Talk:2014 Crimean crisis/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Legality

the article is misleading, in that it mentions nothing of the right of the crimean people to self-determine their own independence/allegiance.

it also mentions nothing of the legality of the coup staged in kiev. neither does the article on the 2014 ukrainian revolution, linked here.

fabricated propaganda? you bet your sorry bottom. 70.48.210.219 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What has the legality of the change of government in Ukraine have to do with the Russian invasion of Crimea? The pro-Russian president of Ukraine fled, forcing parliament to elect an acting president. This was perfectly legal. The Russian invasion of Crimea was no more legal than the German invasion of the USSR in 1941. The people of Crimea voted in 1991 for independence from Russia. The invasion of 2014 overturned that. This was not self-determination of allegiance.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

After living in a "free Ukraine" Crimean people voted to join Russia returning to their historic homeland. Respect the will of the people. 95.139.221.202 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Royalcourtier, Please do not get your facts wrong. Crimea never voted for independence from Russian in 1991, it was given to Ukraine by then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. The only referendum Crimea held in 1991 was whether or not they wanted to regain their autonomous status within independent Ukraine. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

My facts are correct. There was a referendum held in Ukraine on independence in 1991. All Ukrainian residents were entitled to vote. The majority of voters in Crimea voted for Ukrainian independence. The 2014 referendum did not meet the minimum standards for legitimacy, was rigged, and the majority of the people boycotted it. Opinion polls prior to the Russian invasion showed a majority against joining Russia.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That referendum was whether or not Ukraine wanted independence from the Soviet Union as a whole, not just Russia, and even then Crimea had the highest amount of opposition in the country. As for the polling, the question asked was whether or not Ukraine and Russia should unite into a single state. The question regraded Ukraine as a whole not just Crimea, and once again even then the highest support was found in Crimea. There is absolutely no proof that the referendum was rigged or that the majority of the population boycotted it, and judging by the amount of ethnic Russians in the region and the public response of celebrations, the probability of the population voting to stay with Ukraine is very low. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Misleading content

I think that the first sentence in this article is misleading. It's states "The Crimean crisis is an international crisis" as if it's ongoing event, while the infobox defines a period in the past. Perhaps the following would be more appropriate:

The Crimean crisis was an international crisis principally involving Russia and Ukraine over the control of the Crimean Peninsula, until its annexation by Russia. However, the current status of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russian Federation is not recognized by 100 member states of the United Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Independence crisis in Crimea

The reference to "independence crisis in Crimea" implies an independence struggle, rather than a foreign invasion. I don't think that the German invasion of Sudetenland in 1938 could be called an independence crisis, so why should this event?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Because in XXI century you cannot just annex some territory without various reports of civil unrest, unless said territory endorses the annexation. What evidence do we have? No result-significant reports of referendum falsifications. Very minor acts of resistance against reunion with Russia. Victims? Discrimination? Suppression of expression of opinion? If you can provide enough evidence that the annexation was forced against the will of Crimean people, feel free to rename the article to "Russian aggressive annexation of Crimea" or whatever. From Siberia with love, 176.62.127.230 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling it a foreign invasion would without a doubt not be a neutral assesment and would violate wikipedias standards of NPOV. Calling it a territorial dispute or just "crisis" would be much better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.34.124 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

some editors here remove references to actual videos of events and the main actor statements

I understand these editors' desire to push their point of view but I cannot condone that they attempt to hide actual facts from people who read Wikipedia to try to understand what happened. Let people see the evidence and decide for themselves what they want to believe. Let them hear Yanukovich tell the world how he was assaulted with automatic weapons and barely made it out alive. Let people decide if they believe him or not. Let people hear Victoria Nuland tell the EU to "F... off" because she is now going to decide who she is going to install in power and who should sit this one out. But deleting the references to actual events, not opinions, only serves the purpose of pushing a certain point of view, and that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor7373 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 July 2014‎

It's you who is POV-pushing. YouTube videos are not considered notable and reliable sources on Wikipedia, and both Yanukovich's claims and the Russian media's spin on Nuland (who, believe it or not, is a mid-level U.S. government functionary rather than an all-powerful political mastermind) are highly suspect. Also, why don't you sign your username to your posts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Because signing usernames is stupid, nerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.174.112 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

On pro-russian bias

The whole article is littered with pro-russian bias. Everywhere russia is mentioned a couple of russian editors, and the faithful pro-russian mod Ymblanter come in to help keep the disorder.

To start with "

   Opposition to the Euromaidan movement
   Opposition to the Turchynov Presidency and Yatsenyuk Government

"

Is completely non neutral and makes no sense. Yet the faithful russian editors keep it that way. Might I remind you folks - Russia Today IS NOT a reliable news source.

The crimea crisis started after or in between the events of Euromaidan. What does "opposition to the euromaidan movement" even mean? And why the cherry picking pro-russian admin here wants to keep it?

It is probably implied that the opposition were some kind of rebels. But then again, any kind of information proving that it was the RUSSIAN MILITARY who helped and trained the rebels is cherry picked and removed.

What gives? Why is there a monopoly of russian editors here?

Now you can't edit by IP anymore and Ymblanter has gone full Putin with this one by isolating the article from reliable information.

To start, I suggest not implying that the cause of the crisis were some rebels which had no signias on them or were even indentified.

Change it to Cause: The events of Euromaidan. As for the second line - I don't understand what the russian editors here are trying to say, and I doubt they know it themselves if they use RT (thats just a guess, any kind of media controlled in russia) Fueg (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Actually, claim regarding "Opposition to the Euromaidan movement" and "the opposition were some kind of rebels" is sourced (see The Guardian link in infobox), can you provide sources that these activists were "trained" by the Russian military?
2. Regarding "all pro-russian propoganda, like unofficial "Crimea Council", "pro-russian rebels"" I would recommend you to take a time, relax and get some information about Crimean politics. The 'unofficial "Crimea Council"', as you called it, is the Supreme Council of Crimea, the regional parliament, whose existence was constitutionally (by Ukrainian and Crimean constitutions) mandated and which was elected well before the crisis began. Yes, it's building had been taken over by the "unidentified troopers", it itself has well exceeded it's constitutional powers (by secession, which is clearly forbidden by Ukrainian law), but still, the Council itself was the same body, that was elected in 2010, with exactly same legislators. Pretending that it was "unofficial Crimea council" is a mistake, and using scare quotes is, in fact discouraged by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Same applies to loaded language, see WP:LABEL.
3. This style of discussing, personal attacks (including accusations that "Ymblanter has gone full Putin with this one by isolating the article from reliable information") is far from constructive dispute resolution and would likely to cause a block per WP:NPA (as it in fact happened). Edit warring is also a bad way to introduce some content. If your edits were reverted, you has to discuss them on talk page, per WP:BRD, instead of claiming "Nothing to discuss". Consensus, not confrontation. Until new consensus is reached, the status quo reigns, so, if you were reverted, then you must provide rationale for replacing longstanding text.
4. And one particular point regarding Russia Today, there are only two references to their website, one near the "As a result of the crisis, the two leading indexes of the Moscow Exchange fell in trading on March 3: the MICEX 10 declined 10.79 percent, equating to a loss in market capitalization of nearly $60 billion, and the RTS Index declined 12.01 percent to its lowest level since September 2009." text and another near "The ministry said in the statement, "Treating our country in such way, as Washington could have already ascertained, is inappropriate and counterproductive," and reiterated that sanctions against Russia would have a boomerang effect." statement, both RT links can be replaced by other sources, first one by the Guardian, second one by MFA itself. Nowhere else in this particular article RT is used, nowhere. Seryo93 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

God damn, it doesn't matter IF I DO provide proof. As you will put a pro-russian spin on it anyway. As you and your russian buddies did already numerous times.

The reason this pro-russian bias on this article keeps reoccuring is because Ymblanter is an admin and possibly other pro-russian admins are allowing this. Also, your lack of understanding of a Neutral Point of View doesn't help either.

Tricky situation you got yourself into here, shame that I don't have the time or the motivation to meddle in pointless discussions with people who are brainwashed into thinking that they have nothing to do with Crimea by their own government.

Just open any site that isin't Russia Today, and you'll see the real situation in Crimea and not what Ymblanter or any of your russian buddies are trying to portray here. I've had numerous discussions with pro-russians and I know that you don't have the capabilities to think by yourself, even If you had - Ymblanter would come in and adjust it to give a false impression of russian "uninvolvement" in the matter. Apologists, the lot of you

Have fun posting propaganda, I've already informed other admins about this editing policy abuse 86.13.221.231 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

BBG.Gov / Gallup poll in April 2014

The following info should be relevant and has not been covered:

http://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf

Gallup, Inc. performed an opinion survey for the US Government's Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG.Gov) in April 2014 and found that 82.8% of Crimeans agree with the notion "The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people there/here."

Blizuke (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC) blizuke

Edit war?

From what I've heard (especially on Meta), there has been an edit war going on on this page, having to do with pro- and anti-Russian sentiments, and that it has to do with an admin's abuse of discretionary sanctions. What on Earth is going on here? --XndrK (talk | contribs) 00:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Background section

I think this section (and especially "Revolution in Kiev") should be significantly reduced because most of the content here is irrelevant to the subject of Crimean crisis. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky

I cut away a lengthy discussion of Zhirinovski's. He is political clown, not a source of wisdom for wikipedia. He babbles about everything in the world, and we could have filled wikipedia with tons of his comedy. -M.Altenmann >t 16:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Annexation and Accession

I recently tried to make this article neutral by changing 'annexation' to 'annexation or accession' - but was reverted within the hour on the basis that my edit was NPOV. I understand that some editors feel strongly about this for a variety of understandable reasons but I take no side in this. That said, I believe that Wikipedia must uphold a neutral stance in controversial articles, and whether Crimea was annexed by Russia or chose to join Russia by means of an accession treaty is a controversial issue. I do not intend to edit war by trying to change NPOV claims only to be reverted on the grounds that it is infact my edit that is NPOV - therefore a tag until wise discussion can find a neutral consensus. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed previously. We use the term that reliable sources use. Reliable sources do not use the term "accession". Previous discussions can be found in this archive [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spiritofstgeorge: There have been several discussions about various matters, but, basically, the side with the most supporters wins. And even if you manage to persuade some of the more neutral people, there will still be several who will revert you. So I'm not sure you should waste time on this. (I'm not even talking about the title cause it's a lost cause already. Anyway, I would suggest you to make very creative, well-written additions instead. The tags won't work, many people have tried placing tags on various Ukraine-related articles, and some people simply remove them.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's the only discussion that happened, that's really sad. In reply to @Spiritofstgeorge:, the Accession happened after the government of Crimea was overthrown in the dead of night by masked gunmen. You can read about it here Autonomous Republic of Crimea#Events in 2014 and here Supreme Council of Crimea#In the wake of the Crimean crisis. That's why the international community is calling it the "Crimean Invasion" but in an effort to be neutral, Wikipedia uses the term Annexation. USchick (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if Crimea did choose to join, that doesn't mean it isn't an annexation, because "Crimea" wasn't an entity that was capable of making that determination. Only Ukraine was capable of making that determination as the sovereign authority, and Ukraine considered it a forcible seizure of territory. Many Austrians agreed with annexation by the German Reich, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an "annexation". "Accession" is a euphemism, nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(just a comment) "Overthrown"? It was the legitimate Supreme Council of Crimea that dismissed the Prime Minister of Crimea and elected a new one, Sergey Aksyonov. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The building was seized in the middle of the night by foreign military with automatic weapons and there was an election at gunpoint. Yes. Supreme Council of Crimea#In the wake of the Crimean crisis. USchick (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1. At gunpoint? How do you know? If you don't have any actual proof, it's not nice to say things like this. 2. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Unidentified people with automatic weapons, explosives and grenades have taken over the governmental buildings and the Parliament building in the autonomous region of Crimea," (said Interim president of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov), they also raised a Russian flag, just in case someone might think it was ISIS or some Arab nation. [2] USchick (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

article: "...Also on the early morning of 27 February, armed ... (etc):

according to a Western journalist source today, Strelkov now says in this Russian youtube-interview [3], that he and his men forced the Crimean parliament members into voting for leaving the Ukraine. Could someone better acquainted with Russian verify this, mabe give a direct translation ? (the journalist Christopher Miller, tweet 24th January 2015: "‏@ChristopherJM · 1 In which ex-Donetsk rebel commander Strelkov admits 'we forced Crimean deputies to vote for secession from Ukraine.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aelwn_UfeN0...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.144.63.220 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nuland's intercepted phone call

Anyone can go to youtube and listen to a US state dept official essentially hand pick Ukraine's next leader - strange for a purely native 'revolution' versus a US-backed coup.

Why no mention here or in other/related articles?

I'm not suggesting advocating some pro-Russian narrative, but suggesting not mentioning great evidence of US interference, or emphasizing the referendum and the fact it was a Ukrainian USSR premiere who, without consulting the Crimeans AT ALL, detached Crimea from Russia and to Ukraine....

A bona fide encyclopedic entry would be far more complete, and hence neutral. Everybody has biases - but the goal here ought to be a final product that is beyond reproach and an excellent and complete {as possible} source - jmo

50.252.249.155 (talk)mpk40 — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Because pro-Ukraine, pro-Western-imperialism, and Russophobic editors have fought to keep out any facts that contradict their 'Ukraine-good, Russia-evil' fairy tale. This entry is an embarrassment to NPOV and Wikipedia. In addition to commenting here, please help edit into the main article a neutral point of view and all the relevant and important facts and RS-sourced allegations.Haberstr (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)