Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There were two main threads to the delete camp's argument. The first of these is that this article is a fork. Some argued that it is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. It may well have started off as a fork of this article, but clearly it covers more ground than that now. Others argued that it is a fork of multiple articles. Some in the keep camp argued that this article is an umbrella article bringing together different aspects of events in Ukraine. If it is accepted that an umbrella article would be valid then the fork argument fails whatever the current shortcomings of the article. It may be true that large amounts of duplication exist, but the way to deal with that is by adopting summary style, not by deletion. The question remains is such an umbrella article even valid. Some in the delete camp argued that there are different issues that should not be mixed. Against this the keep camp provided reliable sources bringing together the different aspects as a single conflict. I find that the delete camp have failed to counter this either with arguments from sources or arguments from policy so this position also fails. The second thread of the delete camp was that there is no Russian military intervention, or that there is none other than in Crimea, or that it is not proven that there is military intervention. Against this the keep camp produced sources discussing and comparing Russian intervention in Eastern Ukraine and comparing it Crimea, or speculating on it. The keep argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not the intervention is true, it is enough that sources are talking about it. Since WP content is based on reliable sources by policy, then I find that the keep camp has the strongest policy based argument here. Having said that, we need to be careful what we are writing as fact, what is a sources opinion, and what is pure speculation. But again, such problems are a matter for normal editing to sort out. They do not amount to grounds for deletion. SpinningSpark 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine[edit]

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So far, the only confirmed intervention in Ukraine by the Russian military has been in Crimea and nowhere else. The intervention in Crimea is already covered in 2014 Crimean crisis and this article is essentially repeating everything that is already covered there. So unless there is further intervention by Russia in the future, this article needs to go. Constance Lahaye (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nom struck as sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constance Lahaye. Ansh666 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Can't we merge this article?, the idea is that content from this page is moved to the other pages covering overlapping topics. I'd take it that people wouldn't be pushing for outright deletion, but towards a consensus that the page is a redundant fork that needs to be merged. If the final outcome of this discussion is a decision to merge, then the merger process can begin immediately after AfD closure. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It's pointless to have an article that's a virtual duplicate of another. Now if there is further Russian intervention later on, this article might then be appropriate. But that's a story for another time, and hopefully it won't come to that :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.48.42 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (indicate) @ 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this account was created on the same day as the deletion discussion was initiated, fancy signature and all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote struck as sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constance Lahaye. Ansh666 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was an unneutrally and speculatively titled fork of 2014 Crimean Crisis from the very beginning. Now it's even worse, it's being used for speculation about Russia's involvement in the Eastern Ukraine. The speculations about Russia's troops "here and there" are already covered in the respective articles. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis. The organization of articles relating to Ukraine is been appalling since the start we have so many subarticles and names for different things it just becomes confusing as to what we are looking for or at. This should be merged into the Crimean Crisis as the only official Russian involvement occurred during this event. Everything else is speculation for the most part. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly rename to Russian military intervention in Crimea. If renamed, we would need an additional page, Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine. (Inserted: we already have a similar page about another geographic region, War in Donbass, however naming this page "War in Crimea" would not be appropriate. As it is right now, this page covers all Russian military activities on the Ukraine, so that War in Donbass is sub-page of this page). There is huge number of sources claiming about current military intervention by Russia in Ukraine. This is allegedly done through (a) direct artillery attacks from Russian territory; (b) sending heavy weapons and their military personnel (disguised as people on temporary leave or retired from military service). That was the reason for international sanctions. Many GRU officers were killed in Ukraine [1]. Come on. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely this is an important topic. anyone who looks at interpretermag.com from time to time knows there is much to write about. Sayerslle (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article covers a different aspect of the conflict than Crimean crisis. According to reliable sources, Russian intervention is probably not limited to Crimea. You can label that "speculation" but that's irrelevant - what's relevant is that reliable sources discuss the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- When news sources indulge in speculation themselves, it is rather hard to qualify them as "reliable". So far as they are concerned, the US government has the means to verify such allegations, yet have chosen not to do so. The use of social media as a form of evidence is perhaps the closest they can come, a worrying trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.151.230 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS for the definition of a reliable source. Whether or not, in some anonymous internet user's opinion, sources engage in "speculation" or not is not one of the criteria and hence irrelevant to a deletion discussion. The sources under consideration here are clearly reliable. The nature of your comment suggests that the delete vote is a means of POV-pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - there actually have been three merge proposals already, along the lines mentioned above (all characterized by some extensive sock puppetry and other shenaningans). All of them were rejected. This seems to be an attempt to achieve the desired outcome through other means, i.e. WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Oh yeah. I might as well mention that I'll probably be filing an SPI report on the initiator of this proposal and a voter or two above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think it is a fork and has no place here, but SPI would certainly not harm. We have too many brand new and throwaway accounts editing articles on the Ukrainian crisis with both sides POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek, you mention that we have had merger proposals in the past, but may I remind you that consensus is not absolute, and can change over time. What would have been consensus in the past can change as time progresses and the situation evolves. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis. Russian military and paramilitary activities in and around the Donbass constitute a completely different operation. From the start, this article came off like a WP:POVFORK, and its open-ended nature has made it attractive for WP:COATRACKing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands right now, this page (in essence "Russian military intervention in Crimea") is considered a part of 2014 Crimean crisis. Merging these two articles will make an effect of considering the entire "Crimean crisis" as "Russian intervention". This is not unreasonable, however I still believe it would be better to keep these two pages separately because the "crisis" may indeed be something bigger than simply intervention. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePointless fork of already existing article and there is no military intervention by Russia in Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That explains a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine presents these events as internal Ukrainian political conflict. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine presents these events (or a part of them) as covert and overt military intervention by Russia. The content and the way of presentation of two pages has very little overlap, and both pages are very big. Speaking practically, I would suggest keeping both pages and gradually improving them. Deletion would lead to loosing a lot of valid content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is still a fork, and the way to improve things is to have a coherent presentation in one article, not to split them over two articles (and possibly someone comes up with the idea of 2014 Civil War in Ukraine, and we will have three).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
how is 'pro-Russian unrest' the same as 'Russian intervention'? -just repeating 'its a fork' is no good - the way to improve things is not to slur over things in such a way as to call Russian tanks entering another country , 'pro-Russian unrest' - that is Orwellian newspeak kind of thing - a coherent presentation in one article would need a good overarching allinclusive title - and 'pro-Russian unrest' isn't it Sayerslle (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean we have full-scale war between Russian and Ukrainian armies, this is original research, and you will have difficulties finding sources which are not marginal. Anyway, my point is that one article is pretty much sufficient. I do not care what the name of the article would be, though 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine does not look unreasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'if you mean --' something I didn't say at all - I said intervention , not 'full scale war' - what a stupid straw man - anyway this story is not going away and keeps developing [2] - Ru wants 'humanitarian intervention' bbc world news Europe - and to delete now would be idiocy imo, pov idiocy - so, I've had my say Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when myloboaccount says dogamatically 'there is no military intervention by Russia in ukraine' - well, in the May Donetsk Airport fighting more than 50% killed were Russian citizens their bodies were shipped back - so some guide to the involvement -Putin has been covertly supporting the separatists in eastern Ukraine - the shoot down of the plane is part of the story too I think etc - listen to this podcast [3] mymoloboaccount, or do you get all your views from RT etc ? crimea was a situation full of lies -and in the end Putin just admitted he was lying didn't he? there is information available about Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine - to ignore it is to willfully encourage ignorance not knowledge imo - is that what wp is about now? ( the proposal to delete this , from an editor with 44 edits? what is that about? maybe too new to the project to understand its about increasing knowledge not reducing it, deleting stuff for no reason)Sayerslle (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Main argument by the Russian side about this: many hundreds Russian citizens killed at the Ukraine (and remember that separatist leaders are also Russian citizens) were volunteers. This is not anything new. For example, the entire 300,000 strong Chinese army during the Korean War was considered "volunteer force" by Chinese side. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
its still Russian intervention - and then theres the 'ex-military', or military intelligence -'you are never really 'ex' ' - anyway the Russian argument belongs in an article about all this - the point is that there is an attempt here to delete the article - that's out of order imo - on thepodcast here 3:50-ish [4] 'tanks , armoured vehicles, crossed the border from Russia,' day befrore MH 17 was shot down - are the tanks and armoured vehicles, volunteers too? (I get your thought , like maybe George Orwell went to fight in span civil war but that doesn't mean there is an article 'british intervention in sp civil war' - but I guess I don't think Russian intervention is like that, a load of Russian orwells - not at all like that imo)Sayerslle (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly (excluding the part about Orwell). Moreover, main point of many publications is that the entire campaign in Crimea (and in Eastern Ukraine) is directed entirely from the Moscow, and all separatist "leaders" are merely their middleman or puppets. For example, Aksyonov in Crimea was "elected" to his position by Russian GRU detachment that occupied their parliament (just as during the Soviet war in Afganistan and elsewhere).My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and that strelkov bloke. ( just read your 'don't waste time editing wikipedia' - very sound advice contained in that little essay!) Sayerslle (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete/merge, pref delete – People discussing this matter are getting bogged down in details about whether there was a "Russian military intervention" or not. This is not what matters here. What matters here is that this article's content is merely stuff that is forked from more appropriate articles. For matters in Crimea, there is 2014 Crimean crisis. For matters in the Donbass, there is War in Donbass. Regardless of whether Russia did or does or doesn't intervene in Ukraine, it can be covered in the appropriate article, depending on geographic location, as it already is. There is no need for this fourth article, which is merely a fork that is attempting to push a point-of-view, and has no unique content. Therefore, I recommend this article be deleted. I do not see any information here that is not already in either 2014 Crimean crisis, Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis, War in Donbass, Timeline of the war in Donbass, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. We have plenty of articles. One for the crisis in Crimea, one for the pro-Russian protests across eastern Ukraine, and one for the war in the Donbass region. That's plenty, and they are in much better shape than this pile of tripe. Please, do us all a favour. Delete this article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if its tripe it should be improved - Russian military intervention in Ukraine , under that title , is worth an article - those that argue against are just as open to a 'knee-jerk' charge as those who want an article under this name. - dos it not bother yu , or give you pause , rglloucester that an editor with just 44 edits , started this deletion call? after 44 edits I was just about getting the hang of how to insert pictures I think. this is a pov drive to edit history - none of the other articles have titles adequate for this content - this is not about 'pro-Russian unrest', do you not see that ? Sayerslle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith, so I don't particularly care about the motives of the person that nominated this article for deletion. All that I care about is getting rid of this content fork, which cannot have any unique content, and does not. This "tripe" cannot be improved, because improving it would be forking already existing content at other articles. If there is a Russian intervention, it is in a particular conflict or situation. We do not need a separate article for the intervention from the situation that was intervened in. POV forks should be eliminated, and so should this pile of tripe. If there is intervention in the War in Donbass, then it is written about at that article. If there was intervention in Crimean Crisis, then it is written about at that article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about War in Donbass - I did not see this page. However, we need Russian military intervention in Crimea, i.e. this page under discussion! "War in Crimea" would be improper, and "Crimean crisis" deals only with general/civilian rather than military aspects. Therefore, I still believe this page must be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original intent was to have a separate articles for the military and political crises in Crimea, but this has not happened. The Crimean crisis essentially covers everything, and anything from here worth keeping can be merged there with little trouble. There is no justification for having a separate on the Russian military intervention. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't agree - there should be an article that looks absolutely specifically at Russian intervention, not pro-Russian unrest, and not limiting itself to a specific geographic area, looking at the arc of Russian intervention - and now taking the form of the establishment of ' a fortified supply corridor', 'under a guise of a humanitarian mission' in eastern Ukraine - Sayerslle (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RGlouster. Then let me tell this differently. No, I think this page contains a lot of information, which is currently not in 2014 Crimean crisis (anyone can compare himself!), and therefore this page is not a POV fork. Perhaps one might include a lot of content from here to "2014 Crimean crisis" without making "Crimean crisis" unreadable (in fact it is already huge), but it did not happen. My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any information that is here can be merged to the appropriate article. If there is intervention in the War in Donbass, that is covered at that article. We already have a section on Russian involvement in the War in Donbass at that article. Adding any information here on the subject would be forking. Regardless, this is all WP:CRYSTAL, since none of it has actually happened. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean 'none of it has actually happened' ? [5] Russia is firing missiles at ukraine - what bothers me when you say you don't care if chicanery is involved in those who vote fr deletion is that you don't see a problem at winking at people who are just mugging off the project - another vote has appeared here - from someone with 5 edits in five years - its a joke - you smile at the chicanery, you bit by bit drag the project into disrepute, imo. mature people understand that it isn't ends justify means - the means do matter - editing openly and honestlySayerslle (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything about "missiles" is covered in War in Donbass already. I was referring to the "humanitarian mission" hypothesis. Regardless, I try to assume good faith. If you'd like to do a SPI, be my guest. If there is a problem, identify it. I have not done anything that is not "honest". I've stated my honest opinion, which I've held since this article was created ages ago. RGloucester — ☎ 22:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'war in donbass' - 'pro-Russia unrest' - none of these has 'Russian intervention' in the title though - but 'russian intervention in ukraine' is an important topic - a topic on its own - it involves the eastern Ukraine story and the shoot down of the civilian passenger plane , and the delivery and employment of buks , and the crimea event and the role of Russian military intelligence, it involves the putin method of creating problems and then offering himself up as a solution to problems - it is a subject area on its own , that exists, part of this story , in other articles, but deserves its own article imo. I never said you were dishonest - but complacent if others were dishonest - you didn't care because you assumed good faith - but that's a bit complacent really - just my opinion. - all it takes for evil to thrive etc - Sayerslle (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite this article completely. Far from being a nationalist or even a supporter of russian government - this article seems unnecessary. Without hard evidence of russian military involvement in Ukraine - this article amounts nothing more than to speculation and "yellow pages" style of presenting the information. Its repetitive and redundant considering many other articles on ukrainian crisis already exist on wikipedia.--Electricitydrive (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@electric doyou mind me asking by what obscure alchemy you have been led hither to this rather out the way topic - - to edit wp - for just the fifth time in 4 years or so. Sayerslle (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle As i already explained to someone trying to ban me for voting here - i didn't use this account much but i've edited wikipedia anonymously before and im using similar named accounts on other wiki's, like UESP. I've noticed this article today, while reading some obscure forums. I am a staunch defender of wikipedia but this doesn't mean that i must like or endorse every single article i see. Everyone should just take a chill pill and stop being so paranoid all the time. --Electricitydrive (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Common events are by no means a "rather out the way topic". Ansh666 23:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: This article is a blatant example of a WP:Content fork. Information that is here is already present on multiple other pages with significant overlap, and there is no reason for the information to be repeated here, nor for this article to exist. We should not have multiple articles discussing the exact same thing under a different title, and anything that is currently missing on the other existing articles can be moved over. This page's content is redundant to 2014 insurgency in Donbass, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and other related pages scattered throughout Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate webhost of limitless information, and this applies to information duplication as well. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A military intervention of one state to another is an event of great magnitude by itself. For example, there is a whole bunch of articles about various American military interventions. (One can google it: https://www.google.com/search?q=american+military+intervention+wikipedia). But some say there is no persuading "proof" of such intervention in Eastern Ukraine as yet. But Wikipedia does not assesses "proofs". It is written based on sources and claims in sources. And Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine is considered by world political leaders and major media as a fact, the reason for sanctions against Russian elite. And speaking of strange accounts voting for deletion and etc: of course, there can be pro-Putin editors who will do their best to shift focus, as there is now an Kremlin's entity responsible for international Internet propaganda, as media tells. -- A man without a country (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you able to keep your arguments based on Wikipedia policy, and not accusing people of working for Putin or coming up with original interpretations of military action? None of all this talk about what a military intervention is even matters. Wikipedia is not concerned with the WP:TRUTH, and none of your points address the issue of Wikipedia's guidelines on content forking. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see accusations? Whom particularly have I accused? I'm not accusing, I'm warning. Please, don't accuse me of accusing if I actually have accused no one. :) -- A man without a country (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, spare me the doublethink. If you weren't making implications about the motives of editors, why even bother mentioning Putin? Why not just address Wikipedia policy instead? --benlisquareT•C•E 09:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you already know that the discussion starter turned to be a sockpuppet. So my suspicions were somewhat reasonable. But who cares? Let's delete the article, as sockpuppet suggested. That's cool. -- A man without a country (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to continue with the ad hominem arguments that allow you to conveniently ignore valid points made by other people who aren't the sockpuppet nominator? I don't give a flaming shit about the sockpuppet, address my points, and the points of other people. Stop using the nominator as a convenient excuse to play roundabout games. You are essentially repeating your diversional and irrelevant association fallacy nonsense over and over as a cheap way to undermine anyone who doesn't agree with you. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your language is terrible - the vehemence of your denunciation in any case imo is a case of 'protesting too much' - if you don't care that dishonest methods seem to be employed wholly by your side of the argument , that indifference to those methods does you no credit , and ultimately undermines the project imo. Sayerslle (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good argument. (If it were, people would start writing socks to nominate articles for deletion so that the articles would not be re-nominated again). A standard Wikipedia practice is that even if the dscussion has been started improperly, IF it is a real discussion and it could have been started properly, it is just let to continue. In this case, there are users in good standing on both sides of the discussion, and thus it is irrelevant that the discussion was started by a sock. The votes of the socks have been striken out (I am not sure why were the socks not blocked for simultaneous voting), this is pretty much sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
its not an 'argument' at all , its a comment - the debate should continue, yes, fine - I personally find it instructive all the dishonesty is on one side , sorry but I do, - that's a comment, not an argument - and the 'flaming' language doesn't help anyone, I hope we agreeSayerslle (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny that on multipe occasions I was accused being a anti-Putin POV pusher (which I obviously reject, as well as I reject being a pro-Putin POV pusher, or, for that matter, any POV-pusher)--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a separate article for Iraq War and American military intervention in Iraq. Why's that? I don't know what you are talking about with "assessing proofs", or "pro-Putin editors". All I care about is content forking. This is a fork. Russian "involvement" in the War in Donbass is covered at War in Donbass, and Russian involvement in Crimea is covered at 2014 Crimean crisis. We've also got Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Overall, this article is nothing but redundant, and criticisms about "truth" and "pro-Putin" editors totally miss the mark. I too have been accused of being both a "pro-Russian" and "pro-Ukraine junta" POV pusher, and frankly, I'm tired of it. RGloucester — ☎ 06:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know what I'm talking about with "assessing proofs", you can scroll this page up to the very beginning and see the starting post, which I reply to. It begins with "So far, the only confirmed intervention in Ukraine by the Russian military has been in Crimea and nowhere else", which in nothing else but assessing of proofs by discussion starter. You can also notice, that I'm not accusing anyone, but warning. I came to this article, because it was in top of Google results. I wonder: if it had been deleted, what would I see instead? -- A man without a country (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is from bridget Kendal, in June I think "Having concealed the use of Russian troops in Crimea, when he protests now that none of his troops are involved in Eastern Ukraine, he sounds disingenuous.
He is instead suspected of conducting another "maskirovka" - destabilizing part of Ukraine by stealth, through irregulars and volunteers who are nonetheless with their heavy weapons allowed free access across the Russian border, at the same time as he loudly appeals to Kiev to halt its advance."putins games bbc- so its not a case of comparing to Iraq war - oppnents of the article title keep setting up straw men imo - this is about intervention in Ukraine across the board, through a variety of means - intervention, not invasion - and it is not covered in its broad sweep from Crimea to Buks, to maskirovka in the east, whatever, by any other titles. Sayerslle (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. According to publications, the military interventions by Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea (these could be described in two separate sub-articles) are parts of the same military campaign by Putin against the Ukraine. Hence one could argue that we also need an "umbrella" article about the entire military campaign. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About Iraq war. That is a really good example. You've made a mistake: we actually have a separate article 2003 invasion of Iraq. -- A man without a country (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester. There was no actual (active) war in Crimea. But there was Russian military intervention in Crimea (occupation of Crimea, something like Occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union), which led to annexation of Crimea - per sources. That's why. My very best wishes (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Russian intervention" was part of the crisis. It was not separate from the crisis. Do you understand what forking is? "Assessing proofs" misses the mark. It has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. I don't care what the nominator said. The problem here is that this article forks content from other articles, which is unacceptable. I see lots of speculation here and crystal-balling. None of that matters. What matters is the forking, and this article is a fork. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you say you agf but you accuse editors of 'knee-jerk' reponses - is that agf? 'I'd support such an AfD, but I fear that there would be too many knee-jerk "keeps" from people not familiar with our articles on the matter. All we need is someone with the guts to implement it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)I agree. The only confirmed military intervention by Russia thus far is in Crimea, which already has it's own article. This article needs to go, unless there is further armed intervention by Russia in the future. Constance Lahaye (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2014 - so you and constance have an outlook resolved to call all RS talk of russian intervention in easternukraine 'crystal balls' and speculation' - that's how I see it anyhow - its got nothing to do with crystal balls its about reports of what is going on now, and after the Donetsk airport fighting especially. 'The rebels in eastern Ukraine have been led mostly by Russian citizens and field heavy weaponry Kiev and its allies say can only have come from Russia. Moscow denies aiding them.' - well they would , wouldn't they?reuters nbc report of Russian intervention east - if no other article brings together the arc of Russian interventions in Ukraine, I don't see why yu oppose it so vehemently really -it is one phenomenon and needs one correcty titled article Sayerslle (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please address the issue of content forking instead of explaining for the tenth time what is your view of the Russian intervention (which is not a RS and can not be included to Wikipedia btw). The argument that none of the four existing articles had intervention in the title is not valid since it does not conform to the policies. We do not have a policy that every time a new term appears a new article can be created. We have other instruments including moving artices, creating redirects, and expanding content, for this purpose.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'content forking' - is irrelevant to me - the intervention is a single phenomenon and needs its own article. if that doesn't address the issue for you I cant help - i'm not a wikilawyer but I think its a load of old bluster , forking nonsense- its an article offaithto some editors that Russia has not intervened except in crimeaSayerslle (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who proclaims to be not a wikilawyer you left too many messages at this page which have too little relation to policies. Anyway, it is clear now that your arguments have nothing to do with the policies, they are just a mixture of comments on other editors and you own convictions, and thus can be discarded.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
whatever - Russia prepares for war - a Russian intervention article , with that title is needed. policies aren't more important than realities you know. 'your views can be discarded' - spoken like a real apparatchik!Sayerslle (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "spoken like a real appartchik [sic]" - please have a good read at WP:NPA. This is your final warning - keep personal feelings out of this, and opinionated beliefs to a minimum. Address policy, and do not make jabs against people participating in this discussion. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and telling editors their views are discardable is not form of personal attack. of course it is. I've had my say here anyhow - corrected my spelling , silly me , thought it was spelt appartchik , wasn't a typo or anything . sicSayerslle (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter wrote his personal opinion, and he is entitled to his own opinion. He made a comment explaining that he did not believe your points were satisfactory and hence thought that they can be discarded, and this is his own personal opinion regarding your arguments. Ymblanter did not use a label to attack you as a person. On the other hand, you did attack Ymblanter, through calling him a stooge of the communist party. There is a significant difference here. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester. You tell: The "Russian intervention" was part of the crisis. Yes, absolutely. Therefore, this "Russian intervention" page (AfD) is a valid sub-article of parent article(s) about "crisis". We do sub-pages all the time (otherwise many WP pages would be enormously large, just as all these recent Ukrainian politics pages under discussion). That does not mean content forking. And remember, it's OK to have some redundant content if it helps readability. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a subarticle of article about "crisis". It is "crisis" article which is actually to be a subarticle of "intervention", as "crisis" was one of the episodes of the intervention. -- A man without a country (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the hell is this "a matter of concern"? I would have found out about this AfD anyway, it's not like it made any difference. Furthermore, he pinged the two of us because we were already involved within that talk page discussion, it's only natural that he did that. You're grasping at straws here. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep russia invaded crimea, and announced today a "humanitarian mission" would be sent to Ukraine. That doesn't mean it's an invasion, but it could be--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completely missed the point of the discussion. Nobody is disputing that war did not take place within Ukraine. The point being argued is that we already have articles that cover the information that this article covers. Address the points that people bring up, please, AfDs are not a number-vs-number vote. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Person who started this AfD was identified as a sockpuppet here. This entire discussion is a violation of rules. Please close. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has no bearing on the discussion as a whole after so many people have commented. I will strike the nom and sock !vote, though that doesn't mean withdrawal. Ansh666 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Address the arguments within the discussion, not the person who started the AfD. There is no reason to close this discussion, there are legitimate concerns regarding this article. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all arguments already (see above). If you want to encourage a sockpuppeteer by continuing the discussion he started, this is up to you, but I am out of here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that a sockpuppet started it; if other good-faith arguments for deletion exist it cannot be closed under either established procedure (WP:SK) or WP:IAR (as short-circuiting a discussion between legitimate editors is not in the best interests of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Ansh666 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of bad faith here among those who want to "keep" this "article". Multiple editors, myself included, have been talking about a merger/deletion for ages now. Arbutus' remarks once again miss the mark, as they say "Russia invade Crimea". We know that. That's why we have 2014 Crimean crisis and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. This article is a fork, as all of its content is elsewhere. No one is contesting the facts on the ground about Crimea. I wish that whoever closes this discussion would actually take time to read the arguments presented by the "keep" parties here. They hold no water whatsoever, and completely ignore the reasons why this article must be either merged or deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is probably the most reasonable comment i've seen so far. Thank you. Im not against merging either, though i would prefer if this was deleted or rewritten as a more concise, factual article. --Electricitydrive (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is far more about eastern Ukraine than crimea now anyhow rgloucester, why are you obsessed with saying the crimea content is elsewhere - this article is about the great sweep of all Russian intervention in ukraine , not limited to geographisc area, or particular crisis, but all the crises that have been marked by Russian intervention, or that have the hand of the Russian regime visible as discussed and reported in RS. it is an article on its own, not a fork because crimea discusses crimea only, but makes no connection with the shoot down of MH 17, etc - Rs commentary make the connection - the connection is the putinist policy of destabilization and mischief generally - that unites crimea, buks, shootdowns, Donetsk fighting, military intelligence, strelkov, etc Sayerslle (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the main contributors to War in Donbass, I'm well aware that that article has all the information regarding Donetsk, Girkin, Malaysia Airlines 17, &c. It covers all of this on its own, in more detail, and did so first. That is why this is a fork. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the bad faith accusations. We were discussing it for a while. However, I didn't realise that the page was nominated for deletion at the time, and hence didn't comment at this discussion until yesterday. Noting that neither of the other editors discussed the matter with noticed this deletion nomination either, I pinged them to comment. Anyone would've seen that message, as it was on the article talk page. Regardless, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about my actions whatsoever. Nothing. As far as a merger goes, that is what we are discussing now. If you will support a merger, that's fine with me. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely believe that this is issue over which reasonable people can disagree. Some of the bad faith has been generated by the nature of this nomination (by a sock puppet) and by the intensity of previous discussions. Of course that is no excuse for assuming bad faith towards other editors.
I've generally opposed (somewhat without effect) the sprawl and content-forking of articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis. And there's been a lot of that. There's probably half a dozen other articles which are certainly worthy of deletion/merger. I'm not so sure this is one of them. I know I'm crystal-balling here but given how events are *currently* unfolding, particularly with the possibility of this supposed "humanitarian" intervention, I would very much like to have this discussion in a week or ten days or so. Hence for now I'm voting keep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a reasonable position to take. I personally think that it makes more sense to merge what little is here in this mess of an article, per WP:KIBOSH. If something happens regarding "humanitarian convoys", or whatever, that requires a new article, then so be it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about your own Iraq War invasion example, with separate articles Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq? You had made a false argument but ignored my pinpointing it. But it obviously works against your case of "forking". This article is clearly more general, and have to be keeped, as intervention continued from alleged Russian involvement in Maidan protesters killings pass Crimean Crisis to War in Donbass, and still is continuing may be to something else, and this very article is obviously an umbrella article for all these events where intervention took place. -- A man without a country (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an obvious difference is, if you have read the articles you cite, that 2003 invasion of Iraq is a legitimate sub-article of the Iraq War, and is notable because one has reliable sources describing the whole thing. It is not a fork. Similarly, nobody suggests to merge Battle of Stalingrad into WWII. The article we are discussing here is a WP:COATRACK.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are Crimean Crisis, annexation of Crimea and War in Donbass just separate independent events, or they are episodes of some bigger event, like WWII? Aren't they linked together? Like 2003 Iraq invasion is linked with subsequent Iraqi rebellion in the general Iraq War? Actually they are linked in half-a-year-lasting Russian invasion, there are lots of reliable sources for it, and there is an international consensus about the matter. So again what you are trying to push is your own assession of proofs, not the problem of "forking". -- A man without a country (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
volunteer marek make a good point - this is hardly the moment to erase this title, (as some seem so desperate to do, a bit de trop arguments too -'highly disruptive to the encyclopedia' ! - what nonsense imo - gross hyperbole) -as the 'humanitarian convoy' of white painted trucks leaves[6] - ymblanter there are notable sources that discuss this Russian intervention, in its various and chameleon forms ,military provocations as [7] much as direct as in crimea kind of thing, as a single ongoing phenomenon so to speak, and not one article covers it as this article could imo as user:a man without a country also says.Sayerslle (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may think what you want, but it still doesn't erase the fact that the article is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. I'm perfectly fine with the title, but like I said, if it can be rewritten then I will have no problem with it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well I agree - because it can be rewritten, its a wp article, not an untouchable Tolstoy ! or anything. Sayerslle (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33 edits in several years - you overwhelm the encyclopedia with your invaluable contributions. yesterday - 'The border service said Russian forces continue to shell Ukrainian territory, hitting two border posts overnight with artillery and mortar fire' - this is not about 'pro-Russian unrest' or 'Crimean crisis' - ffs.Sayerslle (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you one of the authors of the article? Your friendly and welcoming attitude is very much appreciated, LOL.
Believe it or not, I've actually seen quite a lot of news of that type in the last few months:
See? I could've started writing an article about 2014 Ukrainian military intervention in Russia long time ago, but I don't think writing an entire article based on reports of border guards or state propaganda of either nations is a good idea. SuvarS (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
its about more than Crimea suvars - anyway - sorry not to welcme yu -, such a rare bird as you at these wp pages deserves a great really warm welcome and it was remiss of me - even if it is just to seek to delete , rather than add to the sum of content, welcome, welcome, - you can start an article full of russia Today material - it'll probably be warmly received the way things are going round here. - i'm off to watch The Barbarian Invasions -ttfn Sayerslle (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @SuvarS. Indeed, there are no doubts (per multiple RS, not only Russia Today) that Russian territory was shelled multiple times from the Ukrainian territory. The only controversy is who did it (rebels or Ukrainian army). This is an additional reason for this page be kept. In addition, there are numerous RS claiming shelling of Ukrainian army by Russian army, exactly as you said. Also a reason for keeping this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are still arguing about whether there is or isn't intervention. One again, I will state that none of that matters in the context of this deletion discussion. This discussion is about our article guidelines, our organisation of content, and readability. It is not about whether there was or wasn't intervention. RGloucester — ☎ 15:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you think 'our' organisation of content would collapse if there existed an article with this title? seems absurd. 'readability' ? so this title would inevitably lead to unreadability ? - why ? -because your articles have said it all, and the reader would get confused? but which of your articles covers all the military intervention of the Russian regime from Crimea to now and the 'humanitarian convoy'? which article?( and before you say about the convoy, there are fears that this is a ploy kind of thing, its al part of the story of Russian military intervention in RS, realities and suspicions etc ) if you say , its there , but in dispersed articles , (with vanilla titles some of them), how is that more 'readable'? if you say they are all separate, and MUST be dealt with separately or the sky falls in, as you have said above , that is your pov. that is a pov ,but you don't see that, do you. there are RS that discuss this Russian arc of intervention as one phenomenon. Sayerslle (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What shall I do, my Lord, Father above? I pray that the Holy Spirit grants me the foresight to see into what it is that you are saying. What I care about is policy, and guidelines. WP:Content forking is a guideline. I fear that you've fallen into the path of the quixotic warrior that aims to right all wrongs in this world. I do not understand what is behind your crusade, but whatever it is, please refrain from continuing it. You see, personally, I'm quite on the Ukrainian side of things in this war. However, that's not the point of our working here, where we are trying to build an encyclopaedia. Our job is to be neutral, to present information in a factual manner so that the reader can make up his or her mind for his or herself. POV forking in an attempt to direct the reader into speculation about "humanitarian convoys", and whatever, is not at all appropriate. It is both crystal-balling and inherently not neutral. This is not the place for advocacy. I accept that there are real reasons why someone might want to retain this article, and I respect Mr Marek's position in this regard. However, yours is not acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh well then fine, because I respect volunteer mareks position also - I don't understand anything you say either btw , and all the 'what shall I do my lord' - bit exaggerated, like a lot of your talk , -the only wrong I want to right is the wrongheadedness that says the sky will fall in if the title above stands. it wont.Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your standoffish attitude and bad faith assumptions are really not helping your case here. Ansh666 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ansh , we are a big community,full of all sorts of types, I'm sure I read very different to how I am in reality,- very unsure basically,- writing here demands a bit of 'front' , for me it does anyhow,- standoffish-ness, to you is actually me , glad that Gloucester appreciates what volunteer marek is saying because I've found volunteer marek whenever I've encountered the name, full of good content, and happy to leave it at that - I don't mean to be arguing different from volunteer marek, but obviously I end up doing so - in the end , anyhow its not 'my' case. reality is the master is one of my favourite sayings - reality makes the case for this being a proper title for a proper article imo.[ btw I saw what you deleted - native speaker? really ? - etc - none of you bloody lot are self critical in the least - you don't see how bloody obnoxious you are - really awful - pompous , snide - ugh - hypocrites -] Sayerslle (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest here: I originally thought you were Eastern European or Indian or something. Proper use of punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar, while not required, does go a long way towards helping others comprehend what you've written. To the first part of what you wrote, I'm not exactly clear on it, but just be careful to avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (e.g. if you don't care that dishonest methods seem to be employed wholly by your side of the argument, emphasis mine) and follow WP:No personal attacks, which has been pointed out to you before. Also, as RGloucester (IIRC) has said, it's not about the "reality" here (which smacks of WP:TRUTH, to be honest) - nobody is questioning what is going on on the ground, but whether or not it is notable enough, whether it is a legitimate WP:FORK or not, etc. Sorry if I offend, but, as you say, that's reality. Ansh666 19:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm going to be honest here: I originally thought you were Eastern European or Indian or something." - uhh... how about leaving your own prejudices and misperceptions out of this discussion, ey? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
prejudices and misperceptions? I don't care where you're from, as long as your argument is valid and demeanor adequate (which is not true in this case); you could be from Mars for all I care. No, I don't let perception of someone's origin cloud my judgment. A Belorussian farmer or Bangladeshi teenager could have a more cogent point than a tenured Harvard professor. Ansh666 21:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh666. Telling people about policies is OK, but personal attacks are not. Telling others about alleged "dishonesty" and their ethnicity/country of origin in negative context (as you did) is an example of policy (WP:NPA) violation on your part. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about dishonesty is quoted directly from Sayerslle, and as I explained above I don't care about ethnicity/country of origin (minus perhaps Harvard professors, which I may have a low opinion of, in a joking manner). What does it say about people that they take a neutrally-worded statement as an insult or an attack - so used to doing it themselves that they expect others to be doing it too? Seems like there's a lot of bad faith and out-of-context quoting being thrown around here from you all. Anyways, I'm unwatching this. None of the discussion in the past day has really been productive anyways. Ping if I'm absolutely needed. Ansh666 04:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh666. Yepp, prejudices. You've connected being "Eastern European or Indian or something" (Besides, is "something" a decent word, speaking about national origin?!) with a lack of "proper use of punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar". If it isn't prejudices, what is it? - A man without a country (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're lucky I actually forgot to unwatch this...by the way, that's not how you ping someone. Use Template:Ping or actually link to the userpage if you want them to see it.
Anyways...it's merely an observation; this is a EE topic and I'm used to dealing with horrible Indian English on Wikipedia. Something refers to the uncertainty and general lack of giving a sh*t that I have towards ethnicity. Okay, I know, it was a bit direct and callous, which I need to work on too, but it's definitely being blown out of proportion, people. Kthxbi. Ansh666 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Sayerslle, but considering the numerous times you got blocked for personal attacks: did it not occur to you before that your attitude is the one requiring a certain shift before you decide to comment on others' behavior? Please try to cooperate with fellow editors by assuming good faith without attacking them, mocking, etc. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or rename this article needs a merge, or just rename it to Russian Military Intervention in Crimea. We already have topics that have this, so i guess this article violates WP:FORK and crystallballing.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You !voted above to keep; which one do you want? I'd recommend striking the one you don't. Ansh666 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for fixing; in the future, you can put <s> after the bullet/indent and </s> at the end, giving this effect. Ansh666 18:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've fixed that up, per WP:REDACT. If comments have been replied to, they should be striked, not removed. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (move) to Russian military intervention in Crimea. Remove all the post Crimean "eastern Ukraine" material. The two topics should not be conflated. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bejnar: Is there any reason why you would be opposed to merging what residual content there is that pertains to Crimea to the 2014 Crimean crisis article? There is very little information here that is not there, and what is here can easily be merged, which ultimately makes more sense. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, if that will end this Afd in a more expeditious fashion. I just thought that the 2014 Crimean crisis article might be a bit long, but in general I am against unnecessary content forking. --Bejnar (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian intervention is not limited to crimea - you write, 'The two topics should not be conflated.' - why not? Sayerslle (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically, politically and temporally separate. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
politically separate? - putin then , putin now. temporally - a few months. geographically - undeniable. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that @Sayerslle: read up on Crimean politics. --Bejnar (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The US issued a stark warning on Tuesday that Moscow could be orchestrating another Crimea-style intervention in eastern Ukraine, after pro-Russian forces cemented their control of a government building in the city of Donetsk and there were claims that in Lugansk protesters had taken up to 60 people hostage. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, described recent developments in eastern Ukraine as "more than deeply disturbing" [8] - RS say some observers see it all as same Putin-ist intervention. if your understanding is far more subtle than RS , I thought that wp still followed what RS say. and if you suggest to me I read up on crimean politics , might I suggest in turn to you you read Michael Weiss, and interpreter.mag [9] Russian meddling in the affairs of its neighbours, as documented by Michael Weiss, is hardly over. As predicted, it seems that the Russian bear is not satiated by simply swallowing Crimea. Sayerslle (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, read up on Crimean politics, not US-Russian relations. Crimean politics are and have been quite different from the rest of Ukraine. Read the history. So I stand by my recommendation that the two topics should not be conflated as they are distinct politically, geographically and temporally. --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a Russian analyst said this in july[10] 'Putin and his regime have suggested that what is happening in the Donbass is virtually “a struggle for the salvation of the Russians from extermination.” If he backs away from that too quickly, many Russians will view that as “a betrayal” and stop supporting him.' - and talked about Novorossiya ideas - you saying Crimea is absolutely unique is your pov , but RS should count more and from what i've seen they routinely discuss crimea , and eastern Ukraine, and Putinism, together, not hermetically sealed off . read the history you say to me, and I politely say to you, read RS written today not just history booksSayerslle (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide reasoning? This is not a vote, so your "delete" means nothing without substance. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine&oldid=1137518974"