Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 20 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Crimean crisis redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

International relations: Law Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject International law. Politics Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance This redirect is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Ukraine High‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by the Crimea Task Force.

A news item involving 2014 Crimean crisis was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 March 2014.

[REDACTED]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Crimean crisis redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Unbalanced pro-intervention message in Russian media

According to The Economist:

In preparation for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin cleared the last pockets of independent media. Ria Novosti, a state-news agency, which sheltered loyal but liberal-minded journalists, was purged and turned into a blunt propaganda instrument. TV Rain, a private television channel which provided the most objective coverage of the Ukrainian protests, was taken off the air by the main cable providers, acting on the Kremlin’s instructions. The internet, once free of Kremlin control, has been restricted by new, vague laws. On March 12th the editor of one of the most popular news sites, Lenta.ru, was replaced with a pro-Kremlin appointee. Its journalists threatened to resign in protest: “The trouble is not that we won’t have anywhere to work, but that you won’t have anything to read.” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Mr Putin, labelled anyone objecting to the Kremlin’s actions part of a “nano-sized fifth column”.

A patriotic frenzy whipped up by television muffles any dissent. Television executives who were trained as part of their Soviet-era military services in “special propaganda”, which sought to “demoralise the enemy army and establish control over the occupied territory”, created a virtual enemy in Crimea—fascist revolutionaries whose overthrow of the legitimate government justified the movement of real troops.

People close to Mr Putin say he had been harbouring the idea of taking Crimea since the war in 2008 with Georgia, which resulted in the de facto occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, its two breakaway republics. Yet the context is different. Kirill Rogov, a political columnist, argues that the war in Georgia served as a patriotic accompaniment to Russia’s economic resurgence. Ukraine serves as its substitute.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 March 2014‎ (UTC)

BBC is propaganda, not a RS

See for example this video which documents clearly how BBC MADE UP a video depicting a chemical attack in Syria. Given it's track record for lying, alternate sources should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC is used as an example in WP:RS under WP:NEWSORG. Remember that WP:RS do not need to be WP:NPOV as it can provide context. If you wish, you can bring your objection to WP:RSN to discuss. Rmosler | ● 05:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps RT will fall under NEWSORG criteria too? If "it's not necessary to be NPOV source"? Seryo93 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed mind, abstaining for now. Seryo93 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ron Paul has retired

Do we need to read about Pauls family dispute?Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I edited the lead, "Revolution in Kiev" and some other things. I added some facts, which, as I believe, are necessary for the understanding of the events, corrected some inexact phrases and removed sentences which obviously sounded like pro-Russian POV-pushing. I'm not pushing my own POV. I'm trying to make the article as balanced and objective as possible. I think we should lock this article and propose all the changes only on the Talk page. Otherwise, this article will become an object of constant, everyday POV-pushing. Impatukr (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be semi-protected, like eg. Poland is.Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Xx236 I agree. How can it be done?Impatukr (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing neutral paragraphs and replacing them by your own POV pushing is not an improvement. I suggest that the lead would be reverted to the same version as a few days ago.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The paragraphs were not neutral at all! They were definitely pro-Russian. OK, maybe what I inserted was a bit too pro-Ukrainian. I re-read what I wrote, and yes, it did sound a bit like POV pushing.Impatukr (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

when you add in the lead a source that says "This pseudo-referendum was falsified! 30% participation maximum" as if it was a fact, then yes this is POV pushing. This biased opinion should be in reactions, not it the lead. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Response

"The official Russian response was mixed." This sentence is so wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.212.0 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not WP:BE BOLD and edit it? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Time for a new article

The Crimean crisis is only part of a much bigger crisis, I think it's time we create a new main article about the whole crisis which began with Euromaidan and now threatens to destabilise the whole region. Charles Essie (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I've been talking about moving that to something like 2014 Ukrainian crisis and making it a broader article to deal with the overarching crisis. I'd comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it a Ukrainian crisis or rather a Rusian crisis which forces the Russian administration to destabilise not only Ukraine?Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's Ukrainian crisis, because it happens in the Ukraine (obviously). Cf: Cuban Missile Crisis (revolved around Soviet-US tensions and threat of nuclear war between them, but still called Cuban, not Soviet or American). Seryo93 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

First Partition Of Ukraine

According to current events it may be better to remain the paper to the pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/First_Partition_of_Poland 91.77.40.192 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Revolution in Kiev Lead

This whole lead should be removed, its a mess and very one sided and more to the point unnecessary here. Links to 2014 Ukraine Revolution are sufficient and appropriate.Cachi43 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Tortured hostages

Info on hostages tortured by pro-Russian militias should be added . Andriy Shchekun might be notable enough now to warrant his own article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> NATO satellite images of Russian troops allegedly deployed en masse at present on Ukrainian borders were taken in August 2013 - Russian MilitaryLihaas (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Voice of Russia is connected with the RT.
• Even Voice of Russia says Allegedly, which means "not at all".Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

One question to VM

Reuters not RS? Are you serious? Seryo93 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Synth removed correctly. Sorry for mislead question. Seryo93 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC

If official Russian media are not OK, why is the BBC (British state media) used? That's a serious question, I'm not just trying to say you can only ban RT if you ban the BBC from this article, I just am unsure why the BBC is considered trustworthy for anything other than quotes, dates, and so forth. I'd argue RT is reliable for those sorts of things, too. I'm English, not a Vladimir "Butcher of Grozny" Putin shill, just to be clear. But I am very curious about this seeming double standard applied to state media. AntiqueReader (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is in how BBC vs RT are described in reliable sources. And whether they satisfy the criteria for reliability. While whether a particular source is state owned or not may play a role it's not the most important, or even a general, criteria. For example, American stations PBS and NPR are state owned but they're probably some of the more critical media outlets when it comes to the US government. So actually whether a media outlet is state owned or not is a bit of a red herring in this discussion. To be reliable a source needs to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". BBC's got it (more or less). RT doesn't. Of course, whether a source is reliable also depends on the question "reliable for what". RT can be used for sourcing simplest facts and under some circumstances (which don't violate WP:UNDUE) to source its own opinions (or those of Putin's government).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Margarita Simonyan (RT) is very open, she doesn't pretend any neutrality. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The general "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is a bit of a red herring too, you should make it "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy relating to ongoing geopolitical crises in which their governments are playing a role". Under that consideration the BBC, as well as most mainstream US media, is about at the same level as RT. Remember all that stuff about "unprovoked Russian aggression" with respect to the latest South Ossetia war, or all that stuff about Saddam conspiring with Al-Qaeda, trying to buy uranium from Nigeria, expelling UN inspectors etc, the stuff about ongoing genocide to justify the bombing of Serbia, ...? As well as the same pattern if you look back even further. The main difference in how BBC and RT are used as reliable sources is that people tend to believe their own media and forget their actual track record of relevant accuracy. So given that this is the English language WP here the BBC/US media is given as reliable and RT as unreliable, whereas i guess you'll find the opposite going on in the Russian language WP.B01010100 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

US-backed Orange Revolution

It looks like we have a small revert war over the opinion of the "International Centre for Defence Studies". A new user insists that we should put the qualifier "US-backed" before the Orange Revolution. The source does not talk anything whether the Orange Revolution is US-backed or not. I do not think we should put our own synthesis into the source's mouth. I have put "Tallinn-based think tank" before the "International Centre for Defence Studies" to address possible concerns over the neutrality of the source.

The other edit of the same new editor is about "Russia's opinion", I think it can be kept, it is reasonably well-sourced and relevant. I would only changed Russia's opinion to Russian government's or Vladimir Putin's. Russia is a big country and different people there have different opinions Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

sounds good to me --Львівське (говорити) 01:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Novofedorivka incident

Can this article be merged anyplace? It seems out of place to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC report: Proposal to rename "Simferopol City" to "Putin City"

This reeks of yellow journalism, but here goes nothing:

• 2014-04-09, В Крыму предложили переименовать Симферополь в Путин, BBC Russian

Apparently a suggestion has been made by the local Crimean party "Russian Unity" (which has pro-RF sentiments) to rename the city to "Putin". That said, I personally don't really think this will happen, and it's too early to say if anything will progress beyond the suggestion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal aspects ?

What is the connection between Legal aspects and Putin's opinion about a Kosovo verdict? What about the other opinion? Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Will fix that. Both opinions should be mentioned here, definitely. Seryo93 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly Done. Seryo93 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(addition to above post): I've also balanced amount of text to avoid misbalancing towards Russian position. Seryo93 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Event box on the right hand side too long

I have noticed that the event box stretches for far too long. Most of results are actually events that happened and should be removed or placed in another section. The number of participants and the whole thing seems quite messy as well. I would edit it myself but I feel that I am not experienced enough in this type of editing. --AzraeL9128 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Using "Pro-Russian militias" in place of Russian military

Why, exactly, are all the mentions of illegal Russian troop military actions being replaced by the use of "Pro-Russian militias"?

These Russian soldiers have already been identified, by near all foreign journalists and UN observers in the regions, as well as by repeated photographic evidence, as Russia military. Almost all cases they are carrying Russian military weapons, wearing Russian military uniforms, that are unavailable in the region. They've even been caught a few times with Russian flags on their vehicles and insignias.

In fact, if I recall, it's a war crime for these Russian soliders to have removed their insignias. Yet a few Russian sock puppets here have been removing all sourced references and replacing them with "Pro-Russian militias".

Can I ask, for the betterment of this article, why this serious (defiantly against Wikipedias policies) issue isn't being addressed? 124.148.223.74 (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Historical-style

Now that the majority of the events in Crimea are finished, it seems time to start orienting this article toward a historical perspective. Would anyone be opposed to doing this? RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits by user 77.51.99.2

I understand that this article must have generated a vast amount of hot headed users and i find it natural for people to get angry about what the newspapers of their opposite side of the newspaper influence say (in terms of western vs eastern media)

It is alarming that, for example the user 77.51.99.2 with a russian ip has only ever contributed to[REDACTED] by recently editing articles related to the Ukraine crisis, removing any references criticizing the Russian front or restating the facts in order to contribute to the positive Russian profile.

I believe this behavior may be dangerous for keeping the neutrality of the[REDACTED] intact and advice to revise or revert the edits made by this user. I have purposely not in engaged in such action, as i would not like to act hastily and would be glad if someone else also revised the user's actions.

93.184.73.10 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried but don't want to get into an edit war, but it would be helpful if another user or two would review the edits in question.--Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As usual those Russian IP editors go completely over-the-top in their editing behaviour, but also as usual if you examine the point of contention calmly there does exist some ground for the underlying complaints. And also as usual blanket reverts of their edits is not productive behaviour, yes Volunteer Marek that is you. I'll start by removing the stuff that is not supported by the sources, which shouldn't be contentious. I'll bring up other issues here on talk first, and there do seem to be other issues. For instance, the reasoning applied in the source is that "because Tatars didn't participate in the referendum the turnout couldn't have been more than 30-40%". If you consider that Tatars only comprise about 12% of the population that looks like a school-child's bad attempt at basic arithmetic.B01010100 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Blanket reverts of junk material inserted by disruptive sockpuppeting throwaway accounts and SPAs is VERY productive behavior, tyvm.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: did you bother to check the sources and whether they were represented accurately in that part that you reinstated, before making that edit? Or did you just go "a russian IP, i must immediately revert everything they do"? The answer to the second question is something only you know, but the answer to the first is obvious - as i bothered to do so and found that pretty much none of the statements was accurately presented as given in the source. Very productive behaviour indeed...B01010100 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As it turned out that editor had good reason for removing that parapgraph in the state it was in for being "unencyclopedic", given that most of it wasn't supported by the sources and the stuff that was was not accurately presented. One could argue that he should have rewritten it rather than removed it, but that's a minor point. If you can't be bothered to look at the content that has been added/removed by an edit and the reasons for the edit, rather than going by who made it, then maybe you shouldn't be reverting them.B01010100 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think blanket reverts are justified if the user appears to be disruptive/POV socking, and a cursory overview of the edits seems to be that it's junk. I realize that even if its 80% junk and 20% good, that would be ruining that good portion, but at the same time its more prudent to get the junk off the page as its not helpful. Also, its a huge waste of time on everyone involved to have to fact check every spurious claim made in one of these editing hit-and-run sessions.--Львівське (говорити) 23:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Redirect-Class International relations pages
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• Redirect-Class International law pages
• NA-importance International law pages
• WikiProject International law articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Redirect-Class politics pages
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Redirect-Class Russia pages
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance Redirect-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• NA-Class sociology pages
• Low-importance sociology articles
• NA-Class Pritzker Military Library-related pages
• Low-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
• Redirect-Class Ukraine pages
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• Crimea Task Force articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles