Wikipedia

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 2

< Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ahnoneemoos in topic Legal aspects section; be careful
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Merger Proposal with 2014 Crimean Crisis

Latest comment: 10 years ago111 comments64 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There clearly is no consensus to merge at this moment. The time has arrived to end this particular discussion. The discussion may be revived in a new proposal and section if events demonstrate the possibility for a new consensus to occur. Yellowdesk (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging is a good idea, since the title as it now reads is a lie and pretty much propaganda-like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.169.154 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on a suggestion above I would like to propose a merger of this article with the 2014 Crimean crisis article. The difference between the two articles seems to be based on the understanding that this article is military in nature, and the other covers the topic is more broadly. -Noha307 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I.e., merge 2014_Crimean_crisis and this article together.
  • ’’’Oppose’’’ “crisis” is a euphemism. By international law, Russia has invaded the Ukraine. You could put "Crimean Crisis” into the “intervention” article, but not the other way around. Billyshiverstick (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A changed vote, based on some compelling new arguments. Keep as is Irondome (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - it's one and the same. There was no point in creating a separate article at that point (premature), and it seems unnecessary now, too, given that Russia has occupied the peninsula with no resistance so far. Like Russo-Georgian War, that includes both the initial Georgian assault as well as the Russian counter-strike.
    To be honest, the concern expressed by some at the deletion vote that we have a POV fork here has some basis, as we see people arguing here the outlandish claim that the invasion was not connected at all with the wider Ukrainian and Crimean crisis. I was editing both two articles today and I was often at loss, where my additions would actually suit better. So - merge, as I initially voted at AfD. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course the article becomes "one and the same" after you re-edited it to avoid any wording about an invasion. This is an interesting strategy: to edit it and take out everything about an invasion, and then after you're done, to claim that it is the same as another article and to merge this one away.--BoguSlav 01:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop nonsensical insinuations that I'm somehow editing it in a biased manner. I've nowhere removed the fact that it was an invasion. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Lokalkosmopolit, it seams as you are treating Crimea as an independent political entity. Russians have no right to enter Crimea disregarding protests from Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: this merge discussion is not about any article with "war" in the title. It is merely about the merge of the article "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" into a different article on the "2014 Crimean crises". Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This is very interesting. What are you trying to achieve by telling people who disagree with you not to participate in a vote?--BoguSlav 01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    Okay please WP:ASG 1. and 2. People DID choose merge in the AfD discussion, just because the article was kept does not save it from a possible merger if consensus can agree on it, this has happened here on Wikipedia many times before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: SOME people (12 by my count, including a 'Merge or Delete' did choose merge in the Afd discussion), but about twice as many (25 by my count) chose 'Keep'. On that basis alone, this Merge request seems like a violation of WP:SNOW, in that it seemingly never had a snowball's chance in Hell of achieving consensus, and is thus an unwarranted waste of everybody's time. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Russia has a treaty with the Ukraine, they have bases in Sevastopol and Crimea. In other words, Russian troops have the right to be there. Another point is that Russia can't put its regular troops there, as this will be an intervention, and they haven't done so. Although they might, if the Russian-speaking population of the Crimea will be threatened by the current, unconstitutional, illegally seized govt lead by Turchinov. Pessimist2006 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Yep, there was a previous discussion on the matter. Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Crimea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is in no way supporting a deletion. Merely a merger of the main body with the contextual background article. I would be very unhappy to see it go. I may disagree with aspects of it, but that is totally irrelevant. Irondome (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - So first you change the title of the article to sound similar to the topic "2014 Crimean crisis", and then you suggest to get rid of this article (about the Russian invasion) by merging it away? This looks like an elaborate way to WP:Censor the Russian invasion. This article is about the Russian invasion of Crimea and potentially the rest of Ukraine. There is NO NEUTRALITY in the current name of the article. The current ambiguous title makes this article seem like it talks about the same thing that the "2014 Crimean crisis" talks about. The article should be renamed, because this "intervention" was unauthorized by the Ukrainian government and continuously condemned by the Ukrainian government, making it an invasion.--BoguSlav 01:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    If you are upset with the current title then you should start a move request discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    Not necessarily. It seems as you are taking personal and refuse to admit what is clear. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    If you feel it would not be contested then move the article without discussion, otherwise a discussion works best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It would be more sensible to view the Crimean crisis as part of the Russian intervention, but it would also be premature to decide the scope of events before they unfold. I guess we can live with two articles covering two aspects for a while. Nunc et semper (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "crisis" started before the invasion of Crimea. Two separate subjects.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One's a popular movement, the other is a military operation. Also, merging would make the page to big to comfortably navigate. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • RFD? It was an AFD (Articles for deletion), the article was kept and not deleted, if the article is merged then it is still kept (A deletion meaning the history is nuked) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please, do not take it personally, Knowledgekid87, but it looks very much like cherry picking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I apologize, I was not aware there had been an AfD discussion. However, as has been pointed out, there is a difference between AfD and merger, so this discussion may still be useful. As a result, I would advise all to familiarize themselves with the points laid out there. -Noha307 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, that AfD discussion has now been closed, without a decision to delete any article, nor to merge. So I believe it is perfectly appropriate to continue the merger proposal discussion here, and see what sort of consensus may be built. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a merger with the 2014 Crimean crisis article. Rationale: it is fine to have two articles in Wikipedia, one dealing with the overall political crises in all its dimensions, and another on one specific aspect of that crises, a Russian military intervention that is using military force from an adjacent nation state to exert some form of control over that territory of Ukrainian Crimea. N2e (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The "crisis" article deals with the protests and movements by civilians in the Crimea. These events have nothing to do, directly, with Russian military action, which was a response to said crisis. Keeping them separate is ideal. The broad "crisis" is separate from the Russian military movement. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge. There is an inevitable creation of "related" articles during these types of events, because its so easy to create articles. But what helps our readers right now is a single article, not hair splicing. A keep at AfD does not prevent a merge. And all you POV folks, please please please try to think about what's best for Wikipedia, we need your expertise used wisely.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging. As per previously discussed (100 times), these are two different topics. There is absolutely no reason why this article can't be cleaned of any repeated information, that is either irrelevant to be listed under the intervention per se, or simply substitutable with links to the main article. And yes, it gets very annoying to write this over and over again. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Personally, I think we should keep the articles separate for now, but they could likely be merged in the future as events unfold. The "Crimean Crisis" is a current diplomatic and geopolitical event distinct from any ongoing and future "military intervention". However, we could include a section referring to the crisis in this article, like the "international reaction" subparagraph of Soviet war in Afghanistan#Consequences of the war. Monochrome Monitor (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the crisis and the intervention are the same topic. This article was created under the title "Russian invasion of Crimea" - its purpose was a pro-Kiev and anti-Moscow line, and to split the subject. There are going to be people with strong sympathies to Kiev's or Moscow's lines who are going to promote their perspective here, and we have to exercise strong caution if we are going to uphold a neutral point of view. Admins are watching the 2014 Crimean Crisis article, I don't see admins doing any action here. If this ends up being an official war, then it is going to have to be merged back into that article anyway that itself will be renamed "[Name] War" be it in Crimea alone or involving the whole of Ukraine.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We do not need two articles on this topic particularly now that the rhetoric that went against NPOV has been removed from the article name. Wikipedia is not a place for Ukrainians or Russians or their supporters to start their own war --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per 74.12.195.248. The articles are about the same event, and there is a large amount of redundancy (for both readers and editors). Whether or not the original article was initially about military intervention is besides the point, as that intervention is still part of the ongoing crisis; the article just needs to be expanded. LokiiT (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the Euromaidan is being split into too many topics which is making navigation difficult, this is supposed to be a general summary of events not a novel. Secondly, most similar crises like Suez Crisis only have one article... --Kuzwa (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: That may or may not be the case. But this particular discussion is about the 2014 Crimean Crisis, not about Euromaidan. Euromaidan is a part of the historical background to the current situation, but the proposal being considered is not about changing anything with the variou Euromaidan-related articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the Euromaidan pages are already oversized and hard to navigate - they should be split up. The Suez Crisis would be covered in much greater detail if we had had Wikipedia back then. Some information may be excessive, but figuring out what should be removed will not be possible until this is over. Unless the militarization halts, we will need even more articles.--Martin Berka (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: The words "invasion"/"intervention" cannot be used randomly. A war is war. A Crisis is a crisis. The random usage of the words ("invasion", "intervention", "genocide") is not true. European Court of Human Rights in December 2013 decided that 1915 Events (about Armenians) are not genocide. Besides this, there is no usage of the word "invasion" in any of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Turkey's action on Cyprus. Hence, injectioning bias/conditioning is not the business of Wikipedians, but politicians. I am saying this not for Turkey's fora, Russia's fora. But, any fora that Wikipedia will face in future.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: The two articles describe one and the same thing and it is premature to call the Russian military presence in Crimea an 'invasion'. Both describe the same events and a merge would allow editors to trim some of the content away. KingHiggins (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A specialized article makes the whole issue a lot easier to navigate. And a lot less annoying, since you don't have to scroll around on an over-sized article to find the topic NFLjunkie (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: This article is about military invasion of Russian forces to the Ukrainian territory. Is is not the political confrontation that took part in the Crimean peninsula last week (though it was orchestrated by Putin). This is the start of a war against Ukraine by Ration Federation -- another step of Putin's diabolic plan. But I'm afraid it is not the last one if the world community will not stop his lust for occupation of neighbors territories.--TenaliBorogovy (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I am highly sceptical that responses and contributions from editors like this with deep personal ties to Ukraine and the article can be in any way helpful in improving what there is already. Please do not discuss geo-politics on a Wikipedia talk page. KingHiggins (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The AfD was speedily closed under unclear circumstances, for example no-one even tried to explain me (1) what is going to be the difference between the articles 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and 2014 Crimean crisis; (2) why do we have single, comprehensive articles for comparable cases, like Russo-Georgian war, but make an exception here. The fact that my concerns have now been reiterated by a number of other editors just demonstrate that this warrants further discussion and valid arguments, not simply a vote (esp. when sock puppets and SPA's join in). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah ok, I was unaware of that, and I withdraw what I said regarding forum shopping. Regardless, I still oppose the merger. A comparable case would be the Libyan Civil War, where the conflict itself, the foreign intervention, and the actions of the US, UK, Canada, France, and Operation Unified Protector all had their own articles.
Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This event has clearly escalated beyond a political "crisis" into a military intervention, yet it would be inappropriate to retroactively deem the political and social unrest in Crimea before Russia sent in troops as part of the intervention per se. At any rate, just about all of the action should be at this page instead of 2014 Crimean unrest now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. While the Crimea has its own internal social and political issues, they were manageable. They only reached a critical state when, on March 1, 2014, the surprise deployment of Russian military into Ukraine – which is tantamount to an invasion - escalated these internal issues and the current status is that of a military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Furthermore, the Russian authority is now openly taking about a military intervention (“military storm”) in Ukraine (not just Crimea) if Ukraine does not surrender Crimea to Russia. In Ukraine, there is a very strong reaction against the Russian invasion (statements / declarations / appeals of the central government, mass protests against the invasion in many cities outside of Crimea, high military alert for the Ukrainian armed forces and mobilization of the army reservists in the whole country) and the threat that Russia will pass legislation that would justify their attempt to annex Crimea. There is evident concentration of combat-ready Russian troops along the whole of the Ukrainian-Russian border (Symy, Kharkiv, Luhansk Oblasts). The Russian military and terrorists are now attacking / storming Ukrainian army garrisons not only in Crimea, but also in other regions. The Ukrainian military has declared a full alert and combat readiness not only in Crimea, but also in all southern regions adjacent to the Black and Azov Seas. Therefore this no longer a local Crimean crisis as it already directly, or indirectly, affecting the whole of Ukraine. This is why we believe that these articles cannot be merged. --Plecotus (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I think merger would not imply keeping the title Crimean crisis for the single article. As events are rapidly unfolding, this is now not only about Crimea, but also Donetsk region (and tomorrow may-be Luhansk, too). Now, it is likely that the title may need to be changed soon, it is possible that it will end up with disintegration of Ukraine. Time will tell. But I don't see a reason to have these two separate articles that you propose we keep.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I knew nothing about the situation in the Ukraine until night before last when someone said WWIII is about to start on an IRC chat room. I came here to wiki to learn more and found a full 5 articles that seem to be about roughly the same situation( Euromaidan, 2014_Ukrainian_revolution, 2014_Crimean_crisis, 2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine, and Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan ) This made things initially confusing. Each article seems to be a section of a single complete article and each article links to each of the other articles which describe events either before or after itself. I suspect more of these articles should be merged as well. Right now it's sort of like a wiki train wreck.
The most important considerations of wiki should be 1. accuracy and 2. presenting information in a way that can be clearly understood. If the information presented as a confusing jumble it interferes with the accuracy as well; even if the data is technically correct someone might draw an erroneous conclusion from it. (Drn8 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC))
Euromaidan should be about the Ukraine protests and political movement. 2014 Crimean crisis should be about the Russian troops and paramilitaries in that one province and the occupation of its parliament by armed men/changes in power/secession vote. This article should be about all Russian intervention in Ukraine, which encompasses the Crimean events and is pretty much mutually exclusive with Euromaidan except for background facts. The Ukrainian revolution should be the absolute umbrella covering all the other articles. The weak link is the "timeline of" - timelines on Wikipedia are always a little dubious. It's not that we should allow any information to be lost but there ought to be a better way to organize it. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Sad to break it to you, and I know it's kind of silly considering the people who will look here. What wiki editors(myself included) think has very little bearing on what is actually best, because editors of wiki and people who just look things up from time to time can be very different. While digging through several articles just to get an overview of current events might seem like a good idea to a wiki editor, it does not serve the greater public good of making things clearly understandable.
Wiki editors remember, you are not the primary audience of wiki. Most people who read wiki never have and never will make an edit. That is your target audience. (Drn8 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC))
"The vast majority of editors think that merging the articles is ridiculous".... Really? The vote is about 50/50 at the moment and most of the opposing comments are littered with nationalist ramblings that have nothing to do with the merits of keeping the article. They are under distress, so I sympathize with them, but a good amount of the opposing comments should be disregarded. --Tocino 23:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
That is what I am seeing as well but it is up to the closing party to decide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's NOT really just "one phenomenon" per se. That's the point. The Crimea region and situation is stand-alone in many respects. Read the "Oppose" comments above, to the reasons for separateness. Crimea (in many ways) is its own animal, definitely related to Ukraine proper, but not exactly totally the same. Gabby Merger (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes it is! 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is a misnomer. It should be, at the mo, 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea, which is precisely coterminous with 2014 Crimea crisis. No intervention, no crisis. That is why there should only be the one article. At present it's like having one article for English oak and another for Quercus robur. Ericoides (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I've been following the news about this, and I don't think it makes sense to present this as two separate topics. The military intervention is a part of the crisis, which already had existed for a few days. It's not like the military brought the crisis to an end. Therefore, support for merge... Anonimski (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
STRONG SUPPORT both events are the same and occurring simulatenously. Plus this article name is a flagrant POV and without precedence.Its also WP:Crystal balling an intervention.Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with what Drn8 said about non-editors reading the articles. I think two seperate articles are necessary, but we do need an uninvolved editor to try and find a conclusion from this, as Knowledgekid87 commented. 97rob (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that the Russian invasion article was started prematurely. We need to see how the events come out to be...this crisis in still currently happening, and as of now there is no open conflict between the opposition and Russia. This is currently not like the Russian-Georgian war, where eventually Abkhazia and South Ossetia gained recognition from Russia. The opposition worries the same could happen in Crimea. NATO and the European Union call it an invasion and undermining of Ukraine's sovereignty, Russia states it is protecting its interests. Viller the Great (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Russia has already sent in soldiers. Ukraine announced that seizing Crimea is an act of war. The conflict is beyond the preliminary phase.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      • thankfully so far there has been no fighting. I actually respect Ukrainian military units for their excellent self-restraint. If Ukraine is formally declaring war that is a major issue under international law. Is the Ukraine "at war" according to international law, and all that means at all levels? We need to discuss this. Irondome (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        • This all ties in back to the conflict. The are intertwined at this point, why keep it separate? This is all part of the crisis. So then if the invasion is different, what is the crisis about then? All this is part about one of the many effects of the Euromaidan. We are splintering this whole movement in many articles and it could get confusing for some readers. There were the protests (Euromaidan), the government overthrow, and now this crisis. As I know of I am not sure Ukraine has declared war, but if they did, that would in some way mean they started the war, since Russia has not declared war, and says it has no intentions to. Ukraine accuses of Russia of invading Ukraine. It is reported the Russians have seized Crimea. Viller the Great (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The two are clearly directly related – cause and effect. Without crisis in the Crimea, there could not have been Russian tanks rolling in. Editors should concentrate their efforts in building one comprehensive encyclopaedic article instead of having to worry about two content forks that both resemble news timelines – and there is considerable duplication or the potential thereof. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is too soon. Wait a moment and see, then the size of each can be assessed and content evaluated. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has the potential to evolve a full-scale war, and even if it doesn't it's still a major event that deserves an article of its own.--RM (Be my friend) 09:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While favoring the current Ukrainian government and opposing Russian intervention, I'd argue that at this point it's still more like a phony war or a standoff, not explicit military actions as in the Russo-Georgian war. And per Ohconfucius above. Brandmeistertalk 10:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While a distinction can be made, it's a legalistic one; it's fundamentally one event. *Especially* when events are so confusing, it's ridiculous trying to impose neat divisions. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Yesterday's news was that the Russians had been following the same steps as in Crimea of having armed people take over the regional parliaments in eastern Ukraine, so we should wait a week or two to see how much of the Ukraine they want before we make an effort to reconsolidate the information. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 2014 Crimean crisis is main article for this topic. Invasion/intervention is part of the crisis only. NickSt (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Two articles covering the same topic. Content fork that weakens both articles since edits/improvements made in one are not made in the other. —Lowellian (reply) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support They both cover the same topic, could be easily merged. If the "war" becomes a full scale one then I would reconsider, but for now they should be merged. Seneca 55 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even though they're obviously related, the Crimean situation is unique, as it has a history that is somewhat separate from Ukraine, as Crimea was not always even part of Ukraine, but was part of Russia, and given away (sort of) decades ago. There's a reason that Vladimir did what he did recently in Crimea first, and not in any other supposed part of "Ukraine". The Crimean situation, and area, etc, and situation, is stand-alone enough. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there's enough "Oppose" comments above that this can be safely closed as a "No".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not how this works... goes by consensus and that is not clear yet. Also information coming out tonight that Russia is de-escalating the situation, (why it called troops back from war games etc...) so if that occurs this should 100% be merged into Crimea crisis. Seems this article was WP:CRYSTAL, which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be run... --Kuzwa (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are reports, possibly accurate, that the attacks on the regional parliaments in the East were by people from Russia, acting unofficially under the orders of Russia to beat people and coerce legislators to call for "referendum", even if they are "tourists". The situation is therefore not limited to Crimea. That said, if these actions remain limited in scope and the only further developments are in Crimea, then it may be appropriate to merge. There are too many people who seem to be interested in editing these articles to see what they can take out as "inappropriate for the article" for merging them to be of any benefit now, though - it's better to have a clearer understanding of how they'll be organized before cramming us all into one madhouse than trying to salvage stuff out of the article history afterward. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: As per my comment above, given the 25 to 12 vote for Keep rather than Merge in the AFD, this Merge proposal seemingly violates WP:SNOW and thus wastes everybody's time regardless of any theoretical merit it may or may not have.

A 2:1 ratio violates WP:SNOW? That's a new one.  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Even if the articles were merged (for which there is seemingly no possibility of consensus, and seemingly never was), for size reasons they would have to be unmerged again under WP:SUMMARY - indeed in many ways they already are, since this article is currently shown as the 'Main' article for the March section of 2014 Crimean crisis, while this article indicates it is part of the Crimean crisis. As for helping readers of Wikipedia, I expect that many readers are understandably very interested in the Russian military intervention aspect (which has implications for world peace, etc), and understandably have no interest in the other aspects which are basically a local squabble, so forcing such readers to wade through all that local stuff doesn't seem particularly helpful to them.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. The Crimean crisis is now predominantly about the Russian intervention. --Kizor 16:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. The Crimean crisis wouldn't have been noteworthy were it not for the Russian military intervention, and within a few days of the crisis there wasn't much to it other than said Russian military intervention. There's not really a difference at this point.  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not true at all. The ongoing protests by pro-Russian civilians, and the takeover of the regional government headquarters by said civilians was entirely noteworthy before it was know that there were Russian troops on the ground. RGloucester — ☎ 23:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. Whatever your point of view, it seems reasonble to state that the Russian intervention is part of the overall 'crisis'. --Vince (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I echo the logic stated by User:Tlhslobus above and add that this was the exact reason I visited Wikipedia on this occasion. CáliKewlKid (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Comment: NOTE to any article closer who may be looking at this discussion in order to close this discussion: This discussion has been going on for four days now, during which time both the article, and the actual situation with the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, have changed/evolved. This means the rationales provided by various !VOTE editors are necessarily contextual (to what they observed and thought at the time of their personal !VOTE}. In my view, this does not mean that you should weight the later editor !VOTEs higher than the original !VOTE editors. It does however mean that rationales may have changed—since the situation is continuously changing, and we are not supposed to !VOTE more than once—and that a fresh look at the merge question might need to be initiated in order to be possible to get a set of !VOTEs that are contemporaneous to one another. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose: The political actions by the Crimean regional government and its internal dispute with the Ukrainian government is related to, but distinct from the Russian military's actions and the impact it has on the region and the response from the U.S. and NATO. Hello32020 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not double post

I see users are attempting to use the Log out to IP address option as a support/oppose multiplier. Please don't. It's transparent and doesn't help. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If that is true an editor can be blocked for a WP:SOCKPUPPET violation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible WP:COI issue

Latest comment: 10 years ago34 comments13 people in discussion

I am seeing editors from the effected region (pro-Kiev) and pro Russian editors editing here, this can be problematic and just want to say please try to keep a WP:NPOV head when editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am in no way pro-Russian in my POV, usually quite the reverse. I just feel that Russias motivations are undertstandable from a historical and geopolitical perspective on this occasion. They are actually very much on the defence. Irondome (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes. That poor Russian military defending itself by flying into Ukrainian territory and ordering Ukrainian military installations to surrender! Clearly, the Russian Federation is the "on the defence." ... smh --BoguSlav 01:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Look at it in the wider context. Putin feels hemmed in and threatened by an unknown political entity. He sees the West, he sees Westward expansion. Remember Putins older brother died during the seige of Leningrad. They are scared. Show some understanding of Russian paranoiaand collective memories that both the Ukraine and Russia share. How many battles of Kiev were there in WW2? at least 3. Russian and Ukrainian died and bled together. I am increasingly firming up my NPOV on mainspace. My thoughts stay here. Irondome (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Yes. Thank you for letting me see it from the wider picture. You are saying that Russia is on the defensive because they are trying to keep their empire in control, which is misbehaving and defying it's emperor: His Majesty Putin. Any way you justify it, the invasion turns out Ukrainophobic in my view.--BoguSlav 04:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on.That simplistic and somewhat misleading version of my point ignores all its essentials. It is external not internal threat that Putin fears. Ukraine is a bridgehead in Kremlin calculations to much bigger percieved threats. Do you think any Russian government, whatever its colour, would not think or indeed act in similar fashion? Irondome (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not get where the World War II you are pulling from. Are you justifying the imperial appetite of Putin?? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
He is as much an aggressive imperialist as Obama. All men of power, given the opportunity. Let us be clear eyed here. The references to WW2 should be self-explainitory. A civil war between the great Slavic nations would be the greatest disaster of the 21st century. That is my take on its ultimate danger. Potential intercommunal civil strife. Irondome (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you know how Germany occupied Czechoslovakia before the World War II? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Im not blaming anyone im just saying that WP:NPOV should be kept in mind in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The Soviet occupation of the Baltics in 1940 is a much better model for comparison Irondome (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity, citizenship and the place of residence of the editors are usually not considered as a COI issue per se. Otherwise, who would be allowed to edit World War II related aricles? Only residents of a handful of neutral countries? Association with state PR organization is certainly a COI issue but it is very difficult to prove. Usually COI editors in such articles are anonymous editors and single purpose accounts. If it will be a problem we can ask to semi-protect the article. Usually having editors supporting views of both sides of a conflict helps in keeping the article from bias although it makes discussions more tedious and agitated Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the stuff in this section is not about improving the article, and should stop. The part about improving the article, or discussing WP:COI from a policy perspective is, of course, fine. But let's not just make it a forum about WWII, or Russia, or Ukraine, etc. And let's keep article as WP:NPOV as possible. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, the main goal of the ongoing Russian invasion is very reminiscent with how Germans occupied Czechoslovakia trying to protect Germans. How can one justify using force ahead of political and diplomatic instruments? Russia is being prejudice by calling the new government of Ukraine chauvinists and fascists. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
He makes a good point. We must stop having a seminar and concentrate on improving the article. Discussions like this in the early stages of collaboration I have found useful though. they clear the air and hinder edit warring. Irondome (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why single out the "pro-Russian editors"? You could easily accuse the pro-Kiev side of nationalist editing as well (case in point [1]). Regardless, this serves as another example as to why the existence of this article is problematic. It's just another playground for nationalist bickering. --Tocino 03:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, how can you call that "nationalist"? I think any patriotic Ukrainian would fall into the "nationalist" category according to you. Secondly, your example of "nationalist editing" is from THIS TALK PAGE. Discussions on the talk page aren't "editing", they're discussions. When people refer to "editing" they are referring to the actual article.--BoguSlav 04:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I stopped reading when I read that Russia was 'very much on the defense". We're talking about systemic pro-Putin bias now. --Львівське (говорити) 04:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You are just demonstrating your inability to look at what it may be like "over the hill". That quality is what NPOV embodies to some extent. A kneejerk outburst. Irondome (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more accurate to say that you stopped reading when someone contradicted your apparently nationalistic point of view, which seems to be a common trend I've noticed. It's important to take into consideration both viewpoints; see the conflict from the eyes of both sides. For example, consider the western backed events that took place in Kiev only a few weeks ago (the leaked phone call and resulting parallels in the new government all but confirm how strongly outside forces were influencing events). The current events in Crimea are a reaction to what's clearly against the interests of Russians/Russian speakers in Ukraine. So yes, from their point of view it is certainly defensive, and to disregard that point of view entirely (which is held by a large number of people and not at all a fringe view outside of the western sphere) is against WP:NPOV. LokiiT (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
LokiiT, your point of view appears to be aligned with Russian nationalism and Russian imperialism. Of course the west supported the Ukrainian uprising. But they respond to the events in Ukraine much, much later than Ukrainians would have hoped. Why? Because the west is only responding after Ukrainian opposition leaders, Ukrainian diaspora, and other activists pressure them to give a reaction. However, this nationalist/imperialist view takes over and you assume that any Ukrainian who rises up against the criminal government must be sponsored by the West. This is Russian nationalism which assumes that Ukrainians are sheep that are not capable of thinking on their own and need Russia to make decisions for them.--BoguSlav 04:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that was my point of view. LokiiT (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with me not having neutrality to dismiss ridiculous claims of "being on the defense". It's contradictory to reality to make such statements and insulting to the intelligence of anyone working on this topic's content who has even the basest of understanding of the situation. --Львівське (говорити) 06:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion. However it's just that - your opinion. You didn't address any of the points I made regarding the necessity of portraying all sides fairly. LokiiT (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
"Portraying all sides fairly" does not justify whitewashing an obvious act of unprovoked military aggression by Russia. None of the reliable sources, other than the propaganda outlets controlled by the Russian government, are presenting it as a "defensive" act.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to be in the business of determining so dogmatically what are "false statements" necessarily. Some people (not just Russians) believe that Putin has a case for doing what he did (heretical as that notion is to many people who love to make mountains out of arguable mole-hills). But as far as spreading propaganda or distortions? It can be argued that Herman Munster, I mean John Kerry, can be easily said to be spreading exaggerated over-reactions and "false statements", or at least emotional distortions. Over-blowing the supposed dangers or negatives of simply taking back something that is arguably "Russian" already. It's not like Putin sent men to Poland or Sweden or something. Something out of the blue in that sense. But if you were to listen to John Kerry or many in the media, or the US Ambassador to the UN, you'd think Putin did just that. But it was Crimea...(yawn). There is a CONTEXT in Ukraine also...of the removal of a recent president there, and unrest. It can be argued that Russia did not do what it did so willy nilly. Just for random power play moves. Plus it's sanctimonious of the US with its own power play moves throughout history. ("Manifest Destiny" much?) But some could argue that Putin had at least SOME rationale or cause for what he did. Don't tell that to your average American pundit and reactionary though. It's all nonsense to me ultimately anyway. The point though is EVEN IF Russia is spreading "lies" or whatever to some extent, WP is supposed to be a bit more NPOV in wording and tone about that sort of thing. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In a week articles will be begin to appear in the Western MSM which will be discussing precisely this theory. You can bet on that. There is a lot of sympathy for the Russian position in the UK especially regarding Western hypocracy, despite our media messages given out by the Times etc Irondome (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If, or more likely when relevant MSM RS become available, I will attempt to record and present them here for your, and the cmmunities inspection. I expect other eds may happen on them too. Irondome (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this fall under 1RR?

The fact that there may be some POV pushing by one side or another is not a COI issue. A COI issue would if, I don't know, Putin's half-brother's cousin was editing the article. Wrong tag for wrong reason. Removing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely: there should be no COI tag here. If an editors' fervent belief in the righteousness of one side required a COI tag, half the editors on this page would have to declare conflicts of interest, either for Russia or the Ukraine. -Darouet (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case we will need ARBCOM/Arbitration guidance to stick to 1RR here. See no reason wnhy not to have it here but we do on Syria, Palestine, Macedomnia, Armenia (?), etc.
This article should definitely be under 1RR based on WP:ARBEE. Not even sure if you need a special decision? -Darouet (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree this should be under 1RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

POV template again

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Per my comments above, this template needs to remain in the article until there is consensus that there are no major POV issues, which are currently abundant. User: Volunteer Marek has removed the template three times, and just now claimed that it was moved. That's an interesting thing to say considering there is currently no POV tag in the article (or as of that edit). I'm going to assume you didn't bother to check if it was still where you thought it was, and hope that you correct your mistake by placing it back into the article so as to avert an edit war. LokiiT (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I moved the template to the "Russian Response" section, which is the one you were objecting to. Apparently, afterward OhConfucius! "nuked" the section entirely, hence making the whole issue moot. That's all there is to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
That was only one example I was giving. As I've stated a number of times, there are numerous more examples, which is why I put the template at the top of the article instead of in that particular section. LokiiT (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The issues behind the POV tag need to be substantiated. You substantiated the one behind the "Russian Response" section - ok, that was a good point. So I moved the tag, then someone else removed the section. For other parts, or for the article as a whole you still need to be specific.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not state that there needs to be specific complaints. It does however state that you may not remove it until there is general consensus on the state of the article, which you've disregarded three times already. The point of the template is to draw attention to the general way in which the article is written. You're using a form of circular logic: If we find specific complaints they can be addressed immediately, thus negating the need for a template and rendering their existence pointless. LokiiT (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To be crystal clear, the article is presented with an obvious pro-western/pro-Kiev slant. Numerous examples by myself and others have been given scattered throughout this talk page, and little has been done to address the issue. LokiiT (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it annoying and irritating that there is warring over the absence/presence of the template. It's puerile and makes an argument impossible to solve or end. It's even more annoying to find the tagging editor objecting to elaborate on the precise objections. I mean we are in a collaborative project, and how the F is anyone going to collaborate or solve something like this when the one raising the objection keeps schtum?? So yes, whilst it's true there is no obligation to explain the issue that one tags, it ought not to be employed as a device as a manifestation of simple objection – which is what happens when you VETO its removal. Our sensitivities are all different, and we can't read your mind any more than I expect you to read mine. Form where I stand, you either put up or shut up. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've elaborated numerous times on this talk page pointing out specific issues by specific editors, and also made numerous related edits. How could I possibly elaborate further? LokiiT (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed, and resolved, in three previous sections of this Talk page (above) where the consensus was that specific instances of alleged POV ought to be identified rather than broad article-level or section-level POV templates. 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) 16:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following the discussion. LokiiT (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, LokiiT, you were involved in the previous discussions, and I posted on your Talk page, which you deleted. Bottom line, there appears to be no consensus whatsoever for an article-level or section-level POV tag to be left on the article. If you have more specific concerns, the details are abovebelow for how to help identify them (specifically) in such a way that they might be addressed (specifically), or discussed on the Talk page (specifically). Your call as to whether you choose to identify the issues specifically, rather than through vague and unactionable article-level or section-level tags. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging and improving POV concerns

Repeating this Help text here, as the previous discussion will be archived soon:

In order to have more light, less heat, and a better article, let's try this for POV concern discussions on this Talk page:
If there are WP:POV concerns about something specific in the article, please fix it in the article, or tag it with a specific tag near the specific instance you are concerned about, rather than tagging an entire large section, or the article as a whole. Please be sure to leave your rationale on the Talk page, or in a hidden text comment nearby the tag, like this: <!-- hidden text -->
Specific in-line tags that might be used include: {{POV-statement}} which leaves in the article [neutrality is disputed] or {{lopsided}} which leaves in the article [unbalanced opinion?]. For a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The present article has a section on non-military events. It belongs here (or somewhere) because these are ultimately the significance of the action; military power is just a tool to get there. The problem is, an article titled "military intervention" shouldn't have a big section about non-military events!

I propose you remove the word "military" from the title and make it 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine. That way, the section can stay, and the 2014 Crimean crisis can be, in its entirety, a subtopic of this article. Wnt (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. And it's time to close that merge discussion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you want this just to be about the military action, we're going to need to split off the non-military and also presumably the paramilitary actions into a sixth article. And I don't even have an idea what to call it. But a huge non-military section about people who aren't wearing uniforms and sometimes are even civilians under this name ... it's going to need to move at some point. Wnt (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the article be renamed "2014 Russian Invasion of Crimea". Russia has invaded Crimea, not Ukraine as such, at least not yet. There are clear analogies with the Warsaw Pact "Invasion" of Czechoslovakia in 1968 - Wikipedia calls that an invasion. I see no basis for calling an invasion an "intervention". To use my example below, what if Mexico sent 20,000 troops into New Mexico, blocked the border roads, surrounded army bases, and appointed a new Governor at gunpoint, would that be a humanitarian intervention, or an invasion?101.98.175.68 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, to make the analogy complete, you have to suppose Barack Obama was in Mexico writing formal requests for the Mexicans to do that. It isn't that easy. Still, the actions - including in eastern Ukraine - would seem to have some parallels with the Bay of Pigs invasion, with 'unaffiliated' paramilitaries leading the way. Now the one thing I see done out of this is that an admin decided to disable our ability to move the page. [2] Sure, we could move it with "consensus", but there's never consensus about anything, so I'm not going to waste any more time discussing it. Any ideas what to name an article about the Russian takeovers of parliament buildings in East Ukraine? Wnt (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The reference to Obama requesting a Mexican invasion is false. For three reasons. Firstly "Obama" is no longer president, having been removed by parliament. Secondly his request was for an intervention in Ukraine, not Crimea. Thirdly the request was made after the event. Please do not "waste time" discussing this matter if you know so little about what is happening. Finally, you are entirely missing the point. The purpose of my original analogy was to demonstrate the absurdity of saying this was not an invasion, using an analogy even an American would understand. I think that if you asked the average New Mexican or Texan whether Mexican troops entering their state would be an invasion or not, the answer would be pretty obvious. For people to argue that the events in Crimea are not an invasion, I would have to question their honesty, frankly.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Be careful with the legal aspects section. It seems to be falling to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. We also need to be extremely careful on legal matters as we cannot in any way or form provide legal opinions (see WP:NOLEGAL). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_2&oldid=1137167217"