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 5 |
Man, this article was a right mess till I started working on it 1 hour ago for 1 hour... Faults were: information completely out of chronology order, no dates given for when events happened en worst of all sources badly read (I assume good faith my friends!) before being used (at one point this article claimed that Russian troops were blocking roads when the source for that did not claim that....). I hope that whoever made these honest mistakes learns something from this. (Don't worry: I am not mad at cha; I know we are all hard working volunteers and do appreciate any effort on Wikipedia that is well intended.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I did read the Euronews source! And the source does not say "people are now protesting because last week, the parliament in Kyiv made Ukrainian once again the sole official language for all legal documents". Chairmen of the Supreme Council of Crimea Volodomyr Konstantinov stated in March 2013 that the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea. [1] Journalist make mistakes too; you know... And in this case I do believe it was the Euronews journalist.
If there is a conflict between the sources, we should give preference to the English language source over the foreign language source. -- Tocino 02:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
These should be merged... -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
title should be changed to conflict now, beyond protests, gunmen just took over the crimean parliament and raised russian flags. this is an armed insurgency or something similar. --
Львівське (
говорити) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether to change it or not so asking, but the infobox presents this dispute from the side of the pro-russian camp. Is it not two sides protesting against one another? Should it be NPOV or since the tatars/ukrainians protesting are for the status quo, we display the side who wants change? Just curious -- Львівське ( говорити) 06:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue with the infobox is that it's protesters vs. protesters. To be like Euromaidan, it has to be [side with grievance] vs. government/side that has ability to make concessions. I think side 2 should be the government of ukraine/crimea (since thats who the protesters are against) and as supporting the provisional government would be pro-ukr revolutonaries & tatars. That, IMO, would be easier to comprehend and giving an equal view.--
Львівське (
говорити) 08:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Was blanked so starting a talk, should United Russia be included in the infobox? Source says MP stated "Arrived in Sevastopol, Crimea to support residents. Friends, Russia with you!" and then "There is an information war. We arrived in Sevastopol Hero City to personally interact with the residents to know the situation from within." Should it be included? Lokal made a good point that we didn't include EU/US politicians on the euromaidan article. Won't put it back without consensus, just wondering if it counts. -- Львівське ( говорити) 16:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2014 Crimean protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Yanu'snewPMC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I moved this article to 2014 Crimean unrest now that heavily armed groups have become involved. An editor undid this with the only objection being that it should go to RM. Requested move discussions are for controversial decisions and I do not think it is even remotely controversial to suggest that you have gone beyond protests when organized militia units with RPGs and automatic weapons begin taking over buildings. That said, I am looking to see if there is anyone who considers it seriously controversial to suggest this can longer be described as "protests" given the recent developments.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No such unit with the portrayed shoulder patch exists. I agree that there might be defectors, information about which is not completely certain. There was created another municipal militia unit of Sevastopol city, which is also called Berkut ( В Севастополе создают муниципальное подразделение милиции «Беркут», «Беркут» в Севастополе не будет расформирован, Російський мер Севастополя відмовився розформовувати "Беркут" в місті). Insignia of that particular unit is not yet known. There is some information that possible the SBU A Group sabotaged the procedure of disarming the Sevastopol Berkut. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I urged to check the act of aggression (war crime) definition that is very similar to the current events in Crimea. ( original document) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Some correspondent Christopher Greene accuses the new government of Ukraine in dictatorship, against which all people in Ukraine. He also accuses the United States and the Europe in instigating the recent events in Ukraine.
Unmarked military seized the building and held a referendum to install a new Prime Minister. I think this is significant and needs to be incorporated in the lede. Opinions? USchick ( talk) 19:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Someone moved it. Red Slash 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
2014 Crimean unrest →
2014 Crimean crisis – With the claimed presence of Russian military forces and seizures of infrastructure by organized and armed groups, I believe this has surpassed civil unrest and has become a local, regional, and international crisis.
Kiralexis (
talk) 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Please remember that per Wikipedia:Article titles Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.
Yerevantsi, portrays information in the article as the Ukrainian and Tatar aggression against Crimean population. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 01:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
First, your wording is pretty troublesome. Naming this section "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment" clearly shows your POV and is a direct accusation towards me. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
Second, being a resident of Crimea does not mean they represent the government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the flag of which it is. If you have problems understanding, I'll repeat. Dzhemiliev is a Ukrainian (not Crimean) parliamentary deputy, Kunitsyn is an Ukrainian (not Crimean) official, Chubarov is a Crimean Tatar representative.
Third, the rest of your comment is a personal opinion having no connection with the flags. Keep your personal point of view out of Wikipedia, please and thank you. -- Երևանցի talk 02:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If your point is this article seems slanted in favor of the Russian side, I agree with you. Russian troops are occupying Crimea. Why are we burying the lede? - Kudzu1 ( talk) 02:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yerevantsi, Chubarov is a member of the Crimean parliament. The chairman of Crimean Council of Ministers is a Ukrainian official as much as Kunitsyn. That is exactly the point I was talking about. Crimea is not an independent entity and residents of Crimea are Ukrainians and then Crimeans. Kunitsyn was recently appointed the presidential representative in Crimea, but previously he headed the government of Crimea, twice. Is he a traitor? Of course, not. Your flag posting is inconsistent and portrays anti-Ukrainian sentiments in way that Ukraine tries to annex Crimea rather than Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This article should be called 2014 Ukraine crisis, the Crimea is part of Ukraine and the full scope of the issue is Ukraine, the Crimea is just one aspect of the full crisis. Thanks IQ125 ( talk) 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Should we already replace the civil conflict infobox with a military conflict one?
Is calling it a "crisis" still appropriate? Maybe we should rename it "Russian invasion of Crimea" or "Russian invasion of Ukraine"? There are already sources calling it an "invasion", but they are mostly citing the Ukrainian side [1] [2] [3] Thoughts? -- Երևանցի talk 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
We have several sources which state explicitly that Russia has invaded Ukraine and has taken control of Crimea: [4] [5]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
So far there are a lot of claims here of national grievances, etc., but nothing addressing strategic issues. For instance the issue of the new Ukrainian government aligning itself with the West and what role that might have in affecting Russia's military agreements with Ukraine involving its Black Sea Fleet being based in Crimea. This is something that should be looked into.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There's the Council of Ministers of Crimea and the Supreme Council of Crimea. These are different right? With different people in charge. Please help me clarify. USchick ( talk) 04:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sequence of events:
The story falls short. 1. The international community means the western world. 2. It is difficult no to see the parallels with the Georgian affairs six years ago. At least in part, both of these events were likely triggered by western intention to decrease Russia's influence in the area. It is surprising that this possibility is not discussed anywhere in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.169.154 ( talk) 03:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Worse: it doesn't even mean "western world" but basically: United States and part of its vassals Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. ( talk) 08:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It's called a "standoff" by some RS. "Unrest" suggests that it is a civil conflict, and it appears it's more than just that → Reuters Voice of America BBC LA Times Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 12:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The situation is becoming a Hobbesian trap. Maybe somebody can work that into the text. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 19:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The Budapest Agreement of 1994 [13] is a legal document about the territorial integrity of Ukraine. USchick ( talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the Budapest Memorandum (actually made up of three intergovernmental memorandums) is increasingly a dead letter, unfortunately. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
A few hours ago Russian President Putin stated it was of "extreme importance of not allowing a further escalation of violence and the necessity of a rapid normalisation of the situation in Ukraine" in telephone calls with key EU leaders. [1]
So it is safe to say that Russia is not involved in seizing anything in Crimea or Putin is not telling key EU leaders the truth. Since the parliament and airports seem to be occupied by "gunmen unmarked" I think we should not assume they are Russian soldiers untill we can be sure (per WP:CHRYSTAL).
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Should we edit Infoboxes on the bases we believe the Russian foreign ministry is lying? What Russian officials are claiming that Russia is involved? If only journalist claim it, then the lead should have the information that Russian officials claim Russia is not involved. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well Russian troops are based in Crimea.... But if Ukraine says Russia is occupying buildings and Russia says its not... Both opinions should be mentioned.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Measures on Wikipedia can be prepared for now, for the prospect of this page going completely out of control should war or other ethnic violence erupt in Crimea with ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian nationalists making their own claims of what is going on. This will especially be the case if the new government in Crimea declares independence from Ukraine that is not recognized by Ukraine. Precedents on how other controversial declarations of independence have been dealt with on Wikipedia such as on the topic of Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried to make an improvement of the currently used map. I think it is a little more descriptive. I left away any mention of nation states so I hope the map remains neutral. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The 50,000 Ukraine troopers are all in crimea? I think far less 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 12:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The Ukraine Navy seems to have disintegrated, or so it seems. It's main HQ and practically all major combat units including it's flagship (Hetman Sahaydachniy) and it's only submarine (Zaporizhzhia) appear to have gone over to the pro-Russian forces or been captured by same. A very large chunk of it's logistical and support infrastructure looks like to have gone the same way. It's command structure is in a mess, if it can be considered to still exist. A least a mention of the current unclear status of the Navy should be made in the article. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 16:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I should note that the Ukrainian Marine Corps seem to be holding on, at least for the moment. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Lokalkosmopolit, if the Navy is possibly (even likely) hors de combat, then said possibility should be mentioned, with the qualifier that the actual status is still unclear, whatever your personal feelings on the matter may be. I'll leave your edit alone for the moment though, to allow others to have their say first. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It's just been confirmed that Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky has defected to the pro-Russian forces. Not a good sign. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Too many people grew up in, or got used to, the post-Cold War 'End of History' era. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 18:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Beginning to see a sharp rise in anti-war demonstrations. An article may be necessary similar to February 15, 2003 anti-war protest and Protests against the Iraq War. Though unlike Iraq, there are significantly large rallies supporting the upcoming invasion. Wolcott ( talk) 20:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we need a 2014 Crimean Crisis article and a 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article? The Russians have intervened as part of the Crisis, after all. 96.54.86.78 ( talk) 04:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is being discussed on the talk page of the other article. Please see: Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Merger Proposal with 2014 Crimean Crisis -- Tocino 6:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So let's have the discussion in only one place, please. There is already an extensive thread, as you've been informed, over at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Merger Proposal with 2014 Crimean Crisis. No need to try to repeat the opinions of both sides here. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an official summary about a telephone conversation between Lavrov and Minister Wang Yi from earlier today here. It says that Lavrov presented Russia's position about the recent situation in Ukraine, that there was an intensive exchange of opinions, and both sides agree that a careful handling of the current crisis is very important for maintaining regional peace and stability.
Not sure if it is relevant to the article. It adds little to yesterday's remarks by Qin Gang, on the other hand it obviously sounds quite different from the "broad agreement" that Lavrov claimed earlier today. Yaan ( talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think we should avoid comparisons with Nazi Germany, especially in the lead. Perhaps, this could be suitable in the 'Reactions' section (I am ambivalent), but we should avoid any nazi comparisons in the introduction.
This should apply to both sides:
Otherwise, it reduces the credibility of the article. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 22:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
These comparisons get stale and meaningless when they're made every time a major power uses its military. I see no harm in leaving this in the article, as they are indeed prominent figures and the sources seem reliable enough. However it does not belong in the lead and should not be given prominence. LokiiT ( talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave changes to this article out of my hands, but I do recall in my own readings about Germany seizing Sudetenland (part of the then Czechoslovakia, and which had ethnic Germans) and Austria (latter event was the "Anschluss").
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2014 Crimean crisis → Occupation of Crimea – The situation meets the definition of military occupation: "effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign"; it is similar to German occupation of Czechoslovakia or Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia Porolissum-DE ( talk) 22:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Additionally, Ukrainian Border Service Assistant Chief Col. Sergei Astakhov said he saw Russian troops move by ferry from Russia across the Strait of Kerch. As the ferries approached the port, 10 heavily armed troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet attacked the border post from land and used force to overwhelm Ukrainian border guards, Astakhov said. In another ominous incident, a Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman said the commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet boarded a blocked Ukrainian warship and issued a threat." [1]. 2. All of [2]. 3. In Crimea, meanwhile, Russian troops and aircrafts were already creating “facts on the ground.” [3] 4. "European Union foreign ministers, condemning Russia’s actions, called on Moscow to return its troops to their bases" [4] These are major media outlets reporting on 2014 occupation of Crimea. To my understanding all English speaking countries by now agree that Russian troops are occupying Crimea, and this is English Wikipedia. Most succesful aggressions start undeclared, and declaration of war is frankly speaking, irrelevant. Psubrat2000 ( talk) 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
For such an important article, the text is bad. Poor English, lack of flow, etc. Let's put some effort into the presentation as well as the facts. 75.41.109.190 ( talk) 03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's too early to do it now, but if this continues, more content will accumulate and it will be necessary to create the Timeline of 2014 Crimean crisis article and leave only a brief summary here. -- 94.253.206.108 ( talk) 11:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up to the main page. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The president disappeared on 22 and the acting one was appointed later. Xx236 ( talk) 10:16, 5 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 5 |
Man, this article was a right mess till I started working on it 1 hour ago for 1 hour... Faults were: information completely out of chronology order, no dates given for when events happened en worst of all sources badly read (I assume good faith my friends!) before being used (at one point this article claimed that Russian troops were blocking roads when the source for that did not claim that....). I hope that whoever made these honest mistakes learns something from this. (Don't worry: I am not mad at cha; I know we are all hard working volunteers and do appreciate any effort on Wikipedia that is well intended.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I did read the Euronews source! And the source does not say "people are now protesting because last week, the parliament in Kyiv made Ukrainian once again the sole official language for all legal documents". Chairmen of the Supreme Council of Crimea Volodomyr Konstantinov stated in March 2013 that the August 2012 law had changed nothing in Crimea. [1] Journalist make mistakes too; you know... And in this case I do believe it was the Euronews journalist.
If there is a conflict between the sources, we should give preference to the English language source over the foreign language source. -- Tocino 02:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
These should be merged... -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
title should be changed to conflict now, beyond protests, gunmen just took over the crimean parliament and raised russian flags. this is an armed insurgency or something similar. --
Львівське (
говорити) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether to change it or not so asking, but the infobox presents this dispute from the side of the pro-russian camp. Is it not two sides protesting against one another? Should it be NPOV or since the tatars/ukrainians protesting are for the status quo, we display the side who wants change? Just curious -- Львівське ( говорити) 06:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue with the infobox is that it's protesters vs. protesters. To be like Euromaidan, it has to be [side with grievance] vs. government/side that has ability to make concessions. I think side 2 should be the government of ukraine/crimea (since thats who the protesters are against) and as supporting the provisional government would be pro-ukr revolutonaries & tatars. That, IMO, would be easier to comprehend and giving an equal view.--
Львівське (
говорити) 08:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Was blanked so starting a talk, should United Russia be included in the infobox? Source says MP stated "Arrived in Sevastopol, Crimea to support residents. Friends, Russia with you!" and then "There is an information war. We arrived in Sevastopol Hero City to personally interact with the residents to know the situation from within." Should it be included? Lokal made a good point that we didn't include EU/US politicians on the euromaidan article. Won't put it back without consensus, just wondering if it counts. -- Львівське ( говорити) 16:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2014 Crimean protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Yanu'snewPMC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I moved this article to 2014 Crimean unrest now that heavily armed groups have become involved. An editor undid this with the only objection being that it should go to RM. Requested move discussions are for controversial decisions and I do not think it is even remotely controversial to suggest that you have gone beyond protests when organized militia units with RPGs and automatic weapons begin taking over buildings. That said, I am looking to see if there is anyone who considers it seriously controversial to suggest this can longer be described as "protests" given the recent developments.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No such unit with the portrayed shoulder patch exists. I agree that there might be defectors, information about which is not completely certain. There was created another municipal militia unit of Sevastopol city, which is also called Berkut ( В Севастополе создают муниципальное подразделение милиции «Беркут», «Беркут» в Севастополе не будет расформирован, Російський мер Севастополя відмовився розформовувати "Беркут" в місті). Insignia of that particular unit is not yet known. There is some information that possible the SBU A Group sabotaged the procedure of disarming the Sevastopol Berkut. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I urged to check the act of aggression (war crime) definition that is very similar to the current events in Crimea. ( original document) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Some correspondent Christopher Greene accuses the new government of Ukraine in dictatorship, against which all people in Ukraine. He also accuses the United States and the Europe in instigating the recent events in Ukraine.
Unmarked military seized the building and held a referendum to install a new Prime Minister. I think this is significant and needs to be incorporated in the lede. Opinions? USchick ( talk) 19:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Someone moved it. Red Slash 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
2014 Crimean unrest →
2014 Crimean crisis – With the claimed presence of Russian military forces and seizures of infrastructure by organized and armed groups, I believe this has surpassed civil unrest and has become a local, regional, and international crisis.
Kiralexis (
talk) 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Please remember that per Wikipedia:Article titles Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.
Yerevantsi, portrays information in the article as the Ukrainian and Tatar aggression against Crimean population. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 01:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
First, your wording is pretty troublesome. Naming this section "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment" clearly shows your POV and is a direct accusation towards me. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
Second, being a resident of Crimea does not mean they represent the government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the flag of which it is. If you have problems understanding, I'll repeat. Dzhemiliev is a Ukrainian (not Crimean) parliamentary deputy, Kunitsyn is an Ukrainian (not Crimean) official, Chubarov is a Crimean Tatar representative.
Third, the rest of your comment is a personal opinion having no connection with the flags. Keep your personal point of view out of Wikipedia, please and thank you. -- Երևանցի talk 02:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If your point is this article seems slanted in favor of the Russian side, I agree with you. Russian troops are occupying Crimea. Why are we burying the lede? - Kudzu1 ( talk) 02:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yerevantsi, Chubarov is a member of the Crimean parliament. The chairman of Crimean Council of Ministers is a Ukrainian official as much as Kunitsyn. That is exactly the point I was talking about. Crimea is not an independent entity and residents of Crimea are Ukrainians and then Crimeans. Kunitsyn was recently appointed the presidential representative in Crimea, but previously he headed the government of Crimea, twice. Is he a traitor? Of course, not. Your flag posting is inconsistent and portrays anti-Ukrainian sentiments in way that Ukraine tries to annex Crimea rather than Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This article should be called 2014 Ukraine crisis, the Crimea is part of Ukraine and the full scope of the issue is Ukraine, the Crimea is just one aspect of the full crisis. Thanks IQ125 ( talk) 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Should we already replace the civil conflict infobox with a military conflict one?
Is calling it a "crisis" still appropriate? Maybe we should rename it "Russian invasion of Crimea" or "Russian invasion of Ukraine"? There are already sources calling it an "invasion", but they are mostly citing the Ukrainian side [1] [2] [3] Thoughts? -- Երևանցի talk 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
We have several sources which state explicitly that Russia has invaded Ukraine and has taken control of Crimea: [4] [5]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
So far there are a lot of claims here of national grievances, etc., but nothing addressing strategic issues. For instance the issue of the new Ukrainian government aligning itself with the West and what role that might have in affecting Russia's military agreements with Ukraine involving its Black Sea Fleet being based in Crimea. This is something that should be looked into.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There's the Council of Ministers of Crimea and the Supreme Council of Crimea. These are different right? With different people in charge. Please help me clarify. USchick ( talk) 04:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sequence of events:
The story falls short. 1. The international community means the western world. 2. It is difficult no to see the parallels with the Georgian affairs six years ago. At least in part, both of these events were likely triggered by western intention to decrease Russia's influence in the area. It is surprising that this possibility is not discussed anywhere in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.169.154 ( talk) 03:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Worse: it doesn't even mean "western world" but basically: United States and part of its vassals Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. ( talk) 08:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It's called a "standoff" by some RS. "Unrest" suggests that it is a civil conflict, and it appears it's more than just that → Reuters Voice of America BBC LA Times Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 12:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The situation is becoming a Hobbesian trap. Maybe somebody can work that into the text. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 19:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The Budapest Agreement of 1994 [13] is a legal document about the territorial integrity of Ukraine. USchick ( talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the Budapest Memorandum (actually made up of three intergovernmental memorandums) is increasingly a dead letter, unfortunately. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
A few hours ago Russian President Putin stated it was of "extreme importance of not allowing a further escalation of violence and the necessity of a rapid normalisation of the situation in Ukraine" in telephone calls with key EU leaders. [1]
So it is safe to say that Russia is not involved in seizing anything in Crimea or Putin is not telling key EU leaders the truth. Since the parliament and airports seem to be occupied by "gunmen unmarked" I think we should not assume they are Russian soldiers untill we can be sure (per WP:CHRYSTAL).
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Should we edit Infoboxes on the bases we believe the Russian foreign ministry is lying? What Russian officials are claiming that Russia is involved? If only journalist claim it, then the lead should have the information that Russian officials claim Russia is not involved. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well Russian troops are based in Crimea.... But if Ukraine says Russia is occupying buildings and Russia says its not... Both opinions should be mentioned.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Measures on Wikipedia can be prepared for now, for the prospect of this page going completely out of control should war or other ethnic violence erupt in Crimea with ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian nationalists making their own claims of what is going on. This will especially be the case if the new government in Crimea declares independence from Ukraine that is not recognized by Ukraine. Precedents on how other controversial declarations of independence have been dealt with on Wikipedia such as on the topic of Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo.-- 74.12.195.248 ( talk) 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried to make an improvement of the currently used map. I think it is a little more descriptive. I left away any mention of nation states so I hope the map remains neutral. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The 50,000 Ukraine troopers are all in crimea? I think far less 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 12:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The Ukraine Navy seems to have disintegrated, or so it seems. It's main HQ and practically all major combat units including it's flagship (Hetman Sahaydachniy) and it's only submarine (Zaporizhzhia) appear to have gone over to the pro-Russian forces or been captured by same. A very large chunk of it's logistical and support infrastructure looks like to have gone the same way. It's command structure is in a mess, if it can be considered to still exist. A least a mention of the current unclear status of the Navy should be made in the article. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 16:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I should note that the Ukrainian Marine Corps seem to be holding on, at least for the moment. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Lokalkosmopolit, if the Navy is possibly (even likely) hors de combat, then said possibility should be mentioned, with the qualifier that the actual status is still unclear, whatever your personal feelings on the matter may be. I'll leave your edit alone for the moment though, to allow others to have their say first. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It's just been confirmed that Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky has defected to the pro-Russian forces. Not a good sign. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Too many people grew up in, or got used to, the post-Cold War 'End of History' era. 83.70.254.132 ( talk) 18:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Beginning to see a sharp rise in anti-war demonstrations. An article may be necessary similar to February 15, 2003 anti-war protest and Protests against the Iraq War. Though unlike Iraq, there are significantly large rallies supporting the upcoming invasion. Wolcott ( talk) 20:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we need a 2014 Crimean Crisis article and a 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article? The Russians have intervened as part of the Crisis, after all. 96.54.86.78 ( talk) 04:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is being discussed on the talk page of the other article. Please see: Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Merger Proposal with 2014 Crimean Crisis -- Tocino 6:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So let's have the discussion in only one place, please. There is already an extensive thread, as you've been informed, over at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Merger Proposal with 2014 Crimean Crisis. No need to try to repeat the opinions of both sides here. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an official summary about a telephone conversation between Lavrov and Minister Wang Yi from earlier today here. It says that Lavrov presented Russia's position about the recent situation in Ukraine, that there was an intensive exchange of opinions, and both sides agree that a careful handling of the current crisis is very important for maintaining regional peace and stability.
Not sure if it is relevant to the article. It adds little to yesterday's remarks by Qin Gang, on the other hand it obviously sounds quite different from the "broad agreement" that Lavrov claimed earlier today. Yaan ( talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think we should avoid comparisons with Nazi Germany, especially in the lead. Perhaps, this could be suitable in the 'Reactions' section (I am ambivalent), but we should avoid any nazi comparisons in the introduction.
This should apply to both sides:
Otherwise, it reduces the credibility of the article. Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 22:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
These comparisons get stale and meaningless when they're made every time a major power uses its military. I see no harm in leaving this in the article, as they are indeed prominent figures and the sources seem reliable enough. However it does not belong in the lead and should not be given prominence. LokiiT ( talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave changes to this article out of my hands, but I do recall in my own readings about Germany seizing Sudetenland (part of the then Czechoslovakia, and which had ethnic Germans) and Austria (latter event was the "Anschluss").
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2014 Crimean crisis → Occupation of Crimea – The situation meets the definition of military occupation: "effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign"; it is similar to German occupation of Czechoslovakia or Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia Porolissum-DE ( talk) 22:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Additionally, Ukrainian Border Service Assistant Chief Col. Sergei Astakhov said he saw Russian troops move by ferry from Russia across the Strait of Kerch. As the ferries approached the port, 10 heavily armed troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet attacked the border post from land and used force to overwhelm Ukrainian border guards, Astakhov said. In another ominous incident, a Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman said the commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet boarded a blocked Ukrainian warship and issued a threat." [1]. 2. All of [2]. 3. In Crimea, meanwhile, Russian troops and aircrafts were already creating “facts on the ground.” [3] 4. "European Union foreign ministers, condemning Russia’s actions, called on Moscow to return its troops to their bases" [4] These are major media outlets reporting on 2014 occupation of Crimea. To my understanding all English speaking countries by now agree that Russian troops are occupying Crimea, and this is English Wikipedia. Most succesful aggressions start undeclared, and declaration of war is frankly speaking, irrelevant. Psubrat2000 ( talk) 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
For such an important article, the text is bad. Poor English, lack of flow, etc. Let's put some effort into the presentation as well as the facts. 75.41.109.190 ( talk) 03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree Cmoibenlepro ( talk) 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's too early to do it now, but if this continues, more content will accumulate and it will be necessary to create the Timeline of 2014 Crimean crisis article and leave only a brief summary here. -- 94.253.206.108 ( talk) 11:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up to the main page. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The president disappeared on 22 and the acting one was appointed later. Xx236 ( talk) 10:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)