Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Please fix opening ambiguity

The opening paragraph says:

" The reunification is portrayed by Western Governments as a violation of international law by the European Union and the United States, ..."

the primary interpetation of which is going to be that the EU and USA are being blamed, by all the other Western Governments, for the reunification. I assume it should instead be something like:

" The reunification is portrayed by Western Governments, in particular the European Union and the United States, as a violation of international law, ..."

or it maybe:

" The reunification is portrayed by Western Governments, in particular those of the European Union and the United States, as a violation of international law, ..."

or even:

" The reunification is portrayed by Western Governments, in particular those of the European Union nations and the United States, as a violation of international law, ..."

Can someone with enough knowledge fix. Which of my offerings is correct, I can't tell, (and maybe the optimal rendition is something different again). But I'm certain the current one is not as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.182.125 (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge with 2014 Crimean crisis

The title reads as if the Russian military intervention is the only event and there were no other political developments within the Ukraine. This could be compared with the German military Invasion of Poland, really? Or did you see any Russian tanks in Kiev? "Pro-Russian protests in other parts of Ukraine" in this contents is perhaps a joke? --House1630 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively merge with 2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Russian_involvement --House1630 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support merge with 2014 Crimean crisis. First, to have such article we need enough serious sources which not only use the words "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" but consider this invention in details. Second, no need to duplicate the information about Crimean crisis in multiple articles. Most information from this article already included in other articles about Ukrainian crisis and much better for the reader and for quality of wiki to combine all material in as few artiles as possible. Debi07 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Debi07. Elk Salmon (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose we already had this discussion. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• See WP:TALKEDABOUTIT - consensus can change. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is part and parcel of the broader crisis (i.e. political) in Ukraine.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:59, 20 March 2014; 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support They're two articles about the same thing. The amount of redundancy is way too high and it's a huge pain for both readers and editors. LokiiT (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Too soon for another discussion, but since somebody made a request, I'll just say that I oppose because the military involvement of this article is separate from the political and internal involvement of the other article.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• How is it separate? The military intervention and political turmoil surrounding it is the crisis. LokiiT (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• The military intervention is not separate. Debi07 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a merger with the 2014 Crimean crisis article. Rationale: it is fine to have two articles in Wikipedia, one dealing with the overall political crises in all its dimensions, and another on one specific aspect of that crises, the Russian military intervention that used military force from a (previously?) adjacent nation state to exert some form of control over that territory of (what was then Ukrainian Crimea, but is now less clear what adjective would be appropriate) Crimea. N2e (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: It is not clear why we are hanving this discussion again so soon after the last one was closed as no consensus. N2e (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• It could be reasonable if reliable sources considered in details the military intervention as a separate subject. There are no such sources. The subject does not deserve enough attention to be a separate article. Debi07 (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Whatever Russian military intervention has occurred took place primarily in Crimea, so having "Crimea" in the title makes much sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The military intervention has received significant media attention and has become a significant geo-political issue. The movement of Russian forces into the Crimea is significant enough to meet notability requirements and warrant an article. This is not a minor event that can be adequately covered in a single sub-section.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose there are too many Russian troops on the ground not to be an intervention/invasion. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• What the hell is going on? Any reason why you've !voting twice? Don't do that, it's misleading. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The subject of Russian military operation(s) in Crimea is well defined and deserves separate page. 2014 Crimean crisis includes the military occupation, [Annexation of Crimea]] and a number of non-military events. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• The subject is neither well defined nor notable enough. 1) Some sources say that the troops "possibly" Russian, or "they wear Russian uniform", or anything else not definite. 2) Much of the Russian army was legally in Crimea for decades by Kharkiv Pact. Just their presence is not an intervention. 3) The article is mostly compilation of information from newspaper articles. But to have a separate article we need reliable sources which consider the intervention in details so we can conclude that the substantial material is large enough for a separate article. Debi07 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. These 2 article are 2 sides of the same coin. The content is mostly redundant and it makes it twice as possible to have mistakes. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Same dog different collar. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose until we come up with a more sophisticated solution. Both articles are already so large that they are hard to navigate, and if you go over the fine-grained information, at least 75% of this article is original - a "simple" merge will produce a 230k page in the running for "longest non-list article". There are multiple other articles up for merging into this one; attempting to lump in all the military details is impractical. It might work out if the merge is divided among the crisis, timeline, and international reaction articles, but some kind of military events article may prove necessary.--Martin Berka (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Motion has already being rejected twice. I don't see how the situation has changed enough to merge the articles. Tomh903 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support: The military intervention is not a "stand alone" event on its own, but part and parcel of the general crisis and cannot be separated on its own. Thus my strong argument in favour of a merge. The concern of the length of the resulting article can be ameliorated by putting the long list of people subject to sanctions as a "collapsed" list that appears only when you ask for it specifically. werldwayd (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The military intervention has received massive media coverage, resulted in condemnation from many governments and international bodies as well as effects such as economic sanctions. Yes, the intervention is part of the Crimea Crisis, but the intervention is too large to adequately cover in the Crimea article.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How can we decide what it was too large? From the article the intervention looks as very minor. How many were killed, how many troops were involved, how many shoots were done? Probably only media coverage was large. But then the paper has to be renamed in "Media coverage of Russian military intervention in Ukraine". Debi07 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The military intervention is an actual military operation that is part of, but not the same as, the crisis. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is correct that the military operation is part of the crisis. But the question is not this. The question is if it deserves a separate article or can be included in the main article without loosing singificant information. Debi07 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support to stop pointless, irritating duplication. Same event, different name, not difficult to see. Ericoides (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. They are related, but different subjects. Also agree with some that each article is already quite lengthy, therefore a combined one would be rediculously long. Nouvelle Planète (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, they are not different since one is a part of another. The articles are lentghly but much of the material is duplicated and multiplicated in tens of arcles on this overall subject. The material which has to be moved in the main article is not that much. Debi07 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Article scope and size are more a issue of technical feasibility and whether or not someone is willing to do it than an actual argument against merger. None of the arguments so far have been convincing in the sense of policy-based rationales. Let's turn to Wikipedia:Notability (events):

[Wikipedia] is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. [N]ot every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).

Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.

• Because of this, I dispute that people will single out this particular event as being any more important than the overarching Crimean crisis. Just because a news station says Update: "Russia has invaded Crimea" or Update: "Terrorist blow up Russia/Ukraine in protest" does not mean Wikipedia should cover it, especially if in the future people will remember it less. Wikipedia is not a news station. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Notnews is meant to prevent the creation of articles about insignificant events that get a day or two of news coverage, but are otherwise not notable. It does not mean that current events are inherently non-notable. Also, how can you determine that the Russian intervention is not of lasting significance? Regardless of what occurs, the intervention is going to have a substantial impact on Crimea.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And the Russian intervention has enjoyed what, probably only a week of coverage before the news station moved on to the next major event in Crimean history - the signing of the treaty. Again, the official sources have referred the issue back to the larger ongoing Crimean crisis as the focus of the story. It isn't an isolated incident meant to be taken separate from, or more notable than, the overarching Crimean crisis that it warrants special mention as a standalone article of some sort. When future generations and the history channel speak of this event, they will almost always look at it in that context. Perhaps we can dedicate a standalone section in the 2014 Crimean crisis article, but as it stands currently this is giving one out of a string of news reports UNDUE weight. Anyway, the repeatedly raised complaints about "article size" are mere technicalities; it is only a matter of getting someone willing to shrink this down to an appropriate size to fit the main article. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The treaty and the referendum were a direct result of the intervention. Without the intervention, it would have never occurred. I would also like to point out that the media hasn't moved on, but is covering the Russian intervention as it develops (and they will almost certainly continue to do so for the foreseeable future). I would also argue that the Russian Intervention is not being given undue weight, as it has received substantial media coverage and and governmental responseSpirit of Eagle (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes but you could argue the same about the Russian intervention; if it weren't for the Crimean crisis of 2014, the Russian intervention would never have occurred. Regardless, that's not a reason for either keeping or merging the article; I could argue that because they are simply results of the Crimean crisis they should be merged back as a subsection of the Crimean crisis article. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My statements regarding the treaty were meant to prove that the intervention is still getting extensive media coverage and that the media hadn't "moved on". Regardless, my claim that the intervention deserves its own article due to the government sanctions, troop movements, long list of official government statements regarding the intervention, various skirmishes, political and economic effects of the intervention and intense media coverage still stand. The article more than meets general notability requirements.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • The article in its present state is too broad in .scope (what "military intervention" in Ukraine outside of the Crimea?) and composed from an insufficiently focused collection of statements that are by and large sourced to news media.

The military movements outside of Ukraine were a direct response to the intervention in Ukraine. They demonstrate that the intervention has had political effects outside of Crimea.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

\*COMMENT: Just a note to any uninvolved article closer who comes over here to review, and close the discussion. The specific proposal is and was: "Merge with 2014 Crimean crisis". Some of the comments address their Support/Oppose position to that specific proposal. Others, by there text, are Supporting/Opposing something else entirely (e.g., changing intervention in the title to invasion or vice versa, etc.). Net: you will have to read carefully and not just count up Support/Opposes when making the close determination. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose 1)The articles are too large to merge, but regardless, I think the Russian military intervention is important enough that it's worthy of a separate article. Orser67 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • In light of the existence of the Partition Treaty on the Black Sea Fleet, the degree to which this can be characterized as an "intervention" is at issue. It seems to me that the article is rather bloated, and the scope needs to be redefined in order to bring it into a more accurate correspondence with the statements of RS on this point. It is a partisan, highly charged issue, but as the section "Legal aspects" demonstrates, Russia has sufficient grounds for its actions, and there are statements calling those actions into question that are unsourced at present. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Hugely redundant to have two articles for what is effectively the same thing. I'm not even going to say "merge" because so much of the material is already duplicated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course there's a lot of overlap, but there's more to the Crimean crisis than a military intervention, and both are sufficiently rich topics to have their own articles. Also, since events are still developing, who's to say that Russian military intervention will end with Crimea? TheBlueCanoe 01:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support A merge should happen, as it is one crisis, not separate military and political crises. However, there an abundance of rich material available in this particular subject. I propose that a merge does occur, and that this should be added to a section in the 2014 Crimean Crisis article as description of what happened during the crisis, with reductions, of course. The current version of that article focuses heavily on the aftermath and the background, but not so much on what actually happened. Floatsam (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Related buf different topics. 14 interwikies. WP:SIZE violation after possible merging. NickSt (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Crimean crisis is a particular event that involves some people who may or may not be Russian. The fact that Russian troops continue to amass at the Ukrainian border means (to me) that there is a wider [Russian-Ukrainian] thing going on that this article represents. I forget the WP essay / guideline, but "wikipedia is not on a deadline" As the situation develops, it may be sensible to merge, but for the time being I recommend we think of the Crimean article as being about a particular battle/event (some of which involves Russia, some of which involves Crimean insurgent-types) and "Russian Military Intervention" as writing about the Russian involvement and possible warlike activity perpetuated specifically by the Russian country/military. Peace, MPS (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support The "2014 Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine" is simply the Russian side of the story that is a subsection of the parent event... The "2014 Crimean Crisis" I think they should be merged providing "Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine" is it's own section on the "2014 Crimean Crisis" article page. Tyman222 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both articles are too big to merge.--atnair (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both articles are too big to merge. In addition, I think the intervention is notable enough to warrant a separate article.--Stephen C Wells (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here's a couple of points I'd like to add to the discussion: First, per others before me, there's plenty of overlapping material in the two articles. If an experienced editor took the time to do so, the size of the merged article wouldn't be quite as large as it may initially seem. However, I agree with others that there's plenty more than just the military invasion aspect of this situation - the world political ramifications alone are an equally-large part of this (speaking from the perspective of Wikipedia). Thus, I oppose a merge, and it seems clear that consensus to support a merge is not going to happen. GRUcrule (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Additional comment...running tally is currently 12 support merge, 16 oppose merge (counting my vote), and one exclusively in support of a name change if my counting skills haven't failed me. Wanted to add this as a standalone comment for clarity's sake. GRUcrule (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is a not a vote. I'd just like to make that clear. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

True, the result would probably not change if those numbers were reversed. As with previous debates over this article, "no consensus" seems to aptly describe the community position.--Martin Berka (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian propaganda over Crimea and the Ukraine: how does it work?

'Just like the West.' Russia defends its propaganda war over Ukraine Vladimir Putin's government has also been cracking down on independent media, online outlets

Vladimir Putin has put boots in the ground – over the airwaves, he is taking the west on a tour of the propagandist’s playbook

By Gabrielle Tetrault-Farber, CBC News Posted: Mar 18, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 18, 2014 5:00 AM ET

its just Russian fascism , putinism, that's how it 'works' [1]Sayerslle (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move2

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine → 2014 Russian military intervention in the Crimean Peninsula – The current article title is obviously not NPOV. The current title "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" denies that Crimea legitimately became independent prior to annexation by Russia. The hatnote on this article is undisputed: "This article is about the Russian annexation of Crimea." Both Russia and Crimea claim that this annexation happened AFTER Crimea became independent of Ukraine. Ukraine says the opposite. The proposed move does not take any position on this question. Lots of reliable sources refer to the Russian “intervention in Crimea” or "intervention in the Crimean Peninsula". Many sources also refer to potential U.S. “intervention in Ukraine”, and also potential Russian “intervention in Ukraine”, but the intervention that has actually already happened is characterized most reliably and neutrally as “2014 Russian military intervention in the Crimean Peninsula” as proposed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support rename, as proposer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have notified the people who !voted in the previous move request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose we had this debate countless times. you can't will Crimea not part of Ukraine, even if annexed. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your second sentence is incomprehensible. Regarding the first, I don't see any repetition; the previous proposal ("2014 Russian military intervention in the Crimea") was rejected because Crimea does not include Sevastapol, and because "Crimean Peninsula" should replace "Crimea" which is exactly what is now proposed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah yeah...spare me. it's clear you have an agenda. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the agenda is NPOV. Unlike the present title, the proposed one does not say whether Crimea is part of Ukraine or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Agenda is making Crimea separate from Ukraine. which it is not. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed title does not say that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It does.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the military invention was 99.999% in the Crimean Peninsula, which may be part of Ukraine, it may be part of Russia, it may be independent, or it may be part of Montana—the proposed title does not say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is(was) part of Ukraine. It wasn't up for grabs. Which makes it intervention in Ukraine. Implying anything less, diminishes the assault on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Besides, didn't Putin say he was in Ukraine to protect russians? there are Russians elsewhere in big numbers. No, the (military) target was Crimea. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Referring to a geographical location does not imply that Ukraine does not have a legitimate claim to the area, nor does it question the sovereignty of Ukraine. "2008 Detroit riots" does not imply that Detroit is not part of the United States. The title is supposed to address specificity; Ukraine is a big place, and not all of it is relevant to the topic presented in this article. Are we really having this argument?

You make the bold claim that the RM initiator is making this request in bad faith. In fact, the one who appears more likely to have an "agenda" would not be the RM initiator, but rather you; I don't see anything written by the RM initiator that may suggest an undeniable attempt to POV push, meanwhile, it seems that, from this entire talk page, that you are adamant of thwarting any attempt of making the title less vague and non-specific, which makes me suspect that your intention is to make the page appear as if all of Ukraine is being trampled by the steel boots of the Moskali. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. But it's not just about specificity. It's also about neutrality. Lugnuthemvar has a POV, and other people oppose that POV,[2] and we should be neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not invested in either Ukraine or Russia. If this isn't such a big deal, then why so forceful in changing it? My guess you don't wan't Crimea to be associated with Ukraine. I'm not the one with the POV issue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuthemvar (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How about you stop making assumptions about the mindset of the person initiating the RM and assume good faith? Not everyone is a boogeyman out to get you. Address the content of the arguments, and not wildly speculate over the characteristics of the person. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I don't see anything in Anythingyouwant's edits that warrants such accusations. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculate what? Crimea legally belongs to Ukraine. What' the purpose of renaming/changing/deleting it? And why so fervent in with the attempts of it? Assume what you want, but a lot of people want this page GONE. I find that amusing. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of renaming it? I've told you multiple times regarding the reason for a move. Are you intentionally ignoring everything that I say? --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose on two grounds: there is evidence of Russian military intervention all over the Ukraine, and there is no implicit or explicit recognition of Crimean UDI in either the existing or the proposed title, thus is a red herring. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For those unaware, "UDI" stands for "Unilateral Declaration of Independence". The hatnote on the present article says: "This article is about the Russian annexation of Crimea." The comment that "there is no implicit or explicit recognition of Crimean UDI in either the existing or the proposed title" makes no sense to me. The problem is that the existing title denies the UDI, given the hatnote, by claiming that annexation of Crimea intervened in Ukraine, meaning that Crimea has never been independent. As for alleged Russian intervention throughout Ukraine, yes, that's been well-established, along with US and EU intervention throughout Ukraine, but the issue here is military intervention, which has been 99% in the Crimean Peninsula, and the remaining 1% has almost all been very close to that peninsula. That stuff can be mentioned in this article due to being closely related, just like Yoko Ono can be mentioned in the article about John Lennon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"there is evidence of Russian military intervention all over the Ukraine" - that's news to me. Can you elaborate on this? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Didn't the intervention begin before the declaration of independence? If so, wouldn't Crimea had been considered to be a part of Ukraine by all parties in the first days of the intervention? That said, since the intervention is ongoing and includes a time when Crimea's status is disputed I think the proposed move is NPOV. Also seems more focused. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment A minor point - should peninsula be capitalized? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, per Crimean Peninsula.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose While Crimea is currently under the occupation of Russia, which is "considered to be an illegal opposition" by most of the world, it does not change the actual facts that Crimea, although occupied, is part of Ukraine. The proposed title will also not cover the incursions into the greater part of Ukraine north of the peninsula which has been covered in reliable sources. JOJ ^Hutton 01:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

By saying that Crimea is part of Ukraine, you are denying the legitimacy of Crimea's declaration of independence. While you may be correct to do so, it is a POV, and not something that should be said in the voice of Wikipedia. Regarding incursions outside of the Crimean Peninsula, they have been negligible in comparison, almost all have been immediately next to that peninsula, and the hatnote on the present article says that this article is about annexation of Crimea, not stuff in other areas. That stuff can be mentioned in this article due to being closely related, just like Yoko Ono can be mentioned in the article about John Lennon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The incursions into a couple of villages outside Crimea is not notable enough to affect the title. It'd be like arguing that the Iraq War should be called "The Middle Eastern War" because American forces have occasionally launched incursions into the border regions of Syria and Iran. The notion that "Crimea, although occupied, is part of Ukraine" is clearly disputed and Wikipedia can't take sides. Even if all the world was opposed to the intervention, we would still have to treat it as a disputed issue. Per WP:NPOV, we must represent all significant views. The Russian and Crimean government's views are significant and the title has to reflect that. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Vietnam War took place in Cambodia and Laos, but it's still called the Vietnam War. The Ho Chi Minh trail went through Cambodia, and American bombs were dropped on Cambodia. Hence, the second part of your argument doesn't hold as much substance as it should. As for the first part, again you're ignoring that the title would be referring to geographical Crimea, and has nothing to do with undermining Ukraine's sovereignty. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake does not imply that geographical Sichuan is not part of China, the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami doesn't imply that geographical Tohoku is not part of Japan, and the October 2007 California wildfires doesn't imply that California is not part of the United States. In essence, you are making an irrelevant conclusion here by stating that using "Crimean peninsula" would infer that Ukrainian sovereignty be undermined. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one denying anything, reliable sources are confirming what I am saying. And reliable sources confirm that Crimea is still considered parer of Ukraine. Have a problem with that then take it up with the reliable sources.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me dear sir, but it appears you are moving the goalposts. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the proposed title is more specific and does not present a POV - to date the Russian military incursion has been limited to Crimea (and a neighboring village). The article deals with only armed forces; the title does not preclude the presence of Russian non-military agents operating elsewhere in Ukraine. I agree with Benlisquare that the proposed title itself makes no claim that the Crimean Peninsula does not belong to Ukraine.Nomadic Whitt (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Specificity. Ukraine is big. Ukraine is huge. Ukraine is massive. Ukraine is the size of Sweden and Kuzka's mother combined, if not larger. By stating that the intervention took place in "Ukraine", we are being too vague and non-specific, which is at odds with what is usually done on Wikipedia. It is not uncommon to be more specific by referring to geographical regions within countries (e.g. 2010 Yushu earthquake, March 2012 Damascus bombings) without actually questioning the sovereignty of any country, nation or sovereign state. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support as second choice, with first choice being the merge with 2014 Crimean crisis As per OP, Nomadic Whitt, Benlisquare. Other's are engaging in WP:OR in making various arguments about the status of Crimea. Incidentally, I believe that Crimea was an autonomous republic under Ukraine, but before it was gifted to Ukraine during the Soviet era (1954), it had been an integral part of Russia for 250 years.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:19, 23 March 2014, etc. (UTC)
  • • Check the section above Talk:2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine#Belligerents, as the comments there to the effect that it is a military conflict only would seem to clearly indicate that this needs to be simply incorporated into the "Crisis" article as a section. Otherwise, there will be endless back-and-forth POV nonsense here as to what is relevant to the "intervention" and what isn't. Obviously all RS statements are relevant, so the POV forking here, which will only facilitate soap boxing, calls for a merge.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that I overlooked the fact that the RfC is still ongoing above, and I would support directly merging this into the 2014 Crimea Crisis article, which is where it will eventually wind up at any rate, as opposed to making these stutter steps in that direction. Still, the current title is the least desirable.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the merge would be best. So I !voted for it, and also !voted here for the move. If the merge fails, but the move succeeds, then I think the new name of this article will help it get merged in the future.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per OP, I've made the same argument countless times. LokiiT (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose—I'm opposing for two reasons: 1) when a military incursion happens into another country, it is most usual to discuss the country that made the incursion/intervention into another country, not into some particular province of the country. For example, if the US military makes an incursion into Alberta, Canada, we would say the United States made a military intervention into Canada, not the United States made a military intervention into Alberta; after all, military forces are typically formed and identified with the national sovereign, not the provincial govenernment. 2) regardless of what Crimea or the Crieman Penninsula is today, or ends up being, at the time of the military intervention the territory was clearly and unambiguously a part of the country of Ukraine, as recognized by all countries, and the UN, and even the country of Russia by a couple of different treaties etc. since 1991. So this article, is about that historical event in early March of 2014: Russian military forces intervened in an adjacent country, the country/nation of Ukraine. N2e (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that, by treaty, Russia was entitled to have up to 25,000 personnel in Crimea. Did they exceed that number prior to the Crimean Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI)? I don't think so, but even if they did exceed that number, so the incursion began prior to the UDI, the present article covers not only the incursion before the UDI but also after. Regarding "incursions" into sections of countries, please see 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Crimea was (at the time) part of Ukraine. Thus the intervention was in the Ukraine. This is not a POV title. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I hope the closing admin weighs each !vote by quality of argument and not sheer number. People always seem to not actually carefully read the contents of RM discussions. Stephen C Wells, may I ask you: did the 1992 Los Angeles riots not take place within the United States, on US soil? Would you consider it a POV title, because it's not called "1992 United States riots", implying that Los Angeles is not part of the US? --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see how your comparison is relevant. Yes, articles on riots are generally titled to be specific to the area they occurred. However, this isn't about a riot. This is about a military intervention, and wiki convention is to name the whole country, not just the specific region. I stand by my vote to oppose. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quote: "wiki convention is to name the whole country, not just the specific region" - no it isn't. Find me the exact policy or guideline. Soviet invasion of Manchuria is one counter-example to your claim, and by the process of proof by induction, your claim is false as there is at least one case where this isn't so. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Manchuria was officially an independent state at the time of the invasion. Get your facts straight, please. Also, I didn't say "policy", I said "convention". --Stephen C Wells (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't tell me to get my facts straight when you yourself are utterly confused. Manchuria is not a country. It is a geographic region spanning Northeast China, parts of Inner Mongolia and the State of Mongolia, the Russian regions of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai, and the island of Sakhalin. Do you know what "Manchuria" means? It means the homeland of the Manchus, and the Manchus came from what is today the Khabarovsk plains. A sovereign state once existed by the name of Manchukuo, however it by no means controlled the entirety of the geographical region of Manchuria, which at the time had its control divided by another sovereign state known as Mengjiang. The Manchurian steppes is, and was, home to multiple regimes and political establishments.

  And finally, "convention" is a meaningless buzzword when used in the context you're trying to force it in, as a convention would suggest on something that is widely accepted on, which clearly isn't the case, given that your "convention" can be logically negated by at least one example. If you want to argue something with concrete backing, find concrete evidence; a policy or a guideline, and no subjective and wishy-washy voodoo magic. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I also hope that the closing admin considers WP:NPOV because it appears that those who support this move feel that Ukraine's sovereignty was not breached by Russia, but it was only Crimea that was affected. Not so, because the entire country of Ukraine was invaded, even if just in part. In fact, Crimea is still part of Ukraine, but only considered occupied as of now.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, User:Jojhutton, it's you who said above in this talk page section "Crimea, although occupied, is part of Ukraine", and again just now you said "Crimea is still part of Ukraine". That is a POV which we are no more entitled to push than the opposite POV — that Crimea is not part of Ukraine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually its the majority world wide view. Only Russia has the opposite view. What you call POV is basically the POV of just about every nation on earth. Sources state that Russia wants to occupy the Crimean peninsula and then claim it for its own, which it has, but the majority of sources also state that the rest of the world does not recognize this annexation. Just today Russia was kicked out of the G8, now G7 as "punishment" for what the other nations, plus the EU, plus NATO, plus 13 of the 15 members of the UN security council call an illegal occupation. So if everyone except Russia still consider Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, how can we give equal weight to the Russian POV?--JOJ ^Hutton 20:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed move does not favor the Russian POV and it does not favor the American POV. It is neutral. And neutrality about the legality of the Crimean Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) is not only a significant stance worldwide, but in fact is the majority stance worldwide. More countries representing more people have maintained neutrality on this issue than have taken a stance, and of course Russia's side has been taken by some so we should not say in the voice of Wikipedia that they err.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday the UN General Assembly voted 100-11 (58 abstained) to condemn the intervention and referendum as illegal. It doesn't sound to me like neutrality is the "majority stance worldwide" as you put. The majority stance seems to be against Russia, with neutrality a distant second place. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the NYT, "the high number of abstentions in the Ukraine resolution vote, including those by large, important countries, like China, India and South Africa, diluted the sympathy for Ukraine’s position." There are 7.2 billion people on our planet, 1.4 billion are in China, and 1.2 billion are in India. So it seems likely that the majority stance is neutrality, at least population-wise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The leaders of national governments are only one aspect of the situation, and governments do not represent all people as a whole. For example, whilst the government of my country (Australia) is a running dog of the American empire on many issues, from military intervention in the Middle East to free trade, public opinion over here is much more divided. Counting UN votes is a very closed-minded way of analysing things. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

At least I gave a number. All you have done is speculate.--Stephen C Wells (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

At least you gave a number? Is that all it takes to meet your standards of argument? Meanwhile razor production in Oceania has increased by 37%, and we are winning the war against Eastasia. Come on, open up your mind and think critically outside the box for a bit. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's just as neutral this way as well. The question was whether or not Crimea is part of Ukraine. The answer is yes. So if Crimea is in Ukraine, then the current title is correct and there is no need to make any changes. Same as the last two attempts to move the article. JOJ ^Hutton 21:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If Crimea is in Ukraine, then neither the current title nor the target article title is wrong, but the target is more specific. I am not aware that this move has been proposed before.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because 1) While less specific geographically, I think it's more accurate factually that the military intervention was in Ukraine, as it began long before the Crimean referendum. 2) While nearly all the military action has been within the Crimean Peninsula, so far… looking at recent events (something that looks an awful lot like an invasion force amassing along the eastern border), it seems far from certain that things will stay that way… which would require renaming the article again. Nouvelle Planète (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Crystal. We are not supposed to use a crystal ball to edit Wikipedia, and forecasting a future Russian intervention is not our job. The present article covers the intervention both before and after Crimea purported to declare independence, so it is grossly non-neutral for our article title to say that the intervention was in "Ukraine" even after that declaration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. OK, I'll re-phrase. I wasn't trying to predict Putin's next move. I don't know if those troops are for invasion or just intimidation purposes. I sincerely hope it's the latter. I'm just saying it's not unreasonable to think that they're the former. So since the article already has a more general title that covers both possibilities, I vote for the status quo. Better leave it the way it is rather than change it and risk having to change it again later. Nouvelle Planète (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The risk of having to change the article title has already materialized, because the intervention extended past the Crimean Declaration of Independence. As for risks that have not materialized yet, we would have to explain in the lead, e.g. "2014 Russian Military Intervention That May Happen in Ukraine".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Intervention started while Crimea was(legally is) part of Ukraine. The referendum wasn't approved by the parliament in Kiev, meaning the only legitimacy it has it's by the gun. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The same statement repeated ad nauseam a dozen times before above. We get it, you don't recognise the legality of the referendum. Is there a need to shove this in our faces every few paragraphs? You can say it 30 times or you can say it once, it won't make a difference and it just becomes annoying for other people to have to read it over and over. You've made your point, we know your point, we acknowledge your point. Step away from the dead horse and lower the stick. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as second choice; if the merger proposal fails, at least this focuses the issue on Russian military intervention into the Crimean region, not the Crimean political state. What side the political state belongs to (Russia/Ukraine) is largely irrelevant, and violates NPOV, but the region itself is a non-political entity and following NPOV it is best referred to as such. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is Russian military activity in Kherson Oblast, which is not part of Crimea.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Laos is not part of Vietnam, please request Vietnam War to be renamed to a more suitable title to meet your standards and needs. While you're at it, please request renames for Kosovo War, Iraq War, Nagorno-Karabakh War and Pacific War as well. These titles also fall afoul of your argument, and need to be rectified to your standards. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Turchynov is acting president

So it's fair to specify it in the list of Commanders and leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.94.132 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Lugnuthemvar constantly reverting this change and doesn't explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.82.184 (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

because it's just fodder Lugnuthemvar (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

He's not President in his own right; it is completely correct to include acting when referring to him. Besides, almost every reliable news outlet refers to him as acting president. No reason why Wikipedia should portray anything that isn't correct. § DDima 05:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:JDL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.80.251 (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Article-level POV tags

In the first month of this articles existence (March 2014), there have been four extended Talk page discussions regarding the addition a POV tag to the top of the article. Each time, the consensus has been that an article-level tag is not very useful for helping editors improve the article, especially when no coincident discussion is started on the Talk page identifying precisely what the article-level concern is. Instead, more specific tags, identifying specific instances that are potentially non-neutral or POV, should be tagged with some sort of inline tag, and then discussed on the Talk page, or a hidden comment left with the specific concern. Since the last of those discussions will soon be archived, and thus removed from the Talk page, I am leaving the summary and some useful POV help text here. (by leaving the date/time off; I believe the archive bot will not archive this discussion in a week)

Summary of previous discussions

POV tags on the article have been discussed, and resolved, in at least three previous sections of this Talk page (now in the Archives; see the Archive header at the top of this Talk page to search) where the consensus was that specific instances of alleged POV ought to be identified rather than broad article-level or section-level POV templates be added to the artile. Wikipedia Talk pages are not a place for general discussion of a world event; they are for improving the article. And that can best be done if specific issues are identified, so they might be discussed and addressed.

If you have specific instances of POV statements or lack of balance, identify them as previously discussed. If you feel one position is under-represented in the article, feel free to edit the article to resolve the issue, as long as you have reliable sources. Cheers. N2e (talk)

Artcle POV tag hasn't been solved. It just was moved to "archive" page. There is no need to flood article with statement POVs. It's going to be after every second statement. Elk Salmon (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging and improving POV concerns

Repeating this summary Help text here, excerpted from previous Talk page discussions:

In order to have more light, less heat, and a better article, let's try this for POV concern discussions on this Talk page:

If there are WP:POV concerns about something specific in the article, please fix it in the article, or tag it with a specific tag near the specific instance you are concerned about, rather than tagging an entire large section, or the article as a whole. Please be sure to leave your rationale on the Talk page, or in a hidden text comment nearby the tag, like this: <!-- hidden text -->

Specific in-line tags that might be used include: {{POV-statement}} which leaves in the article or {{lopsided}} which leaves in the article . For a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see here. Cheers. N2e (talk)

"the reunification of Crimea to Russia." is a POV statement

It appears to me that the statement "the reunification of Crimea to Russia." in the third sentence of the lede is unbalanced, and does not reflect a neutral point of view. Reunification seems to represent only one side, and one opinion, in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia. I've seen many sources in the media from Ukraine and in the western media that would reflect it as an invasion of sovereign Ukrainian territory. Clearly, both sides have argued here for nearly a month now, which is why I believe the article title has, to this point, remained "intervention" rather than either of the more POV statements: "invasion" or "reunification."

I have tagged this statement for now, while leaving it in the article, so that discussion might be had on the Talk page. What think others? ... and why? Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The so-called "reunification" comes from a pro-Russian POV. It's a biased euphemism that should be removed.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. What some people call a reunification, others call an invasion or an occupation. USchick (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

reunify: to bring together again (something, esp a country, previously divided)

I really don't see any argument here. There is no point of view that Crimea was never part of Russia, and there is no point of view that Russia has not annexed Crimea, whether or not one wants to recognize it. Occupation and reunification are not mutually exclusive; they can occur at the same time. LokiiT (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Invasion?

Won't copypast it from an archived page. Starting over. And article says invasion by Russian solders. Almost all statements are relying on unreliable sources, like CNN. More reliable BBC uses more neutral pro-Russian self defense forces statement [3], [4], [5] Elk Salmon (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

in what universe is CNN not considered a [[[WP:RS]]? --Львівське (говорити) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

End Date?

With Crimea now annexed by Russia should this article have an end date of March 26, 2014? Other than Crimea there is no evidence that Russia has intervened in Ukraine with their military (Border build up yes but not a go ahead). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

But if you mean that: once the "international community" accepts the de facto (if not de jure) separation of the Crimea from Ukraine and it's political attachment (by whatever means) to Russia, then that would be, roughly speaking, the end of the historical period encyclopedically described by this particular article, then I would agree with you. If that, for example, turns out to be, say 2 April 2014 (today), then the scope of the events described in this article would be roughly the period of the direct Russian military intervention, from about 1 March 2014 through 2 April 2014.

Having said that, I'm not sure there is even a de facto acceptance of it yet internationally, but I could be wrong about that. If you (or someone) thinks there is, I would recommend creating a new section with a simple proposal that, for purposes of this article, the Wikipedia community accepts xyz date as the date that de facto acceptance of the partition of Crimea from Ukraine and to Russia. Once that is in place, I think we will know the historical time period that this article then ought to cover. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, by end-date I am meaning the Russian military intervention, to me it ended when Crimea was annexed, unless other editors feel we should keep the status as ongoing as an occupation type of thing. The question would be is how is Russia's military still intervening in Ukraine? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic tag

I have tagged the "Other Troop movements" as being off topic as the events are not happening IN Ukraine around or near is not the same as inside the borders. Related to the conflict yes but in Ukraine? No - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing in Commentary section

There appears to be POV pushing going on in the "Commentary" section, where the section representing the views of legal scholars opposing the illegality of Crimea's seccession is continuously deleted. The reasons given for the removal, if they are given at all, don't hold any ground under even the slightest of scrutiny.

First, WP:NPOV policy suggests that due weight should be given to different points of view. The UN assembly vote on the matter showed that only slightly above half of countries, representing only a third of the world population, expressed agreement with the illegality of the Crimean referendum and independence. It thus stands to reason that the point of view of its illegality is not so overwhelmingly unanimous as to justify only the inclusion of that point of view.

Concerning the reasons given for the removal:

"The source does not support the text", as given by Volunteer Marek (22:09 30 march) and HJ Mitchell (1:05 31 march). The text is copied verbatim from the source and hence is clearly supported by the source.

Copyright violation, as given by Kudzu1 (3:21 31 march). The text falls clearly under acceptable use as it consists of brief quotations to attribute a point of view.

"Just some guy's blog, who also writes for conspiracy websites", as given by Volunteer Marek (0:11 31 march). First, what the man does in his free time is irrelevant, and is the use of an ad-hom. Concerning blogs: WP:NEWSBLOG provides the conditions for the use of an opinion piece in a blog as a source, namely that the author is a professional and that the statements are attributed in the form of "X opines that...". The second condition is clearly fulfilled. Concerning the first condition, the author holds a Master's degree in law specializing in international law, as well as a PhD in the same field. He was/is part of the defense counsel on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and is a member of the International Association of defence counsel practicing at International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He is deputy redactor-in-chief of the Kazan Journal of International Law. He is a member of the International Law Association, as well as the Russian Association of International Law. This is about as professional in the relevant field as it gets.

"Original research", as given by Volunteer Marek (22:47 1 april). A section which consists solely of quotations from source cannot, by definition, be original research since WP:OR defines original research as statements for which no source exists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have shorten the section with Mizayev's view. His 2010 article on Kosovo does not mention Crimea for the obvious reason, using it hear is indeed an original research. His 2014 article is mostly concerned with the legality of Crimean referendum, 2014, so it is probably should be there, nor here. In his 2014 article he mentioned that It should be noted that no way could Russia’s actions be compared with what the West does - Russia acts upon the invitation of the Ukraine’s legal authority. , that is probably relevant here, but I could nor decipher that the legal scholar meant by the Ukraine’s legal authority: Crimean local government? Ousted president Yanukovich? Ukrainian government leasing the naval base to Russia? Thus, I left this idea out Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like hes talking about Yanukovych's invitation --Львівське (говорити) 01:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article does have its place here, since if the referendum (and consequent inclusion of Crimea in the Russian Federation) is seen as legal then the Russian military operations consist merely of internal troop movements, not a foreign intervention.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the other articles (such as the one on international reactions to the referendum) already contain differing points of view on its legality, this article seems to be the only one where the other point of view was always getting deleted. In any case, for me the section is fine as it is, i was merely reacting to the NPOV violation.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As Alex points out above the original research involves synthesizing a source (reuters) which is about Kosovo and does not even mention Crimea, with a citation to the International Court of Justice and Mizayev's... blog. The citation to the ICJ in particular is dishonest as it makes it seem like Mizayev has some kind of connection to ICJ or affiliation with it or even some kind of special standing which allows him to analyze it's decisions. But actually, the quotes are just from his blog. Yes, the blog is dressed up to look like some news service but it's still a blog. And Mizayev is a frequent contributor to various conspiracy websites like nsnbc.com. Specifically: First, what the man does in his free time is irrelevant, and is the use of an ad-hom - when it comes to sources it actually *does* matter if the author contributes to conspiracy websites and espouses fringe and crank theories. That goes right to the heart of the credibility of the source and is not just something "a man does in his free time". It is not irrelevant. And when discussing reliability and credibility of sources... well, *of course* we discuss the hominem. That's the whole point, to evaluate the source. You might as well complain about "ad-hom attacks" everytime someone on Wikipedia says that some source is not reliable.

Apparently the university of Johannesburg considers him reliable enough to invite him for a guest lecture to provide his insights on the ICC. He certainly seems reliable enough on the topic at hand, which is international law. Being a professor in international law seems to provide standing to analyze decisions of the ICJ, that is what professors in international law tend to do after all.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of this junk violates numerous Wikiedia policies. WP:NPOV obviously, but also WP:RS (blogs are not reliable sources), WP:UNDUE (no reason to give prominence to one particular guy on the internet) and WP:FRINGE (especially when that guy contributes to conspiracy websites) and WP:SYNTH (combining ideas from other sources to make them appear as if they support this guy). Remove the whole thing.

In what universe is including a point of view held by at least Russia, a major player in the conflict, a violation of NPOV? I have already pointed you to the conditions for using blogs set forth in WP:NEWSBLOG and shown they are fulfilled, merely repeating your assertion that it is not a reliable source does not make it true - how about actually addressing the arguments instead? Re WP:UNDUE, the position of legality of the referendum is clearly not undue, again given that at least Russia upholds it. WP:FRINGE applies to making fringe claims on WP, it does not state to exclude sources on topics within their expertise merely because they happen to make fringe claims in other areas too. WP:SYNTH simply doesn't apply anymore after the latest edits.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I assume that the editor insisting on including this stuff is the same person that caused this article to be semi-protected recently and was then blocked for continued edit warring and tendentious editing. So it's also an obvious case of WP:BATTLE, WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA with a very probable side salad of WP:SOCK.Volunteer Marek (talk) Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, assume bad faith too while you're at it. For your information, no i am not the same person, i've only started editing this page 2 days ago out of concerns for some blatant POV issues. Any other baseless accusations you'd like to throw around?2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, anyone with more background knowledge have any idea what this "Academy on International Law and Governance" in Kazan that Mizayev is a "Chair" of is supposed to be? I checked List of institutions of higher learning in Russia and I don't see it. A search on bing or google comes up *only* with hits to either Mizayev's blog or the nsnbc.com conspiracy website to which he contributes (and of course, now, this very Wikipedia article). It's possible that maybe the translation is off or something but... you'd figure there would be *some* hits in that instance. The fact that Mizayev's blog is dressed up to look like something it's not (it pretends like it's a news magazine) adds to my concern as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, apparently the university of Johannesburg believes it, as well as his expertise, is real. Seriously, it's only the fifth hit on a google search on his name, have you even checked any of this?2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What does the university of Johannesburg have to do with anything? Plenty of universities have or host nutty professors. This isn't harvard. -Львівське (говорити)

It points out that the academy is actually real, as well as Mezyaev actually really holding a chair there, which seems to be what Marek was contesting in that paragraph - irrespective of whether he is nutty or not. Yes, they may be inviting a nutty professor, but one would be hard pressed to argue they're inviting one that doesn't even exist (in the capacity of professor of international law). 2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

First, I don't see a link to this invite. Second, them inviting him in one capacity or another doesn't prove that this organization is real. Maybe they invited him as a member of the International Law Association or the Russian Association of International Law?--Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Newsroom/News/Pages/UJ-Alexander-Mezyaev-to-talk-about-the-International-Criminal-Court-.aspx (the association with the academy is there). It's not like this stuff is hard to find, plenty of these things come up in the first few pages of google results on searching the name "Alexander Mezyaev".2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't entirely sure which org we were referring to, that clarifies it. I guess it could be argued that the "Academy on International Law and Governance in Kazan" is just a made up department in the university he's a professor for, I mean, that it exists doesn't make it notable or its research credible. It's not like the UoJ vetted that department, just him as a professor. That said, that is an institute of higher learning vouching for him...but I don't know anything about the UoJ or how prestigious it is, so that just goes back to my first point about some universities associating with nutty professors. That's just my take at a glance here as an observer, I haven't edited the content yet. Since he's not a well known figure, a WP:WEIGHT issue is relevant.--Львівське (говорити) 04:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the Russian Academy of Sciences also considers him distinguished enough to sit on their panel (http://afrika.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_afrikawissenschaften/konferenzen/conference_moscow_2014.pdf). There are numerous other results like this that come up if you just google the name. He may be a conspiracy nut, but in as much as international law is concerned he appears an accepted and even distinguished professor, and that is what matters here.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Marek. I also maintain that with such a lengthy quotation involving entire passages from the commentary being copy-and-pasted or closely paraphrased at great length, it's problematic from a WP:COPYVIO perspective. If whoever wants to include this can provide some good supporting arguments as to why this guy is notable, I can see a case for excerpting the commentary in a succinct, qualified manner. But for now, my instinct is to cut it as just another schmo's opinion. Wikipedia isn't a place to just list whatever umpteen random bloggers think about X or Y. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The recent change should preclude the COPYVIO concern. I have listed the qualifications, how that translates as "just another schmo's opinion" is beyond me. Besides, the opinion in se is notable enough, again seeing as it is held by at least Russia, all the source does is provide a complete rationale for it.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:3476:1558:3EC6:67E4 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't insert your replies into the middle of my comment. Anyway, I reiterate my objection - sources are used to imply a synthesis. And the fact that you admit that "he may be a conspiracy nut" pretty much disqualifies him here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How can a single source be used to violate WP:SYNTH, whose very definition depends on combining different sources (in an inappropriate way)? Your argument makes no sense, by your standards we should remove pretty much all of modern mathematics from WP since Godel believed a conspiracy was out to get him and therefor his views on mathematical issues should be disqualified here.2A02:A03F:1A3D:CD00:84D5:EBD9:BF83:1575 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have provided a link to this Mizayev's position. He is a head of a chair of a private University of Management "Tisbi", also known as an Academy of Management "Tisbi". I am very skeptical about the level of research at a "private university" in Kazan but the guys seems to be a scholar of a sort. Usually professional scholars publish their works in peer reviewed journals, books by recognized publishers, mainstream media. This guy published his work in an obscure online magazine of conspiracy theorists. I guess we need to include pro-Russian opinions to keep the article balanced but I would prefer to have a better source than that.

I do not like classification of opinions on "pro-Western" and "pro-Russian" - people's opinions are not black and white. I have put Mezayev's at the bottom of the list as the least notable of the scholar's presented Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Strategic Culture Foundation

What is the Strategic Culture Foundation? This work by Mezyaev isn't an academic peer reviewed article from a legal journal, or even written in a professional capacity. It looks to be a blog post or op-ed piece of some kind. The part where he says "In the case of Crimea the government is democratically elected and legitimate" is an immediate red flag that he's just shooting from the cuff and being liberal with facts. But let's see what's really going on at the Strategic Culture foundation!

gongshow #1:

The almost simultaneous rise to power of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the acting prime minister of Ukraine and Andrej Kiska as president of Slovakia has prompted fears that the secretive U.S.-based Church of Scientology is making a power grab in Central and Eastern Europe.

gongshow #2:

life is a strange thing! Especially if you are a rich American Jew. On the one hand you want to become richer.[...] At the same time the call of blood is always alive in the soul of a Jew

gongshow #3: (by 'Canada's Nuttiest Professor'!)

Is America Considering the Use of Nuclear Weapons against Libya?

Sorry, no, this site is a conspiracy theory site. It doesn't matter if Mezyaev is a professor who did a guest lecture once, his capacity here is that of a fiction writer, not a legal scholar. --Львівське (говорити) 06:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)