Talk:2014 Crimean crisis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

About some legal aspects

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)

3. I hope you and your compatriots stop this boringly stale argument: Unless most natively English dictionaries and journalists prefer Kyiv, Kharkiv, etc. over other spellings, the manual of style requires all editors to use Kiev, Kharkov, etc. regardless of origin of the terms. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Take into account that there is no "Kharkov" article in Wikipedia. The city is consistently called "Kharkiv": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv. Spelling is a trifle. I talked about much more important things. However, this argument is not "boringly stale". It's important. If you noticed, I did not write "Kyiv". I wrote, "Kiev". Let's stick to the spellings in Wikipedia: Kiev and Kharkiv.Impatukr (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I admit I didn't research before replying. After some search there is no definite preference of Kharkov/Kharkiv among the (natively, I stress) English media. Presumably when the MOS of use English didn't mature enough, the article Kharkiv in en.wp was "merged in" to Kharkov on 19 August 2003 without any discussion (the article was still stub after merging without a single source or category at all). The more recent (2012) discussion also didn't reach any consensus. One thing I want to note is that "Kharkiv" is not recognized by the spellchecker used by Mozilla suite, Kharkov however is accepted as the correct English spelling. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Most Ukrainian cities in English Wikipedia are called by their Ukrainian, not Russian names (including most of the cities located in the Russian-speaking regions of the country): Lviv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kharkiv, Ternopil, Cherkasy, Chernihiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Chernivtsi, Kirovohrad, Kremenchuk, Kryvyi Rih, Rivne, Uzhhorod, Ivano-Frankivsk. Apparently, there was some consensus about that... Impatukr (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

+ Note the spelling in: 2010 Kharkiv Pact and Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. Impatukr (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please... Wikipedia itself is NOT a source to your claims. 2010 Kharkiv Pact mostly uses sources from Kyivpost and RIA, both are not natively English and have clear political bias/preferences which do not reflect the native English usage. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is natively english. Do your research. If you think you're going to turn Kharkiv into Kharkov, go to the city's article and argue new common use. You'll lose, but it's better than arguing a tired point here. --Львівське (говорити) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Kyiv Post" uses "Kyiv" intentionally rather than "Kiev" in its articles. How natively English can that be? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Kyiv is the native english spelling of the city. Euronews, CBC, Toronto Star, CTV, New York Daily News, Interfax', etc all use Kyiv as the English spelling. --Львівське (говорити) 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we referring to the different New York Daily News? [1] (Kyiv, 7 results)/[2] (Kiev, 415 results). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiev is still the preferred name in native English, just like we say Moscow not Moskva. For example [3] just my 2 cents. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 18:19, 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)

• Kharkiv is common use and the variety used on Wikipedia. Kharkov is an archaism that isn't used in the English speaking world anymore. The only cities where the Russian-English form trumps are Kiev and Odessa. That said, for points 1-5, all of these statements are correct. I haven't reviewed the article, it seems to have been infected by POV pushing users so I was waiting for them to go away before doing any substantial edits, but the above suggestions are indeed factual (as someone who largely wrote the revolution article and know what occurred). --Львівське (говорити) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• you don't provide data as evidence that Kharkov is archaïc and not used in the english speaking world anymore. Most major european languages, ie. english, french, spanish, italian, do use forms of foreign cities names that are not the native writing. For instance Munich instead of München. When literary heritage is older for a given foreign culture and country, names tend to be even more different, for instance in french Regensburg is Ratisbonne, Frankfurt is Francfort, Hamburg is Hambourg and so on, just to give an idea with french. Of course the fact that french language does so means nothing about what should be done in english. But it's simply evidence that naming isn't necesseraly ideologic, but a product of a given cultural heritage. When different languages co-exist in a nation, naming can be multiple, basically most of the time dual. For instance Québec-Ville and Quebec-City. The fact that french language is the official language in Québec province and it has an older tradition there than the english one, doesn't change the fact that english-speaking Canada says Québec-City not Québec-Ville.So in the case of eastern-ukrainian cities, which histories are closely tied to russian heritage, the naming Kharkov or Lugansk instead of Kharkiv or Luhansk is just as much a cultural heritage in english language than Moscow for Moskva, or Munich for München, or Gothenburg for Göteborg. Needless to say, it's also the case with names of regions and countries. English doesn't say España but Spain, not Deutschland but Germany, etc. The recent insistance in denying the use of Kharkov naming is one of the many little steps in the current ideological anti-russian hatred and demonization (the first law by ukrainian parliament under the current governement was the voiding of the administrative status of regional languages ie. basically russian.) Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Technically, I can't edit this article, so please do it when you can. Not only points 1-5 but also what I wrote before it. The sentence "The elected national government of Ukraine was ousted and replaced with leaders of the Yatsenyuk Government" is the strangest and the most misleading one. Impatukr (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Impatukr, thank you for inviting me for the discussion. I want to pointed out the fact that there is no 2004 Constitution of Ukraine and there never was such constitution. There were important amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine that drastically changed a political structure of the Ukrainian government by shifting more power to parliament rather than concentrate most of authority to the president. During the agreement between Yanukovych and opposition Yanukovych had 24 hours to enforce procedure of restore those amendments. Moreover the agreement was signed by representatives from Germany, Poland and France, while the Russian representative who participated in discussion never signed it. The parliament of Ukraine went along to return the amendments and after that reelected the new government. For that law draft voted MPs not only from the opposition parties, but from the Party of Regions. Yanukovych fled to Kharkiv where Dobkin had intentions to conduct the Severodonetsk congress and possibly to secede from Ukraine. But Yanukovych changed his mind and instead of attending the congress tried to flee from the country and in the way trowing his party colleagues pretty much "under the bus". He was given sanctuary by the "patriotic officers" in Sevastopol, possibly, representing the Black Sea Fleet and later was given a chance to emigrate to Rostov upon Don. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

About the naming of Kharkiv and Kharkov is similar to name Beijing as Pekin. There is a transition of changing the Ukrainian cities from its colonial toponyms to their national Ukrainian names. Still there is an ongoing disagreement in Wikipedia in regards to Kyiv as well as Luhansk and Chernihiv. It was agreed to leave the name for Odessa in its Hellenic-like version, while its Ukrainian version is Odesa. Number of cities in Ukraine still carry Russian toponyms even in Ukrainian language such as Mariupol, Melitopol, Simferopol, Sevastopol, Pervomaisk, and many others. One should be aware that some political faction refer to some Ukrainian cities in alternative way. For example, nationalistic parties refer to Dnipropetrovsk as Sicheslav. Also adaptation of Ukrainian national names for cities are officially adopted by the regional and local councils and there is no forceful enforcement the process. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv is a transliteration of Київ and not the common English name, just like we say Moscow not "Moskva", and we say Warsaw not "Warszawa". Or in French, we say Londres instead of London (capital of UK). There is nothing wrong with that. For example: [4] Kiev is the native English name, but Kharkiv is used. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev Thank you. In fact, there was no discussion (except for "Kharkiv"). I live in Ukraine and I know the situation very well, but thank you for pointing out these things to those who don't know them. Yes, you're right about "the 2004 Constitution"; but people refer to it this way in colloquial speech. I was just a little shocked by POV pushing in this article, but found out that I couldn't edit it. Impatukr (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Impatukr:

1. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the Second Azarov Government was legally (in the sense of following established law), formally (in the sense of a legal document signed by legal authorities), orderly (in the sense of order in law; not related to the protests), and properly (in the sense of "following proper procedure") dissolved on January 28?
2. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the institution that "formed and elected" the Yatsenyuk Government was legally elected by the people of Ukraine and had the authority to form and elect said government?
3. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the movement of troops within Crimea is a violation of the Partition Treaty?
4. Can you please provide reliable sources that establish that the Partition Treaty applies only to Sevastopol?

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)

1: CNN, Azarov government resigns. Even the wiki page for the Azarov government has sources, so not sure why you couldn't find this... Львівське (говорити)

OK I'm confused. When Ukrainians refer to a "[name] Government" does that "Government" NOT include the President? So, in essence, the PM and the Council of Ministers were dissolved but the incumbent President (Yakunovych) still remained? How was Yakunovych removed from his power then in legal terms? I know he fled but I wanna know what's the legal base used to not consider him President anymore. For example, in Puerto Rico the governor can only be removed from power if he "is incapable of performing his job" (death, illness) or impeached. But just being out of Puerto Rico doesn't mean he is no longer governor. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:22, 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

whose population is mostly ethnic Russian since the forced deportation of the Crimean Tatars

• Several nationalities were deported.
• Some Tatars returned.
• Is 58.32% (2001) "mostly"?Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Numbers section

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)

Passportization

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)

David Khezri

What?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.81.150 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

克里木翠青 Khik lí bo̍k chhùi-chhiⁿ

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oo khik sai lo̍k hái pak-huānn , 歐 克 西 諾 海 北 岸， Bí-lē Puàn-tó Khik lí bo̍k chhùi-chhiⁿ. 美 麗 半 島　克 里 木　 翠　　青。 Chá-chêng hō͘ gōa-pang thóng-tī, 早　 前　　受　外 邦　　 統　 治， Kián-kok taⁿ teh chhut-thâu-thiⁿ. 建　 國　 今　在　 出　　頭　 天。 Kiōng-hô-kok hiàn-hoat ê ki-chhóu, 共　　和　國　 憲　 法　的 基　 礎， Koh-chokk-kûn pêng-téng saⁿ hia̍p-chō͘. 各 　族　 群　 平　 等　 相　 協　　助。 Jîn-lūi bûn-hòa sè-kài hô-pêng, 人　 類　文　化　世 界　和　 平， Kok-bîn hiòng-chêng kòng-hiàn châi-lêng. 國　 民　向　　 前　　貢　 獻　 才　 能。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BnaiBrithChai (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC) It is difficult to tell if I agree or not, as I'm having trouble understanding you. This is the English Wikipedia. Did you take a wrong turn? Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC) I do not speak Chinese. Did you post to the wrong place, perhaps? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC) I am a native Chinese speaker. The above Mandarin is a little bit strange and the place names are incorrect (at least nonstandard). Here is a rough translation: To the north of the Black Sea stands the beautiful peninsula Crimea Earlier ruled by a foreign country today declared their independence The foundation of the constitution of the Republic lies in the equality and mutual aide between different peoples (For the sake of) Human culture and world peace the people march on, contributing their talents 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)

Map addition

The linguistic composition of the uyezds (povits) of Taurida Governorate (today split in Crimea and the Kherson oblast) of the Russian Empire in 1897. Ukrainians in yellow, Russians in red, Crimean Tatars in green, Germans in gray, Yiddish speakers in blue, and others in purple. (in Ukrainian)

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)

This map is not-understandable for non-Russian-speaking people like me. I do not understand it personally, and I think the layout is horrible and confusing Cmoibenlepro (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it, there is a reason why maps are preferred in English this being the English Wikipedia non English maps are confusing to readers. The map has been translated yes but it is a lot to take in, imagine if this entire page were written and Russian and then translated into a spot below? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger

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)

Such a discussion was recently closed at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Some time should be waited before a new proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 14:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Alleged hacked emails

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)

Has been analyzed and debunked here: the conclusion apparently is that the the hack of Protsyk's account took place, but not of Gresh's account (no DKIM signature given there, so no possibility to check the authenticity. The mail in question from Gresh was most likely constructed, as well as the mail from Protsyk to "Vasil"'s account. Also, if you read the discussion in the Livejournal entry given by yourself (in case you can read Russian) - they analyze it and debunk it right there, with even the account owner and OP conceding that it most likely is fake.

(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?)

In any case, aside from all that: this story is not carried by any reliable source, only by conspirologist blogs and forums so far, so it does not merit inclusion. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't actually read through all the comments myself. And the reason I didn't include this in the article is because the sources are obviously not reliable enough. Regarding your "what kind of idiot" comment, I think you hugely overestimate the competency of government officials. LokiiT (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Budapest memorandum mention and footnote 80,81

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)

Intro keeps changing from wildly pro-Moscow bias to wildly pro-Kiev bias: intro needs to be stabilized in a neutral form

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)

Timeline

Why is a lot of the timeline listed in this article, when it is a subarticle? RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be in WP:SUMMARY style. I tried cutting out most of the trivial details, but someone reverted my edit.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be removed completely (since there is another article about the timeline) and replaced by a short summary. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What is up with the colors on the International reactions map?

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)

Anyone else want to weigh in on the issue? I agree that three colors would be enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Three colors would work, but with different shades to represent the degree of support/opposition to Russia. --Rurik the Varangian (talk) 00:10, 17 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)

No they are not fine, we have three shades for Condemnation of Russian actions while only two shades for support, either balance them out or just make support or oppose a catch all term here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Several dozen countries have condemned Russia outright or supported Ukraine. Some more fiercely than others hence the need for three shades to cover the reactions of around 40 countries. Four countries have offered up a pro-Russian stance. I can't see the need for three shades to differentiate four international responses unless three out of those four nations have taken up very different positions on the matter. Unless you believe and can prove that they have I don't see any valid reason to take up issue?

There is already a "and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government" clause in the description. If you know which nation it applies to and are willing to add it into the image and description I fully support that. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Different stances are ok for depicting the countries, but by looking at the image, its very confusing.The colors should be such that by looking at the map,it should be easier for the reader to understand which country is either pro Russia, pro Ukraine or neutral.Colors with lighter shades for degree of support/condemnation of a country should be more appropriate. Yohannvt (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Response of India (map)

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)

Map of main language

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Update international reactions map to include Sri Lanka's postion

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)

Casualties in the infobox

In the infobox it says:

Casualties

• Dead: 1 civilian[43]

Dead: several civilians

Injured: dozens[41]

[44][45]

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)

Wrong information about the origin of the Crimean dilemma

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)

It doesn't matter what your or other users' opinions of the motives of Putin and Russia are, WP:NPOV must be upheld. We have to uphold NPOV regardless if we are talking about widely condemned figures and governments like Hitler and Nazi Germany. Your comment here does not demonstrate that you are upholding NPOV, possibly because you have an attachment to the matters at hand in the crisis. Regardless, you voicing your opinions about Putin's and Russia's actions are not going to help you get support for making changes, and quite frankly will likely inflame tension as there will be others who will disagree with you. If you expect to make productive contributions here, you need to demonstrate an ability to temper your opinions and be willing to have dialogue with people with perspectives that differ from your own. If you cannot do that, you should not be contributing here on Wikipedia and should instead contribute to a blog or a website.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your personal point of view and opinions are not relevant to this article. We should strive to keep the article neutral as much as possible. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding some of your other claims: The infobox doesn't claim Dmytro Yarosh is in the goverment. He is listed under "Lead figures" in the Crimean crisis. And the infobox doesn't claim that the Crimean crisis began because Svoboda was included into the parliament. One of five listed causes says: "Opposition to inclusion of Svoboda and Right Sector in the Yatsenyuk Government". Parliament and government are different things. Svoboda was in opposition under Yanukovych. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:02, 19 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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

SOS!!!

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)

Yo. Could you be more specific? What particular mistakes have you identified and do you have ideas on what to do? --Kizor 18:32, 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)

Right. Hey, do you know if the text of the compromise between the government and the protesters is available in English? Shortly before I read this section of the talk page I removed a passage from the article that could imply the protesters were breaking the agreement by continuing to protest, which was not in the source cited (Russian Today). Looking up, that was one of the things you wrote about in the "About some legal aspects" section. I'd like to see the compromise myself.
And then someone put the article back as it was. I dropped them a note. --Kizor 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And now that editor is banned. (Wasn't me!) --Kizor

Hey. Looking into this, I found an English translation of the compromise on the pages of the German Foreign Ministry. You say above that the compromise did not forbid the protesters to leave the square, but could you tell me more about how that compares to item #5 in the compromise? --Kizor 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Kizor Maybe I was a bit wrong about this. But still, this agreement didn't oblige the protesters to go away completely. Yanukovych fled the capital, taking all his riches with himself. He broke the agreement and, thus, it had no force anymore. Impatukr (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions list

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)

"However, there were reports in Ukrainian media that Russian passports were accepted on occasion as sufficient identification to be allowed to vote."

"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)

I agree. Remove it altogether.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

History section needs to be expanded

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)

Then it should also mention the Russ (witch actually only was a ruling class, not a whole people. Sometime they are not called Russ but simply Vikings) enslavement of the Khazars. Or what about the poor Bulgars that was driven westward from their native home by the evil Khazars. And I wonder what the Bulgars did to the Schytians. But know one knows that. I dont think Crimea has any rightfull native left after being on the crossroad of migrationwawes for thousand of years. But the oldest ethnic group current living on Crimea is the Tartars or the Golden Hord as you correctly identify them. Jack Bornholm (talk)

Anything relevant should be added, I don't understand the need for sarcasm. I'm simply pointing out that the historic situation is not being presented in its entirety. LokiiT (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin deported the Crimean Tatars - not only Tatars have been deported by Joseph Stalin: Greecs, Bulgarians, Armenians.Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of people of Crimea starved 1921/1922 and were deported as kulaks.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Serbian chetniks

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 in infobox

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)

Agreed. Take him out. RGloucester — ☎ 01:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed him from {{2014 Crimean crisis infobox}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect flags (info box)

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)

Because Berezovsky is a Ukrainian citizen same as Timurgaliev and Yanukovych. All this regional area flags is inappropriate as there is no such sovereign state as Crimea or Tatarstan. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Either remove the flags, or restore the regional ones. Using only Ukrainian and Russian flags is very confusing, especially when separatists have the Ukrainian flag. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Done 83.70.227.237 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I say again. There is no such countries like Crimea nor Tatarstan. All of them are federal subjects. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they are federal subjects. The only purpose of the flags is to identify what the people represent. Putting Ukrainian flags on people who don't consider themselves Ukrainian doesn't give the reader information, it misleads them. This could be sidestepped by removing the flags altogether. RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree to remove them, but speculating whether person consider himself Ukrainian or not is a personal point of view. Pledging allegiance does not necessarily change their consideration especially if it was done towards a non-existing country. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a certain procedure on obtaining a citizenship. Just because one considers to become a national of one country, it does not automatically make him that. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

For example, Aksyonov has officially adopted the citizenship of Russia, while before that he was the Ukrainian state serviceman. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why it makes sense to remove the flags, and sidestep the issue. Can we do that? RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not against. I am against of posting some weird flags for people, countries of which they do not represent. Did you see Crimea or Tatarstan participating in the Olympics? Of course, not. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. So let's remove the flags from people who are ambiguous. Can you list the people that you think are ambiguous in this regard? RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Vitko is the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, but the article flies a Russian flag for him, while another military man from Tatarstan all of sudden has a different flag. What is that??? People from Crimea all have Crimean regional flag, while persons representing Tatar Mejlis all of sudden are under a different flag. Those people are still from Crimea. So, do you see that there is no consistency and it only adds ambiguity. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Let me go ahead and remove them. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The referendum was recognized by no one and the country was admitted to the Russian Federation the very next day. Did not you see that coming that Russia had intentions to annex the Crimea from a get go?? It was not about self-determination, it was a pure farce. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess you only listen to yourself alone... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I understand that. But we have to have neutral point of view. Displaying Ukrainian flags for secessionist people violates NPOV. Having no flag doesn't do any harm, and sidesteps the issue. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you RGloucester. It is confusing to have inappropriate Ukraine flags next to non-Ukrainian secessionists.Canadianking123 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Defectors

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)

Summary of events needed

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)

Violation of Neutral POV

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)

Please don't write about editors but quote reliable sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please list some NPOV violations or other problems in the article. Randomly criticising other editors for forcing their view or not being rational doesn't help anything when you've offered no explaination of what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2014_Crimean_crisis_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=600956625 is not the best way to teach here neutrality.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A nice example to teach what neutrality is not. 128.189.191.222 (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Results section in infobox

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:

1. Ukraine loses control of Crimea; Republic of Crimea declares independence with intention of joining Russia after a referendum passes with 96% in support.
2. Pro-Russian protests following the revolution in Kiev lead to Russian military intervention in Crimea.
3. Crimean militias and Russian troops seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament) and other key establishments.
4. Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved, a new pro-Russian Prime Minister is installed, Supreme Council votes to join the Russian Federation, and organizes a referendum on the status of Crimea for 16 March.
5. Referendum to leave Ukraine and join Russia is passed with a super-majority.
6. Treaty signed between Crimea and Russia at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.
7. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on March 19 by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces withdrawal of its forces from Crimea

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)

Zhirinovsky proposal

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)

Agreed. Zhirinovsky is recognised as a bit of a maverick with little mainstream influence in Russia. This section should be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Serious or not, he got heavy coverage and official responses in the countries he wrote to. I will cut his part and make it a subsection on the broader discussion of Ukraine's territorial integrity ("there are two Ukraines", "should Ukraine be split?, "can Ukraine avoid partition?") --Martin Berka (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

re map reflecting positions of various nations on Russia's action

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

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)

February 27 change in Crimea leadership

The following section has been repeatedly deleted from the lead:

On 27 February 2014, unknown gunmen seized the Building of the Supreme Council of Crimea (the regional parliament) and the building of the Council of Ministers in Simferopol. The Crimean Supreme Council then proceeded to hold an emergency session and passed a motion of no confidence in the Council of Ministers and adopted a resolution to terminate its powers. The parliament dismissed the Chairman and Prime Minister of Crimea, Anatolii Mohyliov and replaced him with Sergey Aksyonov.

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)

I agree to put that information in the body of text, in Ukraine reactions for example.But these allegations should not be inserted in the lead of the text, it is long enough as it is now.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

First, the change in government of the province is arguably one of the primary events of the crisis and therefore belongs in the lead. If anything, we should focus on trimming the paragraph about the revolution in Kiev, as this already has its own article. Second, this was an action on the part of the Crimeans. Why would you put it under Ukrainian reactions? Third, why do you call use the word "allegations"? The Prime Minister of Crimea was replaced. Who disagrees with this? If there is another take on the events, just add the reference.Nomadic Whitt (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous paragraph states that on Feb 26 unknown gunmen took control, then you repeat that on Feb 27 unknown gunmen took control. This is redundant. Canadianking123 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It does now appear redundant since it has been put together with the preceding sentence. However, the fact that the events described took place during an armed confrontation is significant and should be kept somehow.Nomadic Whitt (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that the Crimean parliament effectively handed power to a pro-Russian minority party at gunpoint is not insignificant and mustn't be downplayed or ignored if we wish to present a full and fair-minded summary of this crisis. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Intro is WAY too long

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)

• Agree. Debi07 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Very long lead

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)

• Agree to shorten to at most 4 paragraphs. Debi07 (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing sides

"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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-troops-leave-crimea-by-busload-defense-minister-resigns-after-russia-seizes-peninsula/

"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)

US intelligence

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)

KIA

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)

Yes so could somebody pls. remove them?--Wrant (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ecuador on map

Should be added as pink. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits

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)

It's possible that stuff could belong in the Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich articles, if it's important enough, but it's too minor and POV to belong in this article. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)