Talk:2014 Simferopol incident

Merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

 * Support for now. The incident isn't big enough to warrant own page. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit my post again and i'll report you for vandalism. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Be careful with accusations. Your original post said and I quote verbatim: "The incident is big enough to warrant own page." which didn't make sense according to the vote you cast. You then modified it to say: "The incident isn't big enough to warrant own page." This caused some confusion because @EK728 agreed with your argument that the event "is big enough" to warrant a standalone article. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then tell me I made a grammatical error. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT MY POST ESPECIALLY THE BOLD ONES Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not yell. Stay polite. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple enough, don't edit others posts!! EK728 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (non-admin fix on vote) The incident is big enough to warrant own page. EK728 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because information is still coming in about this. B14709 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely ridiculous to give a battle with two casualties its own page. This can be adequately covered at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine‎. Tomh903 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete article According to BBC, no accounts of the events could be confirmed independently.  Perhaps it is premature to have an article about events that were not yet confirmed by reliable sources. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is a POV fork of a minor event based entirely on hearsay. LokiiT (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – 1st event with casualties; remember how the WWI started; truthful (and objective) coverage of the event may become possible after disclosure of related documents (in case of official secrets this may take decades); yet in case of current history some events may speak for themselves; therefore, oppose this incident to be included into the vast amount of ongoing and augmenting data. --Pietadè (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The event is still not notable enough and the casualties are so minimal. We should however wait and see if future trials and investigations will take place. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – agree with Pietadè 1st event with casualties; RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the incident should be taken under a closer look. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support it's all part of the same invasion. There is nothing extraordinarily notable about this incident. JOJ  Hutton  01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Notable event with casualities. NickSt (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of the first events with casualties.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some may not be impressed by "only" two people dead, several wounded, but notability is established by influence, not numbers.--Martin Berka (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The merge discussion has been going for over 10 days, can we take the merge flag off now. The delete flag has been taken off. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The length of the article speaks for itself. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Casualties don't matter its the significance. This is a big event involving two major powers for the first time. Its also more revenant considering its taking place in Ukraine, I mean when was the last time a Ukrainian soldier was killed in the line of duty on Ukrainian soil??? WW2??? Its a long article compared to most unfit to add in the main Russian military intervention article.
 * Strong Support: Its ridiculous how some editors try to push their POV's, making single articles from a minor security incident like this (or others even smaller, like the Novofedorivka incident), wich clearly belongs to a bigger and more general article (Russian intervention in Ukraine), but at the same time trying to remove bigger & more specific articles like the Donetsk People's Republic one, POV-driven hypocrisy in its purest form…-- HC PUNX  KID 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues with editing posts due to POV
Recheck your posts every time you visit. there are individuals who shamelessly edit your posts to support their POVs Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture
Is the picture taken from this specific military base, or is it just a random picture of a random soldier in front of a random military base? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Downloaded image from actual base.EK728 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... This incident was the first shooting between rival forces in the Crimean Peninsula, effectively the first shots of the crisis. Should this crisis become an armed conflict this incident will be remembered in history as the first battle where both sides resorted to weapons. I'm actually surprised this article is even being considered for deletion. --GlobalWikiActivist88 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --24.59.181.47 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC) There are many notable sources to this story not the BBC only ,>(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/ukraine-soldier-killed-another-wounded-attack-base/) as I have posted one more. I would also like to note that there is continuing follow up to this story as if it were to be a fallacy then in the coming days and weeks we would see a change in the story-line and edits as in some I have found it is now being told that a 17 yr-old has been arrested in connection to these killings? Now is this 17 yr old one of the "pro-Russian" soldiers, a civilian who somehow had great access to this area, doubtful and very likely at the same time. To simply erase this post as baseless or incorrect I feel is wrong as this would be as pointless as the use of better citation is needed as this crisis continues and the facts develop.

Contested deletion
Sunday 16 March 2014 22.36: "Mr Tenyukh later said that the defence ministries in Kiev and Moscow had declared a truce until 21 March during which Russian forces, who have been arriving by boat and helicopter, would leave Ukrainian military facilities untouched." (RTÉ)

Vote
Please vote for "support" or "oppose'' for the deletion of this article. Some people think this is made up of rumors but their hard facts. In every single military confrontation both sides have DIFFERENT perceptions of what happened. This can be casualties, how the incident started but it a fact that the base was stormed and a fact that two soldiers, who were named by both sides died.


 * Keep – I oppose the deletion, and the discussion on merger confirms it is a valid article I agree with Pietadè 1st event with casualties; RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

AFD
As it is written in the notice at the top of the page "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Please discuss in the article entry: Articles for deletion/Simferopol incident Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... There is a first report from the Crimean Prosecutor General, and it is clear that there is a substantial difference with the Ukrainian version of events. This page will demonstrate in a concrete incident where both sides agree people were killed the different ways that Western, Ukrainian, Crimean, and Russian propaganda reported the same incident.84.93.191.230 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Prosecutor General investigation into incident
There is an official investigation into the incident, and the article should have the information from this investigation. If there is an investigation from Kiev as well as Crimea this should also be included, probably as a separate section.

There is a video of the statement by the Crimean Prosecutor General, and I am going to add back on the summary of the statement along with the reference to the statement.

Please do not delete this section, with out a proper reasoned debate as to why you wish to delete the section. RonaldDuncan (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverse to Military Conflict-Delete Sniper Section
I personally don't believe one thing the Russian/Crimean press said relating to the incident as a "criminal act" blamed on some small Right Sector organization in Western Ukraine. The facts don't make any sense. Why would, if a Ukrainian Right Sector sniper was the cause, why would he shoot at a Ukrainian military base and kill a soldier. It would make better sense if his target was a Russian soldier since the Right Sector is in favor of the new government in Kiev. This is not my solely based on my point of view I just believe we should trust the Ukrainian/Civilian story of a storming of the base, plus journalists who were their saw Russian soldiers detaining Ukrainian soldiers raiding the barracks. Its like trusting an unreliable source, who are you going to believe the pro-west Ukrainians or the Russians. Thousands of articles about this event conclude to a Russian storming, nothing to do with a sniper… bbc, fox etc. you name it. Wikipedia shouldn't accept both sources its one or the other. With terrorists attacks we trust what the government says not what the terrorists say. BadBoyz1|talk (Bad Boyz) 4 April, 4:23 (UTC)


 * Personnaly I do not believe the Ukrainian sources that said it was a full scale military conflict. There would have been much more than 2 casualties if it was the case. The neutral articles about this (bbc, fox, etc. you name it) said that the events could not be independently verified. Let's wait until the criminal investigations are done before pushing a POV.  In the meantime, the current infobox is more neutral.  Also I do not agree that the Russians are "Terrorists". Please stop your name calling.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree to keep the current neutral infobox, instead of the military one, as this would be POV pushing. The military conflict story is disputed. Canadianking123 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure believe what u want i can care less. Just look up Russian propaganda (its everywhere). Their are plenty of Russian wikipedia editors who are byist towards the Russians. And when i said terrorist i did mean the Russians but also meant to put it at Taliban vs. U.S---who are u gonna believe the terrorists or the U.S government,,,,same situation - Ukraine or Russia???


 * the "arrested west ukrainian right sector sniper" nonsense was already dismissed by crimean authorities. the entire thing was made up by the russian press. --Львівське (говорити) 07:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm against the military infobox. It looked very strange. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 04 September 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus that a move of the page is advisable, but some disagreement about the new title; at this time, moving the page to 2014 Simferopol incident, which seems to enjoy the most support, per the discussion below. If a further move is desired, please initiate a new move discussion. Dekimasu よ! 23:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Simferopol incident → 2014 Simferopol shootout – The title format "City+incident" is, generally speaking, very ambiguous, since many events throughout a city's history may be described as "incidents". Thus, 2014 Simferopol shootout would be more a more precise description of the event. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 01:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Anonimski (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose – While I agree that the title at present isn't very good, I'm opposed to "shootout", as it implies an instance of criminality, rather than military action. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, when I think about it again, 2014 Simferopol incident could be fine as well, unless something of equal or higher notability happens before this year is over. - Anonimski (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support Simferopol incident (2014). I think "incident" is an appropriate description, given the murkiness surrounding what happened. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the paranthesis format? Isn't it only for film titles, etc? Many events use the former one, for example 2004 unrest in Kosovo. Anonimski (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a personal preference for parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:NCDAB. There is no natural disambiguation available. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. More correct name per nominator. Also, Novofedorivka incident → 2014 Novofedorivka shootout. NickSt (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Apparently this has been relisted for discussion. The current title may be abstract, but the use of "shootout" not only implies criminality (this has nothing to do with warring gangs, or cops and robbers) but is WP:OR. For the purposes of disambiguation, I'm fine with "Simferopol incident (2014)". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest 2014 Simferopol shootings. I agree that "shootout" doesn't seem sufficiently NPOV. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move, prefer 2014 Simferopol shootings. The current title is ambiguous, and no proper rationale has been given for the use of parentheses by the users commenting above. That wouldn't make much sense. &mdash;innotata 02:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose new proposal – More OR, this was not a "shooting" in the convectional sense, which implies criminality. It was a murky quasi-military incident. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How about 2014 Simferopol military incident? Anonimski (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to murkiness of what actually happened but take it that I would support 2014 Simferopol incident. starship  .paint   ~ regal  12:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cossack National Guard
There were no Cossack National Guard of Armed Forces of Novorossiya. There indeed were Russian Cossacks (Don, Kuban, etc) among paramilitary volunteers in Crimea during 2014 annexation, but they acted under a guise of Crimean Self-defence. --VoidWanderer (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed underlinked tag in "Storming of Ukranian Military Facility" section
This section doesn't seem underlinked anymore, with 18 links in that one section. To boot, the tag is from 2014. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To wit, I've removed the 'update' tag. Given that it was an 'incident', it's unclear as to what aspect needs to be updated given that there's been no discussion of either missing or new information relevant to the article on this talk page. Again, it was tagged in 2014 and has not been followed through or discussed as an article content issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Igor Strelkov participation
Can someone link the actual photo or video evidence supporting his claim? Strelkov also claimed that his troop of 30 men were responsible for igniting the whole conflict. He is used to claim a lot. 78.34.220.243 (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No photo or video required to prove that he said what he said. Your statement in article is meaningless. You may put unreliable source template in infobox, but it's about everything you can do to express doubt.
 * PS. He never said he is responsible for the whole conflict, but his squad was really first who started bloodshed in Donbass. But let's stick to article discussion, not Strelkov: WP:NOTFORUM. --VoidWanderer (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On a further note, IP 78.34.220.243, do not change reliably sourced content because you just don't like it as you've done here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Anonymous, there is no photo or video that I know of. Girkin’s claim is the evidence, and there’s no contradicting evidence or dispute about this. And that is exactly what the article says. —Michael Z. 2017-10-28 21:24 z 

Right sector in infobox
Iryna Harpy, the Mzajac's edit was pretty much controversial: --VoidWanderer (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) On one hand, there are a lot of Right Sector mentions in the article; article's infobox is not implying Right Sector was really there in Simferopol.
 * 2) On another, if we're removing Right Sector from infobox (it's obvious Right Sector involvement was only a Russian claim, not backed by any real evidence), then we should also remove corresponding Right Sector subsections in Strength and Casualties and losses.


 * Let’s talk about the specific edit. You entered the text “Right Sector snipers (claimed by Russia...”, with two “references” that do not say there were Right Sector snipers nor that Russia claimed this. This assertion should be removed because 1) it’s false and 2) it misrepresents itself as supported by citations. Don’t put this back in.


 * Regarding the facts: it was fake news sources that claimed there was one Right Sector sniper. Russian authorities never claimed this and they did deny it. There is no evidence but hearsay that Right Sector was present. It is a reported fact that Right Sector was claimed to be present. This fact can, and should, be mentioned, but don’t add fantasies to the infobox under the heading “Units involved.”


 * Is it inconsistent with the rest of the article? If so, then improve the article by removing junk that isn’t properly cited, not by restoring such blatantly misleading junk. —Michael Z. 2017-10-28 20:54 z