Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 4

Invasion?
None of the sources cited in this article call this an invasion and not a shot has been fired. What's stopping someone from starting 2014 Liberation of Crimea? This article needs to be merged with 2014 Crimean crisis. LokiiT (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While there are some sources available that are referring to this crisis as an invasion, they are not included in this article. A few examples are the statement from the US government here: (CNN), "Putin ready to invade Ukraine" here: (Reuters), and the statement from NATO suggesting that Russia "must respect Ukraine's sovereignty" here: (Turkish Press). Regardless, there is definitely a "military intervention". I am not sure what the criteria is before we can call it an "invasion", but a variety of media outlets seem to be beginning to refer to it as one. If this does not meet the criteria, then the article should be moved to 2014 Crimean crisis.--The Morphix (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with that Irondome (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That certainly deserves a LOL, but there are certain facts and indeed law, that can be marshalled. Is it legal under international law to abolish a languge by a state where a significant group speak it? Are the ethnic Russian population intimidated by aggressive Ujrainian nationalist sentiment? What is the role of neo=nazi groups in the centre of govt, and what role did they play in spearheading the revolts? There is interesting stuff here VM. that I just think we are not covering clearly yet. Irondome (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This article isn't about the "legality under international law" of "abolishing a languge" - which hasn't happened, and I don't think that is covered under "international law". It's also not an article about "the role of neo=nazi groups in the centre of govt", which is also bunk. All that is irrelevant. It's an article about the invasion - the intrusion of non-Ukrainian troops onto Ukrainian territory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Russian military has clearly intervened in the Crimea of Ukraine, and done so militarily: with force or threat of force.  Force doesn't occur only when shots are fired.


 * That being said, if you want to propose the article be renamed, and "moved" to another/better title, possibly without the word invasion, I would recommend you make that proposal below, and let editors begin to weigh in on that with policy-based rationales. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This conflict meets the definition of Invasion and should be called that in the title. Oxford dictionary 1.An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force. 2.An unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain. As to point #1 There are numerous reports of ARMED Russian soldiers being flown into Crimea. ,. There are later reports of Russian military equipment being ferried into Crimea. . As to point #2 Prior to this Crimea was clearly functioning under Ukraine control. It used Ukrainian currency, was fed power and water from Ukraine, followed all legal requirements established by Ukraine. The number of articles referencing Ukraine declaring Russian troops arriving in Crimea as unwelcome is too numerous to quote. As for arguments that it was a 'self defense force' that was already in Crimea that is ludicrous. The entire Ukrainian military had only roughly 3,500 lightly equipped military troops in Crimea previously. . How did suddenly upwards of 20,000 heavily armed troops suddenly 'appear' from within Crimea??? With armoured personnel carriers and other heavy equipment??? Of course all the news reports of them invading from Russia are true.

When you follow the dictionary use of a word it isn't inflammatory, propaganda or biased. The word invasion is important because the word 'intervention' conveys a much different meaning. Oxford dictionary 'intervention': Interference by a state in another’s affairs. The use of 'interference' lacks the understanding of the 'armed' element of this situation which is critical.
 * Russian troops in Crimea by Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine may enter only for breach of contract, but evidence of a violation has not yet been charged. ASDFS (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What invasion?
This is blatant Ukrainian propaganda. There is no-way this is an invasion. Troops already stationed in The Crimea didn't invade anything. To be completely unbiased, they are occupying certain areas. Russia did not authorise an invasion, they authorised deployment of troops to protect Ethnic Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmydreads (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * " Russia did not authorise an invasion, they authorised deployment of troops to protect Ethnic Russians." Have you ever heard of the term doublespeak? Limestoneforest (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An invasion with no resistance and no shots fired, with troops being welcomed by locals? It's not nearly as clear cut as you'd like to think, especially considering that half the country doesn't even recognize the current "official government". LokiiT (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "An invasion with no resistance and no shots fired, with troops being welcomed by locals?" Two problems: the fact that an invasion was met with no resistance and no shots fired does not mean that an invasion did not occur. Also, that Russian troops were being welcomed by locals does not mean that the locals of all of Crimea welcomed them. (e.g. Crimean Tatars) Limestoneforest (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian military tries to avoid conflict and solve this at diplomatic level, however, there were incidents that clearly identify soldiers without identification that roam Crimea as Russian troops. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the only people who have problems with this article are those who have some sort of bias in favor of Russia. Is this an invasion?  Um, yeah.  There is a clearly defined border between Ukraine and Russia.  The fact that Russia sent its military across that border makes this an invasion.  What else would you call it?  "The population of Crimea is Russian."  So?  The population of the Southern United States is overwhelmingly of British decent.  So if the British army invades Savannah, Georgia, by that logic, it would be legitimate.  Furthermore, Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine.  Even Russia recognizes the right of Ukraine to control and administer the area.  I will fight this article's deletion if it is deleted.  Sbrianhicks (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most major media outlets, with the exception of Russian propaganda outlets like RT, are calling it an invasion. "Spell out the consequences for Russia's invasion of Ukraine" by the Washington Post, "Crimea invasion: Russia blasted by world leaders" by the Associated Press, "Ukraine Tells Russia Invasion Means War as Putin Makes Plans" by Bloomberg News, and these are just some of the top search results. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and if the sources call it an invasion, then so should Wikipedia.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)::: Most major media outlets are trying to inflame tensions. If most media outlets called the moon cheese, you would probably believe that too.  This is my exact problem....just because the media call it something, it doesn't make it so.Jimmydreads (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In order for more light and less heat, and in the interest of civil discourse, I would recommend that if someone wants to propose the article be renamed, and "moved" to another/better title, possibly without the word invasion, it might be best to make an explit proposal to that end, below and in a new section, and then allow editors to weigh in on that with policy-based rationales. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10672417/Ukraine-live.html ;
 * 14.17 Our correspondant in Brussels Bruno Waterfield has more from the EU discussions on Ukraine:


 * EU foreign ministers are discussing whether to call Russia’s seizure of Crimea an “invasion” or a “clear violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Ukraine.


 * The decision will have a major bearing on how the EU approaches its biggest foreign policy challenge since the Balkans war of the early 1990s.


 * EU foreign ministers will warn Russia that unless it pulls back then sanctions will follow.


 * Thought it might be of interest. 83.70.250.214 (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Troops from one country entering another without consent, blockading naval and army bases, disarming the local armed forces. That is an invasion by any definition. Imagine if 25,000 Mexican troops entered Texas, blocked the border with the rest of the USA, disarmed local police, besieged army bases, and "elected" a new Governor at gunpoint. Would that be an "intervention" or an "invasion"? The "intervention" in Czechoslovakia in 1968 is called an invasion by Wikipedia: "Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia". To call the Russian occupation of Crimea anything less would be wrong. I would suggest that the present title of "Russian military intervention" is a POV misrepresentation of what has occurred, and little better than Russian propaganda. 101.98.175.68 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point and well-spoken. Thanks! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a good lede. Not enough refs. Agree this is not an invasion. They have a base there and were asked to enter.  SaintAviator   talk  07:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is flawed in the sense that it tries to compare two situations that have a major difference. In your analogy, is there an ongoing coup occuring in Washington DC? Or is it simply business as usual in the United States? Because in the case of a Washington coup, the Mexican government can claim, propaganda or not, that it is sending in troops "in response to a crisis". During the Cold War, even the United States had multiple CIA or military operations where it "responded to crises" in Latin America (in other words, an elected left-wing government is too anti-US and needs to be deposed by force). Sure, in both cases one country is meddling in the affairs of another, but there is a markedly significant difference between the two cases. Also, just to let you know, when you ask me to "imagine" that scenario, I find it really difficult. There are more civilians with firearms in Texas than there are military personnel in the whole of Mexico, let alone 25,000 Mexican troops; no way would the scenario that you've described be remotely possible. You should have chosen a liberal hippy shithole like New York or California for your analogy instead. -- benlisquare T•C•E 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The government change in Kiev has nothing to do with this situation, nor does it make it less of an invasion. Claiming you are "securing a crisis" does not make it less of an invasion, or an occupation, it's just an excuse - and a lame one at that, seeing as every other country in the world recognized the new government as legitimate. If Mexico said "we no longer recognize the legitimacy of Washington, and are sending in soldiers to secure California" that would be an invasion. --Львівське (говорити) 21:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that it's a flimsy excuse at best to claim that a side is responding to a crisis, regardless of whether it's the Russians in Crimea, or the Mexicans in the United States. The main point to realise is that one shouldn't try to make appeal to emotion arguments by comparing apples and oranges, like 101.*.*.* did. He could have presented his views in a more appropriate manner, however he chose to make a poorly formulated scenario full of holes instead. This current situation in Ukraine is a much more complex event than people are attempting to make it out as, and I don't like how people think they can easily affix labels to this situation by making far-fetched comparisons. It's completely silly and anti-intellectual, in my opinion. When talking about Russians in Crimea, people bring up Sudetenland, or Czechoslovakia, or some other historical event, and try to make silly and exaggerated comparisons that don't even make sense, since it's easy to sway opinions by painting the other side as the big, bad, scary wolf by using these comparisons. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that there is any appeal to emotion in comparing what is happening in Crimea with a theoretical equivalent which may be closer to home, and therefore easier to comprehend.

I will use another analogy, this time a real one. In 1938 Hitler occupied German Sudetenland, with the agreement of Britain, France and Italy, and the grudging acceptance of Czechoslovakia. That was probably not an invasion. In March 1939 the armies of Germany and Hungary entered the remaining rump of the country, and Czechoslovakia was partitioned. That was an invasion. There was little fighting, but military force was used in the unapproved military occupation of one country by another. That is what happened in Crimea. Similarly the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Wikipedia calls that an invasion - though there was no fighting at all. I remain disappointed that Russian apologists continue to argue that the invasion of Crimea is not an invasion.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is clearly an invasion. Foreign troops taking control of another country. How else would you define it - they are not there as tourists!

The Texan analogy is a poor one. New Mexico would be a better example, since half the population of New Mexico are Hispanic. Mexico could say it was protecting its people. But that would be a lie. The same sort of lie Hitler used in Sudetenland. There need not be a coup in Washington to complete the parallel. There was no coup in Ukraine. The dictatorial and corrupt ex-president was abandoned by his own party, and parliament - including his own party - voted him out of office. Is an invasion not an invasion because it is carried out for a good reason? Was D-Day not an invasion of Europe because the enemy were Nazis? All the references to Kiev and Ukrainian politics are irrelevant. Russian troops have taken control of Crimea. It did not matter whether some were there already or not. There are some UN troops in the USA, in Washington DC. If the UN took over the Capitol, and brought in more UN troops to occupy Maryland and Virginia, would that not be an invasion? Acts of aggression are defined by the United Nations Resolution 3314. These definitions clearly cover what Russia has done. Russia agreed under the Budapest Memorandum to respect Ukrainian territorial integrity, it is not doing so. This is not a military intervention, but an invasion.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly an invasion? Taking control?? Of the WHOLE Ukrine???
 * Unidentified solders are not necessary with Russian military. They have not taken control of anything, rather patrolling outside of the airport and governmental buildings and also blocking exits from Ukrainian military bases (once that are still loyal to Kiev). Possibly to prevent Ukraine from using army against civilians as it happened in Syria. And this phenomenon only occur in Crimea, not all across Ukraine - check your facts. AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How you can claim that the soldiers are unidentified is vexing. The soldiers themselves have identified themselves on camera and on the record as Russian. Furthermore, troops are being driven around in military vehicles w/ Russian plates. Finally, this is obviously an invasion, not an "intervention." JDanek007 Talk 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is clearly an invasion and clearly the soldiers are Russian. After the fake referendum on Sunday, all of those soldiers will be 'officially' Russians (from 'self-defense Crimeans' to Russian citizens) so the point is moot. They are Russians. It's an occupation / invasion. At this point they're in Kherson and Crimea. --Львівське (говорити) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither side wants to spill the blood of the other. This can be clearly observed. People screaming "war" and "invasion" are merely warmongers who live boring lives and wish to live vicariously through "exciting" global events that they themselves will never experience. Let's stick to the facts, please. >15 days, numerous confrontations, 0 shots fired. Take your World War III fantasies to the middle-east. LokiiT (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The people against the Russian invasion of Ukraine and public denouncing it are the "warmongers"? That's hilarious.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I pose the question: What invasion? LokiiT (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he/she means the invasion where Russian soldiers broke international law and used force to occupy a sovereign country.
 * You see, you can't identify soldiers, relying just on CNN interview with some of them. The main means to recognize soldier's origin, is his military uniform. Otherwise, according to Hague regulations 1907 (Art. 1), Geneva Convention (Art. 4), such soldier is not recognized as belligerent party. What about his nationality — I think, it can be determined only by an appropriate international court (Hague court in this case). CNN is not the absolute truth — if you cite CNN, please refer "According to an interview, provided by CNN, ...". It doesn't really mean that these soldiers were Russian soldiers: you can use Russian car, not being in fact Russian soldier; you can probably buy weapon illegally, maybe even from some Russian local authorities (violating law, of course), and this still won't mean that you are a Russian soldier. And finally, even if these people are in fact Russian soldiers, according to the Russian legislation (namely, the Military duty and service, Art. 39) wearing uniform is obligatory for Russian soldiers while they carry out their duties. So if these armed men really were Russian soldiers, they were violating Russian law, and while violating Russian law, they didn't act as Russian soldiers: Russian authorities couldn't issue an order to invade Crimea, not wearing uniform, as it would have been illegal. That's why talking about this group of people, you talk in fact not about Russian official behavior or decision, but just about this certain group's behavior or decision. If they are really Russian soldiers, it should be established by court, and then these soldiers will be punished, according to the Russian law, but it's not about Russia as a state. So I also think, the neutrality of the article and its title is not obvious: it provides a certain point of view, while other points of view are rejected. LastVisitor (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So by your logic I could order the British Army to restablish the Empire and as long as I order them to mix up their uniform (against British Army regulations) Britain could not be blamed for it as they would no longer officially count as my soldiers? 82.20.70.162 (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Soldiers are officialy unidentified, wheach means there is no definite proof to what side they belong, we can speculate all we want, but technicaly there is no definite proof of russian soldiers violating existing regulations or unidentified soldiers being russian. Therefore, page name clearly violates neutrality and should be changed to reflect that claims ov invasion are not verified. It should either reflect that forces are unidentified, or that invasion by Russian forces is only speculated. 62.76.134.17 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think it's utter crap to call this an invasion, the Russian Federation and Ukraine made an agreement before 1990 that allowed the Russians to station a maximum of 25.000 troops on the Crimean peninsula. As long as they haven't gone over the amount there can never be the case of an invasion. 141.135.87.81 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actions, not numbers. If the 40.000 US troops in Germany helped create an independent Bavaria which then became the 51st state, it would be widely called an invasion, though I agree that "annexation" might be more accurate because it does not imply additional inwards movement. "Annexation of Crimea"?--Martin Berka (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
It seems to me this article has lack of neutrality, many facts are come from one proUkranian source, Korrespondent.net. Given this is ongoing conflict I oppose this article existence as it is being used as PR tool. 2602:306:32D1:2EE0:E195:6E1D:8B5B:96B7 (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Rustam-aka


 * I agree...wikipedia is now part of propaganda media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.218.91 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This has 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) 02:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the article-level POV tag. We can discuss specific issues here on the Talk page, and better identify them with inline POV-related tags rather than the article-level tag.  N2e (talk) 02:27, 19 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:


 * Specific in-line tags that might be used include:  which leaves in the article  or   which leaves in the article .  For a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see here.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Title is non-neutral?
The title itself of the article is not neutral. Ukrainians consider it an invasion, while Crimean do not consider themselves as Ukrainians and voted at 97% for independence, with 80% turnout. Thus, we should use another name than invasion. Crisis would be a better name (and used internationally in media), but there is already an article with that name. Perhaps both articles should be merged, there is not much difference in content between both articles. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, if I'm hearing you correctly, you believe the title [currently, on 19 March 2014: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, as it has been for weeks now] is non-neutral.  However, I don't see any proposal by you for a new title.  If a specific proposal were made on the Talk page, we would have a time-limited process to either make some change, or not make, based on consensus.  If that were to be done, then the POV tag at the article level might make sense.


 * However, two things are true:
 * Renaming or merging this article has been proposed several times, all in the past three weeks. No consensus has yet emerged to do either one.  Thus, adding the article-level tag and making general comments that the article title is not neutral does not justify having the tag on the article; not unless some new consensus emerges, and I don't see one anywhere on this Talk page at present.
 * you have not made a specific PROPOSAL for a new name. So any discussion you get will be hit or miss.  If you think the situation has changed, and that there ought to be a different name for the article, then have at it; but be specific as you the new name you would propose.  But please do so in a new section below named something like "Proposed article name change" or "Proposed article move", and be sure to provide a rationale for "why this time is different?"  What's new that makes you think a new name is in order now when previous proposals have all failed.
 * If something concrete isn't on the Talk page in a day or so, then per previous consensus, the article-level tag ought to be removed, and left off until such time as someone is actively suggesting a way to improve the article, specifically re the title, on the Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think if we want to be consistent this article has to follow same pattern as "Texas annexation" and "Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii" articles. 2602:306:32D1:2EE0:AD22:32F8:E140:CEA6 (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Rustam-aka


 * With no proposal for a new title here on the Talk page, we will go with the previous consensus: article-level tags do not stay on the article merely to show someone's unhappiness.  They are rather to be used as tools to improve the article, which requires hashing this stuff out on the Talk page.  I am removing the article-level POV tag once again.  N2e (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone added the tag back, again with no discussion here on the Talk page, nor specification of the specific concerns. Therefore, I have removed the article-level POV tag again, per several previous consensus discussions here on this Talk page.  If you have specifics, please tag them with inline POV or neutrality tags as above.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Vostok
How about you people use google before you edit this page? I will give no comment on different GRU units, but Vostok batallion DOES NOT EXIST since 2008. Where are you taking this crap from? Ukrainian newspapers or smth? --176.195.204.144 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you, but the only info I can find saying they disbanded in 2008 is from a wiki. I'm pretty sure I am not allowed to use wikis as a source. BustaBunny (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? It took me a minute to find this: Vostok in court. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't be the first time journalist miss-identify military units. In articles about the Syrian civil war, regiments sometimes turned into brigades, new divisions that never existed(2nd armored) appeared, while others, like the 4th armored division, re-appeared in the same articles as the 4th mechanized, etc. Don't hate the expectation from journalists in these types of informations. If you see discrepancy, correct it. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:50, 25 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)

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' Sayerslle (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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:


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