Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Merge with 2014 Crimean crisis

First I want to start by saying this merge discussion is very complex and quite possibly might have been brought up too soon since the most recent discussion. Also, having a move request open at the same time as a merge discussion complicates matters That being said, I'm formally closing this discussion per the request at WP:ANRFC. From a pure !vote standpoint, it looks like there are 14 supports and 17 opposes (+/- 1). At least two editors voted twice (not counted) and the support arguments were often supporting different final merge or even move results. Many opposes, maybe a majority, cited or alluded to WP:SIZE as being an issue with a merge. Any small group of good editors working in collaboration could easily merge any two articles regardless of length in an appropriate manner. We should remember that this is an encyclopedia, so not every word is notable or required. I have dismissed these arguments in this closure as they simply do not apply.

The oppose arguments generally surrounded around the idea that the military intervention is a large part of the crisis. Some pointed out that the interventions is more than just the specific invasion and includes fall out from other governments including political recourse. Other arguments showed that the Crisis article covered more of the political side of the whole crisis, while this article was focused on the military involved actions, therefore being two separate thoughts.

One oppose editor suggested that there may be an issue, but there needs to be a better solution.

The support discussions were less focused and were often about different solutions or options for merge or move. Many discussions pointed to the fact that there is duplicate information in both articles and that this is not a stand alone separate event. One support pointed out that Crimea would be a better name than Ukraine as it is more specific to this intervention. Another support pointed out that there is no good sourcing showing that this event was separate from the whole crisis. One editor referenced WP:NOTNEWS in showing that there was undue weight within this article simply because there has been (and still is) a rather abundance of media coverage. This editor argued that simply because there is a bunch of verbiage covering a certain event does not create enough importance to separate it from the main subject.

These arguments on both sides all have merit as valid points in this discussion. If there were a solution that encompassed all or most of these points (which individually could be necessary to fix various minor issues) it would be more beneficial than a lateral move or merge situation. It is my interpretation of this discussion that there is NO CONSENSUS for merging the article at this time. I would, however, recommend that the involved editors discuss these specific points to see if some minor issues need to be resolved (ie the points I've included above). I would also suggest that yet another move or merge discussion in the near future would be counter productive to the whole process. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. These 2 article are 2 sides of the same coin. The content is mostly redundant and it makes it twice as possible to have mistakes. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Same dog different collar. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose until we come up with a more sophisticated solution. Both articles are already so large that they are hard to navigate, and if you go over the fine-grained information, at least 75% of this article is original - a "simple" merge will produce a 230k page in the running for "longest non-list article". There are multiple other articles up for merging into this one; attempting to lump in all the military details is impractical. It might work out if the merge is divided among the crisis, timeline, and international reaction articles, but some kind of military events article may prove necessary.--Martin Berka (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Motion has already being rejected twice. I don't see how the situation has changed enough to merge the articles. Tomh903 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• One of the changes is that there is still no any intervention except of in some media. But to have a good wiki article on such sibject we need to have reliable soures beyond newspapers. We need to have enough publications of experts in world conflicts which discuss the intervention in details. Debi07 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• How many died as a result of this intervention? Zero? Wish all military interventions be like this. Debi07 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The military intervention is not a "stand alone" event on its own, but part and parcel of the general crisis and cannot be separated on its own. Thus my strong argument in favour of a merge. The concern of the length of the resulting article can be ameliorated by putting the long list of people subject to sanctions as a "collapsed" list that appears only when you ask for it specifically. werldwayd (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • In light of the existence of the Partition Treaty on the Black Sea Fleet, the degree to which this can be characterized as an "intervention" is at issue. It seems to me that the article is rather bloated, and the scope needs to be redefined in order to bring it into a more accurate correspondence with the statements of RS on this point. It is a partisan, highly charged issue, but as the section "Legal aspects" demonstrates, Russia has sufficient grounds for its actions, and there are statements calling those actions into question that are unsourced at present. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Hugely redundant to have two articles for what is effectively the same thing. I'm not even going to say "merge" because so much of the material is already duplicated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course there's a lot of overlap, but there's more to the Crimean crisis than a military intervention, and both are sufficiently rich topics to have their own articles. Also, since events are still developing, who's to say that Russian military intervention will end with Crimea? TheBlueCanoe 01:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support A merge should happen, as it is one crisis, not separate military and political crises. However, there an abundance of rich material available in this particular subject. I propose that a merge does occur, and that this should be added to a section in the 2014 Crimean Crisis article as description of what happened during the crisis, with reductions, of course. The current version of that article focuses heavily on the aftermath and the background, but not so much on what actually happened. Floatsam (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Related buf different topics. 14 interwikies. WP:SIZE violation after possible merging. NickSt (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Crimean crisis is a particular event that involves some people who may or may not be Russian. The fact that Russian troops continue to amass at the Ukrainian border means (to me) that there is a wider [Russian-Ukrainian] thing going on that this article represents. I forget the WP essay / guideline, but "wikipedia is not on a deadline" As the situation develops, it may be sensible to merge, but for the time being I recommend we think of the Crimean article as being about a particular battle/event (some of which involves Russia, some of which involves Crimean insurgent-types) and "Russian Military Intervention" as writing about the Russian involvement and possible warlike activity perpetuated specifically by the Russian country/military. Peace, MPS (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• "The fact that Russian troops continue to amass at the Ukrainian border" is not an intervention. Military intervention means state's use of military force against another state. Concentration of forces near the border is not an intervention. Moreover, in the present case all movements of Russian army near the border are internationally legal. Debi07 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support The "2014 Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine" is simply the Russian side of the story that is a subsection of the parent event... The "2014 Crimean Crisis" I think they should be merged providing "Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine" is it's own section on the "2014 Crimean Crisis" article page. Tyman222 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both articles are too big to merge.--atnair (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both articles contain plenty of overlapping material and material of minor relevance which can be deleted. Hence size is not a suitable argument here. Debi07 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both articles are too big to merge. In addition, I think the intervention is notable enough to warrant a separate article.--Stephen C Wells (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The same: both articles contain plenty of overlapping material and material of minor relevance which can be deleted. Hence size is not a suitable argument here. Debi07 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Here's a couple of points I'd like to add to the discussion: First, per others before me, there's plenty of overlapping material in the two articles. If an experienced editor took the time to do so, the size of the merged article wouldn't be quite as large as it may initially seem. However, I agree with others that there's plenty more than just the military invasion aspect of this situation - the world political ramifications alone are an equally-large part of this (speaking from the perspective of Wikipedia). Thus, I oppose a merge, and it seems clear that consensus to support a merge is not going to happen. GRUcrule (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your argument to keep two separate articles? Debi07 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Additional comment...running tally is currently 12 support merge, 16 oppose merge (counting my vote), and one exclusively in support of a name change if my counting skills haven't failed me. Wanted to add this as a standalone comment for clarity's sake. GRUcrule (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'd like to see a proper closure of this discussion though, because the continuous comments about article "WP:SIZE" issues are irritatingly irrelevant when much of the article is duplicated. The only relevant issue that should be given any weight is simply whether the topic merits a standalone article rather than a merge into a section of the other article, and only those comments that have refuted my points regarding this should be given any respect. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay: three comments rely entirely on size (others that mentioned it also had more substantial argumens). That leaves (at present) 14 in support, 15 opposed, and still no real consensus. Requiring that everyone on one side engage your specific arguments would give them unfair weight.--Martin Berka (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support only 1 human died, nothing militaristic about it, more people die every day from police brutality in the US than in this so called military intervention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U

--Crossswords (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep our terms straight. A "military intervention" is not determined by the number of deaths as a result of military involvement. If military force is used (equipment and military personnel with guns, etc.) to intervene, then that is a military intervention. It is not mere diplomacy ("let's talk talk about our differences following recent events in Ukraine and Russia). Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Comments where WP:SIZE is used are somehow irrelevant because a lot of material is repeated in both articles. And the parts that are not duplicated should be moved to List of military units in the 2014 Crimean crisis since they are better off there than they are in this article. I agree "military intervention" isn't necessarily defined by the number of deaths, but a "crisis" can be a military conflict and would evidently involve military force in this case (e.g. Suez Crisis involving foreign intervention, and Crimea is nowhere near that). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is one aspect of a wider geo-political event, which (as a whole) is too wide-ranging to shoe-horn into a single article. It's a very important and highly notable aspect, so should get its own article. I see around 4500 news articles currently live on G News for search 'russia troops ukraine'. For wikipedia to have an article about it does not seem like 'undue weight' to me. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Political crisis is one and secound is military intervention Russian Army.

--Swd (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sounding. Should this article be Semi-Protected?

What do other registered eds think? Are IP and SP issues making things difficult or are things under control? I have been stalking closely with the very occ edit. Be good to get thoughts before events on the ground intensify, if they do. I am leaving a copy of this on 2014 Ukrainian revolution talk as well. Cheers all. Irondome (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, all of these Ukraine-Russia articles should be locked down IMO, too many socks and SPAs --Львівське (говорити) 21:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for having "too many socks and SPAs"? All i can see is mostly Volunteer Marek accusing everyone who disagrees with him, or even asks him to explain one of his reverts on the talk page, of being a sock. And one or two instances where SPAs were involved in editing, hardly something you would call so many socks that the page needs to be protected.B01010100 (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with N2e. Where unification or reunification is imposed by force, the more correct term is annexation. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment 94.193.139.22. It looks like someone has added the "...reunification of Crimea with Russia..." back into the article, after it was removed per Talk page consensus around the 31st of March.

My view: that statement is both 1) POV and 2) added without a Talk page consensus. I'll flag that here, with this comment, and see what others may wish to comment about it, or see if some consensus might be built for the phrase to stay in the article. If not, then it should be removed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

For suitable vocabulary to describe the situation, we may want to draw inspiration from the articles Revanchism, Irredentism and Pan-nationalism. The Crimea could reasonably be termed an irredenta, IMO. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done—That particular POV statement has now been removed from the lede, by some other editor. N2e (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased sources

Can we all please agree to stop making references to what Putin said in his speeches to propaganda outlets like Washington Post. Putin has a site called kremlin.ru where you can read his transcripts in English without some western dimwit journalist telling you what he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.99.2 (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not a "propaganda outlet" nor are their staff "dimwits". Concerning the edits you are making, please refrain from injecting your own original research, Putin made no mention of the troops being from the base, this is your own injection.--Львівське (говорити) 21:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

To paraphraze Chomsky "The interesting thing about media in Western democracies is that they don't need to be forced to act as propaganda, they volunteer for the job". If you'd look at the actual track record of the Washington Post's reporting on geopolitical issues, rather than going "It's US media therefor it's very reliable", you'd see that they don't have any qualms about throwing even the most basic editorial policies aside to print fabricated government propaganda while not reporting or even bashing opposing views. As far as geopolitical issues are concerned the media in ANY country with a vested interest will stick to their government's narrative, no matter how far removed from the truth, and that goes just as well for Western media as for state-run propaganda machines. That tendency is more than well-documented enough to consider its implications here. So while the IP calling the journalists "dimwits" etc does not help his argument, his main point that when ascribing statements to government representatives primary sources such as press conference transcripts are to be preferred to secondary sources from the "other side" is valid. There's no such thing as a "reliable source" from a country involved in an ongoing geopolitical crisis, the closest thing to it is probably media from some uninvolved country such as say South Africa or something. In a few years when the dust has settled that'll change, it always does when reports start to surface grudgingly admitting to "errors in reporting", but at this time it's nothing but propaganda from both sides.B01010100 (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase WP:SOAPBOXING, "soapboxing".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

beware of user 77.51.99.2 and other freshly-created users with russian IPs

I have already stated my concerns on this discussion page but i feel i must state the worying issues on this article as well, as the user has been very interested in keeping the Russian profile on these wiki pages as clean as possible.

To cite my concern: It is alarming that, for example the user 77.51.99.2 with a russian ip has only ever contributed to wikipedia by recently editing articles related to the Ukraine crisis, removing any references criticizing the Russian front or restating the facts in order to contribute to the positive Russian profile.

I believe this behavior may be dangerous for keeping the neutrality of the wikipedia intact and advice to revise or revert the edits made by this user. I have purposely not in engaged in such action, as i would not like to act hastily and would be glad if someone else also revised the user's actions.

93.184.73.10 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not really the right place for this if you would like to ask for administrative assistance then you need to mention it over at The admin incident noticeboard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Russia's involvement in Crimea

In the first paragraph, someone wrote: On 17 April, Russian president Vladimir Putin admitted that Russian troops were in fact present in Crimea during the referendum, saying "Of course, Russian servicemen backed the Crimean self-defense forces," and that their presence was necessary to facilitate the referendum.[49][50] Let's look at what Putin said in Russian: Поэтому за спиной сил самообороны Крыма, конечно, встали наши военнослужащие. For those that don't understand Russian ask someone who does and read it in context of all that he said! Here we can arrive at the sure conclusion that 'backed' means 'gave moral support and military guarantees'. Just as the US criticised the referendum and made threats, Russia supported it and made threats – nothing more. To report it as the Washington Post did is immoral and unprofessional. Brings into question the reliability of this source (likely not an isolated incident). Furthermore everyone knows that there were Russian troops in Crimea. But the insertion above makes it seem that they were all over it! Which is not what Putin is saying nor has he ever said it. Conclusion: This should be amended to, On 17 April, Russian president Vladimir Putin stated that the Russian troops present at the Russian naval base in Crimea during the referendum supported it, saying "Of course, Russian servicemen backed the Crimean self-defense forces".[50] ToMesmerise (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This interpretation smacks of WP:OR. We go by verifiable, reliable sources here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation is logical based on the spoken context (the phrases used around it) and the historical context (Putin and Russia's foreign minister have consistently said that Russia's military has not been involved). Does anyone have a counter of these two arguments? No 'smacks' please, logical clear arguments. Assuming that a source is verifiable and reliable on the basis that it is mainstream western media is wrong as proven over and over again, and it's that sort of thinking which is dragging WP down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ukraine: Russian propaganda and three disaster scenarios" -- Al Jazeera

"Ukraine: Russian propaganda and three disaster scenarios" -- Al Jazeera

... As the Ukrainian presidential election scheduled on May 25 gets closer, Kremlin's window of opportunity for invading the country and derailing its European course is gradually narrowing. The rhetoric of Russian President Vladimir Putin justifying the Anschluss of Crimea and unscrupulous meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs has been based on the premises that there is no legitimate government in Kiev, that it is being run by a gang of Nazis and anti-Semites who took power by coup d'etat and terrorised Russians and Russophones all over the country.

Such a claim, however calumnious and fully disproved on the ground by independent observers, opinion polls and the minorities themselves, can be sold nonetheless to some audiences, at least Russian, willing for various reasons to be fooled. ...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/04/ukraine-russia-propaganda-thre-201441112542990923.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

FSB and Spetsnaz (Alfa and Vympel)

Why are they in the infobox? Unlike the other military units of Russia, their presence in the infobox isn't backed by any citations whatsoever. Also keep in mind that the editor who added that info is an IP address. Normally I'd revert un-sourced info but I don't want to get reverted as well or get banned from giving input on the situation. For those who support the FSB's presence in the infobox state your reasons with citations and sources. Khazar (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Article is called 2014 Russian MILITARY intervention in Ukraine

My concern is that this article has the Donbass insurgency and Kherson Oblast under it's scope and Donetsk People's Republic under Russia as a Belligerent in the infobox. So my question is where are the sources confirming that the Russian military is involved? The words "alleged" and "claimed" are being used in the article to support this information, something that is both against WP:NPOV and against WP:V. If the Russian military is indeed conformed to be a part of the militia then I see no reason why it should not be included but for now its a he said she said situation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is quite straightforward. Without reliable sources of Russian MILITARY intervention in the more general uprisings occurring in the eastern region of Ukraine, then that material is out of scope for this article and I would support removal. Having said that, probably best to add the removed material to one of the more general articles on the Ukrainian situation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I am going to do that now, we already have Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine so a-lot of information here could just be dulplicate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I kinda gave up on this article as it crept out of scope --Львівське (говорити) 16:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved the section out of the article, this article should focus on Crimea and Russia's military actions there and along the border with Ukraine. If you see something out of place be WP:BOLD - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Good that the material was moved out, based on my understanding of the nature of that material. However, I have a quibble with you on your statement about the Crimea focus, as I don't believe that is quite right. Per the title, and numerous proposals/discussions to rename or merge the articles, this is about any Russian MILITARY involvement in Ukraine as part of the current/2014 kerfuffle. It is not merely about Crimea nor the Crimean Peninsula.

So it was correct to remove any material that didn't have Russian Military involved with it, but it was removed for that reason, not because it was outside of Crimea. Cheers. N2e (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Only Russian military intervention was in Crimea, so this one should be folded into 2014 Crimean Crisis

RS state that the only Russian military intervention was in Crimea, so this one should be folded into 2014 Crimean Crisis. But if we want Wikipedia to be a site for anti-Russian propaganda, carry on.Haberstr (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, editors insist on glossing over the military intervention in other articles. This is one of the few places where you can read about the events. When Russian invasion is allowed to be mentioned in other articles, perhaps this article will become unnecessary. As of right now, there's too much Russian propaganda everywhere else, so unfortunately, this article is very necessary. Did you see the section about Russian military in Eastern Ukraine? That's not in Crimea. USchick (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

good point, the fact that the troops are on the border ready to invade and have violated airspace several times is enough. Plus, they went into Kherson oblast. Add on top of this all the documented cases of Russian veterans and paramilitary involved in terrorism in the east and its pretty far flung. --Львівське (говорити) 05:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There WAS Russian military intervention in Ukraine proper, albeit covert.02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Aside from Crimea (where Russian involvement was confirmed by both sides), it seems to be sort of conspiracy theory (i.e. it's existence disputed, reported only by one side). Hence it says "alleged involvement in the Eastern Ukraine". Seryo93 (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Secession crisis?

A "secession crisis" implies an indigenous attempt to break away from another country. In this case the campaign was Russian-orchestrated. Accordingly calling this a secession crisis is misleading. It has a lot more in common with an invasion by another country.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What would you consider to be a neutral and more accurate descriptor? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Royalcourtier: Invasion is also POV. Protests in Simferopol began on 21 February (see ru:Крымский кризис#Митинг 21 февраля and these two links), protests in Sevastopol began on 23 Feb., both took place well before takeover of the Supreme Council Building by the "polite people" (which happened on 27 February).

@Royalcourtier and Iryna Harpy: Secession crisis is somehow correct (because peninsula seceded from Ukraine), but if "secession" seems inacceptable, I'd like to propose an alternative: "irredentism crisis" (or "Russian irredentism crisis"), because of end result. Seryo93 (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Royalcourtier and Seryo93: Hmm. Agreed, Seryo93. Secession is valid in the context. Nevertheless, "Russian irredentism crisis" serves as a better descriptor. Given that the RF rationale for military intervention was 'to protect it's own people', and that Euromaidan, the military intervention in Crimea, and long time self-identification tensions all served as a catalyst to the current Eastern Ukrainian secessionist fighting (and that we know the history of the region well), irredentism is an accurate definition and would serve better to bind the nature of the crises as related events. I'd also consider that it would afford readers the opportunity to find related articles in order for them to build up a better picture of the events outside of out-of-context mass media information which revolves around current events.

I'd like to know whether others who have been involved in developing this article (or have been following its development) are interested in commenting on the proposal. All input is welcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a Russian invasion. I am not sure why obscure euphemisms should be used instead. Irredentism actually raises much bigger issues, as it suggests a wider Russian effort to occupy lands inhabited by Russian speakers. This also strengthens the analogy with Nazi Germany taking Sudetenland - a comparison Putin has been at pains to avoid. The primary motive for Putin's invasion of Crimea was geopolitical rather than irredentist.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it was geopolitical in the immediate context. To state this is WP:OR and contravenes WP:NPOV simply because EU and, more particularly, US interests in the region are equally geopolitical. What's the favourite political technique deployed for all economic, geopolitical pushes if not playing the nationalism card? That's hardly a revelation. 'Invasion' is absolutely a WP:POV push, and there is nothing balanced about using such a term. Sorry, but we're here to build an encyclopaedia (that is coherent, informative content for the reader), not pure propaganda on behalf of those who wishing to reduce information into simplistic, black and white concepts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources to support the term "invasion." Before you get consensus to ignore yet another policy and tell yet another lie, perhaps you would like to list sources that support "irredentism." Really? Wikipedia:Get over it. "Geopolitical" is not OR if it's supported by sources, and it is. [1] [2] Even Estonia is getting prepared for a Russian invasion, just in case. [3] USchick (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What part of the 'N' in WP:NPOV are you failing to understand? Are you reading it as, "N'ah, (it's all about my) POV"? Ever encountered WP:IMPARTIAL? Thought you'd be horse by now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not yet. Can I ask why you're so involved in facilitating conversations among editors? Do you have special privileges to do that? And why would you encourage creative inventions like "irredentism" without any sources to support this very innovative claim? Sources please, otherwise, I invite you to go to your own personal talk pages to discuss military theory. USchick (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask why would I need special privileges to involve myself in discussions on talk pages? Can I ask whether you have special privileges to engage in endless opining on article talk pages that involve anything to do with Ukraine? Can't WP:WIN? Wikipedia:Get over it right back at 'ya. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:SOURCE USchick (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No one has revisited "irredentism" as it became self evident that it would be WP:OR, so why are you asking for sources? Discussions do tend to meander outside of the scope of article talk page guidelines occasionally. That was recognised and, essentially, it was over by the time you added your 2¢ worth. I've just had this on my watchlist to keep my eye out for unwarranted POV changes with the focus now being on the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article. Given this fact, can you explain where WP:OWN came from? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not supporting the idea? My apologies. That's not what I got from reading your comments. Apparently one other person didn't get that either. Sorry. "Of course it was geopolitical in the immediate context. To state this is WP:OR" "This" referring to "geopolitical." Never mind. USchick (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's OR. The change was made and correctly reverted by a third editor under the WP:KISS principle. OR would have sufficed. The editor who made the change has not disputed it. I'm assuming it's because he's astute enough to realise that we'd gotten carried away. Speculation going off track happens. I would have pulled it myself since I'd had time to sleep on it. Had you spotted it first, I would have considered it remiss of you not to WP:ROLL and leave a note here. Isn't that the way working collaboratively is supposed to go? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. :) USchick (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic and Naming

By looking at the Russian military intervention in Ukraine as an isolated event, and not as part of a greater context, a certain bias is introduced. Specifically, Ukraine, US and NATO are shown as merely reacting to Russian aggression. The impression given is that the English-language Wikipedia pages have become a PR battlefield. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.147.8 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Wikipedia should present an unbiased view of occurring events.
Just google 'Russian military intervention in Ukraine' and you'll find not even the most biased mainstream media backing this up.
These are tabloid headline tactics, using a title like this to mislead the unsuspecting reader.--Bandar kecil (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole article is a joke (and a disgrace for WP) being merely a review of the impact in the press of Nato's and Kiev putchists' communiqués. And no mention is made of those accusations of russian military presence in Ukraine that run on the front page of the NYT and were later recognised as gross manipulation (edited pictures of supposed russian soldiers). What about the absence of satellite views of the supposed russian troops? A paragraph on the discussion about sources should be included. It's a minimum minimorum! And what about US presence in Ukraine, especially through an Akademi mercenaries brigade of 400 soldiers? No, seriously, this a joke, right?84.102.92.107 (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this is don`t joke. US soldiers in Ukraine. Andy Werner176.193.135.144 (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian (chechen) Vostok was disbanded 6 years ago

Russian (chechen) Vostok was disbanded in 2008, after Georgia's attempted invasion in Osetiya.

The Insurgency in Chechnya and the North Caucasus: From Gazavat to Jihad Praeger Security International By Robert W. Schaefer, Publ. ABC-CLIO, 2010 ISBN 0313386358, 9780313386350

95.67.243.108 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine does not have S-300

Ukraine does not have S-300 ps or B1 or any other for many years. last C-300 remained in the Crimea. On this there are many excellent very good sources. Including a guide to the military balance. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

this chapter and the text---

Eastern Ukraine[edit] See also: 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine and Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine March 2014[edit] The Ukrainian Air Force conducted an unprecedented large-scale exercise involving 100 MiG-29s and Su-27s, 23 Su-24s, 39 L-39s and 60 anti-aircraft battalions operating Buk-M1, S-300V1 and S-300PS systems.[258]

This is a lie, and moreover was not 100 Mig29, besides 40 remained in the Crimea. and were later returned but they are incapable of fighting and can not even fly. And the C200 for over a year scrapped.

All this labor easy to verify check sources in English, Russian and Ukrainian. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July

In Ukrainian mdaN number of victims among the civilian population were 250 people, including 40 children. OSCE observers left Lugansk security reasons Been continued with shelling in Russia with Ukrainian side (at least 5 cases on different days, strikes are delivered customs points on which there are refugees). In the shelling of of cities Ukrainian army uses cluster and phosphorous bombs. Targets for attacks Ukrainian army, of artillery and aircraft become homes, orphanages, schools and hospitals. Only 2 July airstrike victims home where people live inside cities are 12 civilians (children pensioners).

Ukraine accused of shelling opposition[307]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope it's a good editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• http://russian.rt.com/article/41229

Similarly, journalists and covered an airstrike against the administration of Lugansk in early June, which killed civilians. Then they assumed that the militia mistakenly hit of MANPADS in air conditioning. They had to admit the truth only after the OSCE observers confirmed the airstrike.

Original article: http://russian.rt.com/article/41229 # ixzz37k7nX86y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 NATO military intervention in Ukraine

Possible to have such an article? 2014 NATO military intervention in Ukraine?

There are a lot of accusations from Russia that America is in Ukraine.

If not a full fledged article, where could these accusations be added? which article? Wholesomegood (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite any credible reports in reliable sources? I don't see any after a quick search. -- Beland (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I can cite many sources of NATO in Ukraine, but whether you should trust if I do not trust - Russian occupation of Ukraine? Although about 1,000 years Ukraine Belarus and Russia was one state - Russia or Lithuania or Russia + poland + Russia. You think that it is different of state today. Although the for example you believe that Alaska is the U.S., though it's only 150 years old and it was Russia, BUT! 1,000 years it was the Indians.

I do not see the point in dispute. It is a matter of trust between opposite of each other. Probably you have the right not to believe me. Since you have your sources, but not sources from distant countries such as Germany 89.105.158.243 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Term "occupation" is by any means not suitable for describing military cooperation, dear ruskiy puppeteer. Events that followed what you claim as unification on the other hand do. 178.150.75.43 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

you forgot another 700 years before

hence you lie 89.105.158.243 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

the article fails to discuss the potential benefits to the Crimean people by Russian military intervention. the article frames the intervention as a violent takeover. by no means is the Kiev government legitimate and continues to wage a civil war against its own people including territories that have similarly declared independence from the Kiev coup. how would events have transpired has russia not intervened? Would Crimea be involved in this bloody civil war as well? this article is quite biased and doesnt see the humanitarian aspect of this intervention. it also fails to mention the public vote to join the russian federation as anything but a ballot stuffed farce with voters having burly rusky guards with AK-47s 'helping' voters to make the right choice.

Anti-war protests photo

The photo, which you describe as "15 March anti-war protests in Moscow" actually shows a man with a transparency that says "Crimea is ours, now we need Alaska" and also the red flags with yellow wheels in the background are well-known to be used as a symbol of Russian nationalists, so even though there are people with Ukranian flags there, something is definitely wrong, either with where the photo was taken, or with how you describe it. Can you please check, what kind of a protest it was that day, what organizations took part in it, and where the photo came from, because now there is clearly some sort of mistake. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.179.0 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It was organized by several Russian opposition groups. Anti-Putin opposition is split between liberals and nationalists. "Crimea is ours, now we need Alaska" was probably meant as irony. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

All of these web links have little to say about what you mean. This news, the news about the war in Ukraine. Who talk about the sins of Ukraine Legal. But not about ukraine antimaydan.89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)