![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
ferret (
talk)
19:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)