as i would not like to act hastily and would be glad if someone else also revised the user's actions.
93.184.73.10 ( talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
How an authonomic region can have special forces? Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't quote many Anschluss articles. Xx236 ( talk) 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 10:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Please define what is pro-Crimean. It's not obvious in this context, maybe POV. Xx236 ( talk) 09:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Why Milly Firqa is mention in "Parties to the civil conflict"? It has no authority in Tatar community and was created by Russian forces. No one have ever heard about of it in Crimea. It can be easily checked - their public page in Vkontakte (the most popular social network in post Soviet region) has fewer then 400 subscribers and major part of them has Russian names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.11.80.131 ( talk) 12:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If official Russian media are not OK, why is the BBC (British state media) used? That's a serious question, I'm not just trying to say you can only ban RT if you ban the BBC from this article, I just am unsure why the BBC is considered trustworthy for anything other than quotes, dates, and so forth. I'd argue RT is reliable for those sorts of things, too. I'm English, not a Vladimir "Butcher of Grozny" Putin shill, just to be clear. But I am very curious about this seeming double standard applied to state media. AntiqueReader ( talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can the names of the people which accounts were frozen (private sector, government) be mentioned ? See
80.200.241.27 ( talk) 08:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
All information should be verified. The Article should be neutral. This article is made to inform people about the event, not misinform people and make them take sides. The cold war is over.
Andrew Gunner ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
According to The Economist:
In preparation for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin cleared the last pockets of independent media. Ria Novosti, a state-news agency, which sheltered loyal but liberal-minded journalists, was purged and turned into a blunt propaganda instrument. TV Rain, a private television channel which provided the most objective coverage of the Ukrainian protests, was taken off the air by the main cable providers, acting on the Kremlin’s instructions. The internet, once free of Kremlin control, has been restricted by new, vague laws. On March 12th the editor of one of the most popular news sites, Lenta.ru, was replaced with a pro-Kremlin appointee. Its journalists threatened to resign in protest: “The trouble is not that we won’t have anywhere to work, but that you won’t have anything to read.” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Mr Putin, labelled anyone objecting to the Kremlin’s actions part of a “nano-sized fifth column”.
A patriotic frenzy whipped up by television muffles any dissent. Television executives who were trained as part of their Soviet-era military services in “special propaganda”, which sought to “demoralise the enemy army and establish control over the occupied territory”, created a virtual enemy in Crimea—fascist revolutionaries whose overthrow of the legitimate government justified the movement of real troops.
People close to Mr Putin say he had been harbouring the idea of taking Crimea since the war in 2008 with Georgia, which resulted in the de facto occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, its two breakaway republics. Yet the context is different. Kirill Rogov, a political columnist, argues that the war in Georgia served as a patriotic accompaniment to Russia’s economic resurgence. Ukraine serves as its substitute.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Crimean Crisis is over, it is time to choose an appropriate end date for the infobox. 101.119.15.73 ( talk) 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted every reference from the 3rd paragraph of the lede. There are far too many to support such a small paragraph, with the little superscripted numbers dominating what should be simple and uncontested text. They, however, require enormous work to review. I preserve them below. If one is actually needed (which I doubt), please add it, singly, to the article. This sort of mess should not exist. Jd2718 ( talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
ref name="themoscowtimes.com"> New Ukraine Government Has White House's Support, U.S. Vice President Says, The Moscow Times (February 28, 2014)</ref>
ref> Joe Biden calls new Ukraine leader, pledges support, Politico (February 27, 2014)</ref>
ref> Biden: U.S. Supports Ukraine's New Government, Voice of America (February 27, 2014)</ref>
ref> Vice President Biden calls Ukraine PM Yatseniuk, pledges U.S. support, Reuters (February 27, 2014)</ref>
ref> "Ecuador does not recognize Ukraine's 'illegitimate' govt - Correa". RT. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>
ref> "Maduro backs Ukraine's deposed leader". Malay Mail Online. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>
ref> "President al-Assad expresses Syria's solidarity with Russian efforts to restore security and stability to friendly Ukraine". SANA. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>
ref name=autogenerated8 />Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).{{efn|The Washington Post (2014) "[Putin says:] Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President."
malformeed: ref name="http" cite news |url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/transcript-putin-defends-russian-intervention-in-ukraine/2014/03/04/9cadcd1a-a3a9-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html |title=Transcript: Putin defends Russian intervention in Ukraine |newspaper= The Washington Post |date=March 8, 2014 |accessdate=March 10, 2014
ref name="ReferenceA"> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/who-are-these-people-anyw_b_4964526.html Who Are These 'People,' Anyway?</ref>
ref name=RadioFreeEurope>Sindelar, Daisy (February 23, 2014). "Was Yanukovych's Ouster Constitutional?". Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty (Rferl.org). Retrieved February 25, 2014.</ref>
ref> "Russian official accuses US of fueling Ukraine crisis". PressTV. Retrieved April 20, 2014.</ref>
ref name=autogenerated8> United Nations News Centre – UN Security Council action on Crimea referendum blocked</ref> [a]
Beneath the NPOV tag and above the first sentence of the lead, there is a random black line on the left. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about (object circled in blue). I've tried editing it out but I can't seem to find where it's actually coming from. I tracked it down to edit #598628060 on March 8, 00:58 by User:RGloucester as he was re-doing the info boxes, but still don't know what actually caused it. What is it, why is it there, and can we get rid of it? Coinmanj ( talk) 18:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Has become a seperate article in the german wikipedia. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereinbarung_%C3%BCber_die_Beilegung_der_Krise_in_der_Ukraine it seems quite important that Viktor Yanukovych fled the very same day. -- Anidaat ( talk) 12:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
There is following sentence in the article: U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution. What a nonsense !! All resolutions of UN General Assembly are non-binding by themselves. No need to mention it specially. It's like there are some binding Resolution, but this one is non-binding. The words non-binding must be removed. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 11:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. Please comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not, AFAIK, recognize outlets like RT as reliable sources. They are subject to the editorial control of the government of a country well known for lacking freedom of the press, and they disseminate propaganda accordingly. Especially when they make extraordinary claims about "self-defense units" stopping "employees of the Ukrainian government" from vaguely nefarious activities, they should not be cited on Wikipedia. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 23:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Just with any news source, determine whether or not the report is done accurately and fairly for the situation at hand; don't resort to arguments which address the country of origin. Just like how you would gauge the reliability of an article from Fox News or CNN, it's up to editors to analyse the reliability of RT article by article.
Proper usage of citations is supposed to be situational, and there is no universal set of rules for anything. Take Xinhua News Agency or the People's Daily, for example: There are some cases where you shouldn't use those two, but there are also times when usage is acceptable. I would consider the two to be unreliable when releasing information relating to dissidents or death tolls, but reliable on apolitical domestic issues, such as football match scores.
In summary: Don't jump on RT like it's the next Pravda or Der Fuhrer's Lugenblatt; analyse each report, and make an educated and intelligent decision from each one. -- benlisquare T• C• E 07:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In Ukraine if you don't toe the line they'll personally come to your station and beat you up. If this is what they're doing in front of cameras, what are they doing off-camera? 99.226.48.235 ( talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
EVERYTHING is "state media". See
Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA pays journalists in places such as Fox news or CNN. How sneaky of Wikipedia to make up policies that favor state propaganda of the West to sites like RT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.191.189.195 (
talk) 05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Please explain your position. Xx236 ( talk) 11:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Possibly, most of you already know about the currently acting administrative restrictions aimed to decrease the number of en.wiki articles about the crisis. I hope that the community is healthy enough to eventually reopen a legitimate discussion about the fate of Republic of Crimea (country) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and controversial redirects and ridiculous protections on that page, as well as on Political status of Crimea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), will be rectified. But is it true that the number of subtopics (you can see their fair number in this navbox version under “Main topics”) is inflated? Can anybody cast a reasonable merger proposal, or propose some rearrangement of the content? Should I develop “Political status of Crimea” further (in the talk page, sandboxes, or so), or this article will likely be merged after the normalization?
In my opinion, the crisis and the status are the same thing today, but will be different things after just a couple of weeks. The former will become a history, the latter will remain a piece of politics. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"Crisis" implies that the incident is a bad thing. It was only a bad thing for the West as it saw Crimean transfer of sovereignty. It also implies danger, except there was no force involved but rather a democratic process. It also pushes the POV that Russia took the peninsula by force, (rather than the Crimeans themselves wanted to leave for fear of the Nazi coup, as evidenced by Tymoshenko's "kill all Russians leak"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 ( talk) 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
For clarification: it's a crisis not because it's a bad thing (which is subjectivity, Ru. views is as a historic achivement and reunification/"restoration of historic justice", while Ukr. views it as loss of territory/separatism, threat to it's state power), but because it involves tension (international tension, intra-Ukrainian tension, tensions on Crimea itself after seccession, economic consequences, etc.), or, in short, " unstable and dangerous situation". Note my emphasis on word unstable. Seryo93 ( talk) 18:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"The official Russian response was mixed.[248]" This sentence is so wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.212.0 ( talk) 19:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I edited the lead, "Revolution in Kiev" and some other things. I added some facts, which, as I believe, are necessary for the understanding of the events, corrected some inexact phrases and removed sentences which obviously sounded like pro-Russian POV-pushing. I'm not pushing my own POV. I'm trying to make the article as balanced and objective as possible. I think we should lock this article and propose all the changes only on the Talk page. Otherwise, this article will become an object of constant, everyday POV-pushing. Impatukr ( talk) 12:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
See for example this video which documents clearly how BBC MADE UP a video depicting a chemical attack in Syria. Given it's track record for lying, alternate sources should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 ( talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The Crimean crisis is only part of a much bigger crisis, I think it's time we create a new main article about the whole crisis which began with Euromaidan and now threatens to destabilise the whole region. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
According to current events it may be better to remain the paper to the pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Partition_of_Poland 91.77.40.192 ( talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This whole lead should be removed, its a mess and very one sided and more to the point unnecessary here. Links to 2014 Ukraine Revolution are sufficient and appropriate. Cachi43 ( talk) 01:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Info on hostages tortured by pro-Russian militias should be added [1] [2]. Andriy Shchekun might be notable enough now to warrant his own article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Reuters not RS?
Are you serious?
Seryo93 (
talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
>> NATO satellite images of Russian troops allegedly deployed en masse at present on Ukrainian borders were taken in August 2013 - Russian Military Lihaas ( talk) 16:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Do we need to read about Pauls family dispute? Xx236 ( talk) 10:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Wat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like we have a small revert war over the opinion of the "International Centre for Defence Studies". A new user insists that we should put the qualifier "US-backed" before the Orange Revolution. The source does not talk anything whether the Orange Revolution is US-backed or not. I do not think we should put our own synthesis into the source's mouth. I have put "Tallinn-based think tank" before the "International Centre for Defence Studies" to address possible concerns over the neutrality of the source.
The other edit of the same new editor is about "Russia's opinion", I think it can be kept, it is reasonably well-sourced and relevant. I would only changed Russia's opinion to Russian government's or Vladimir Putin's. Russia is a big country and different people there have different opinions Alex Bakharev ( talk) 01:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Can this article be merged anyplace? It seems out of place to me. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This reeks of yellow journalism, but here goes nothing:
Apparently a suggestion has been made by the local Crimean party "Russian Unity" (which has pro-RF sentiments) to rename the city to "Putin". That said, I personally don't really think this will happen, and it's too early to say if anything will progress beyond the suggestion. -- benlisquare T• C• E 08:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What is the connection between Legal aspects and Putin's opinion about a Kosovo verdict? What about the other opinion? Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 11:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the event box stretches for far too long. Most of results are actually events that happened and should be removed or placed in another section. The number of participants and the whole thing seems quite messy as well. I would edit it myself but I feel that I am not experienced enough in this type of editing. -- AzraeL9128 ( talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Why, exactly, are all the mentions of illegal Russian troop military actions being replaced by the use of "Pro-Russian militias"?
These Russian soldiers have already been identified, by near all foreign journalists and UN observers in the regions, as well as by repeated photographic evidence, as Russia military. Almost all cases they are carrying Russian military weapons, wearing Russian military uniforms, that are unavailable in the region. They've even been caught a few times with Russian flags on their vehicles and insignias.
In fact, if I recall, it's a war crime for these Russian soliders to have removed their insignias. Yet a few Russian sock puppets here have been removing all sourced references and replacing them with "Pro-Russian militias".
Can I ask, for the betterment of this article, why this serious (defiantly against Wikipedias policies) issue isn't being addressed? 124.148.223.74 ( talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Now that the majority of the events in Crimea are finished, it seems time to start orienting this article toward a historical perspective. Would anyone be opposed to doing this? RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
All major news outlets seem to be focusing more on South-Eastern Ukraine and what is going on there, and it seems that the Crimean Crisis has resulted in the illegal transfer of Crimea into Russia. The time zone in Crimea has already changed and Ukraine and Russia will continue to disagree over the status of Crimea for the time being. So, should we consider the Crimean crisis to have ended after the UN resolution declaring it illegal on March 27, due to the facts that Ukraine seems to be unwilling to continue further discussion over Crimea and seems to have surrendered it to Russia? Zbase4 ( talk) 00:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that this article must have generated a vast amount of hot headed users and i find it natural for people to get angry about what the newspapers of their opposite side of the newspaper influence say (in terms of western vs eastern media)
It is alarming that, for example the user 77.51.99.2 with a russian ip has only ever contributed to wikipedia by recently editing articles related to the Ukraine crisis, removing any references criticizing the Russian front or restating the facts in order to contribute to the positive Russian profile.
I believe this behavior may be dangerous for keeping the neutrality of the wikipedia intact and advice to revise or revert the edits made by this user. I have purposely not in engaged in such action, as i would not like to act hastily and would be glad if someone else also revised the user's actions.
93.184.73.10 ( talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
How an authonomic region can have special forces? Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't quote many Anschluss articles. Xx236 ( talk) 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 10:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Please define what is pro-Crimean. It's not obvious in this context, maybe POV. Xx236 ( talk) 09:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Why Milly Firqa is mention in "Parties to the civil conflict"? It has no authority in Tatar community and was created by Russian forces. No one have ever heard about of it in Crimea. It can be easily checked - their public page in Vkontakte (the most popular social network in post Soviet region) has fewer then 400 subscribers and major part of them has Russian names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.11.80.131 ( talk) 12:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If official Russian media are not OK, why is the BBC (British state media) used? That's a serious question, I'm not just trying to say you can only ban RT if you ban the BBC from this article, I just am unsure why the BBC is considered trustworthy for anything other than quotes, dates, and so forth. I'd argue RT is reliable for those sorts of things, too. I'm English, not a Vladimir "Butcher of Grozny" Putin shill, just to be clear. But I am very curious about this seeming double standard applied to state media. AntiqueReader ( talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can the names of the people which accounts were frozen (private sector, government) be mentioned ? See
80.200.241.27 ( talk) 08:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
All information should be verified. The Article should be neutral. This article is made to inform people about the event, not misinform people and make them take sides. The cold war is over.
Andrew Gunner ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
According to The Economist:
In preparation for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin cleared the last pockets of independent media. Ria Novosti, a state-news agency, which sheltered loyal but liberal-minded journalists, was purged and turned into a blunt propaganda instrument. TV Rain, a private television channel which provided the most objective coverage of the Ukrainian protests, was taken off the air by the main cable providers, acting on the Kremlin’s instructions. The internet, once free of Kremlin control, has been restricted by new, vague laws. On March 12th the editor of one of the most popular news sites, Lenta.ru, was replaced with a pro-Kremlin appointee. Its journalists threatened to resign in protest: “The trouble is not that we won’t have anywhere to work, but that you won’t have anything to read.” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Mr Putin, labelled anyone objecting to the Kremlin’s actions part of a “nano-sized fifth column”.
A patriotic frenzy whipped up by television muffles any dissent. Television executives who were trained as part of their Soviet-era military services in “special propaganda”, which sought to “demoralise the enemy army and establish control over the occupied territory”, created a virtual enemy in Crimea—fascist revolutionaries whose overthrow of the legitimate government justified the movement of real troops.
People close to Mr Putin say he had been harbouring the idea of taking Crimea since the war in 2008 with Georgia, which resulted in the de facto occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, its two breakaway republics. Yet the context is different. Kirill Rogov, a political columnist, argues that the war in Georgia served as a patriotic accompaniment to Russia’s economic resurgence. Ukraine serves as its substitute.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Crimean Crisis is over, it is time to choose an appropriate end date for the infobox. 101.119.15.73 ( talk) 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted every reference from the 3rd paragraph of the lede. There are far too many to support such a small paragraph, with the little superscripted numbers dominating what should be simple and uncontested text. They, however, require enormous work to review. I preserve them below. If one is actually needed (which I doubt), please add it, singly, to the article. This sort of mess should not exist. Jd2718 ( talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
ref name="themoscowtimes.com"> New Ukraine Government Has White House's Support, U.S. Vice President Says, The Moscow Times (February 28, 2014)</ref>
ref> Joe Biden calls new Ukraine leader, pledges support, Politico (February 27, 2014)</ref>
ref> Biden: U.S. Supports Ukraine's New Government, Voice of America (February 27, 2014)</ref>
ref> Vice President Biden calls Ukraine PM Yatseniuk, pledges U.S. support, Reuters (February 27, 2014)</ref>
ref> "Ecuador does not recognize Ukraine's 'illegitimate' govt - Correa". RT. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>
ref> "Maduro backs Ukraine's deposed leader". Malay Mail Online. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>
ref> "President al-Assad expresses Syria's solidarity with Russian efforts to restore security and stability to friendly Ukraine". SANA. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>
ref name=autogenerated8 />Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).{{efn|The Washington Post (2014) "[Putin says:] Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President."
malformeed: ref name="http" cite news |url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/transcript-putin-defends-russian-intervention-in-ukraine/2014/03/04/9cadcd1a-a3a9-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html |title=Transcript: Putin defends Russian intervention in Ukraine |newspaper= The Washington Post |date=March 8, 2014 |accessdate=March 10, 2014
ref name="ReferenceA"> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/who-are-these-people-anyw_b_4964526.html Who Are These 'People,' Anyway?</ref>
ref name=RadioFreeEurope>Sindelar, Daisy (February 23, 2014). "Was Yanukovych's Ouster Constitutional?". Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty (Rferl.org). Retrieved February 25, 2014.</ref>
ref> "Russian official accuses US of fueling Ukraine crisis". PressTV. Retrieved April 20, 2014.</ref>
ref name=autogenerated8> United Nations News Centre – UN Security Council action on Crimea referendum blocked</ref> [a]
Beneath the NPOV tag and above the first sentence of the lead, there is a random black line on the left. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about (object circled in blue). I've tried editing it out but I can't seem to find where it's actually coming from. I tracked it down to edit #598628060 on March 8, 00:58 by User:RGloucester as he was re-doing the info boxes, but still don't know what actually caused it. What is it, why is it there, and can we get rid of it? Coinmanj ( talk) 18:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Has become a seperate article in the german wikipedia. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereinbarung_%C3%BCber_die_Beilegung_der_Krise_in_der_Ukraine it seems quite important that Viktor Yanukovych fled the very same day. -- Anidaat ( talk) 12:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).