Title needs to be changed. This is Russian involvement ("invasion") in the War in Donbass and 2014 Crimean crisis, not a war separate from those. If this is supposed to be the replacement for the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article, I recommend changing the title to something similar to that. At present, this strikes me as being nothing more than a WP:POV fork. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to draft space. It clearly isn't ready for the article space. Try and get the material from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine in here, make it neutral, and then it can go to article space. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. This article is more ready than most articles on the subject (which aren't ready after months of their existence). Additionally, moving it to draft space actually makes it harder to improve the article. I had several extensions to add which got lost because of the move and now I'm not certain how to move stuff back. I don't know if I can even post this comment. At the very least moving it to draft space cannot be done unilaterally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously not true. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine contains old material about stuff that's happened weeks ago. This article is about the events of last few days. I agree that stuff from the former should probably be merged here in a Background section, but this is a separate article. Again, please don't act unilaterally here. Obviously editors are busy improving this article and arbitrarily moving it to draft space or redirecting it makes their work harder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They cover the exact same scope. Just because that article isn't updated doesn't mean that there is justification for creating a WP:POV fork. Draft space is the only thing that will save this from deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am *extremely* annoyed here, as your arbitrarily moving this article into draft space destroyed several paragraph of text I've written to add to the article. Now I have to redo it again. I doubt the article will be deleted, and if it is, THEN we can move stuff from here to the other article (which would be inappropriate but who knows what crazy people will do at AfD).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title should be Russo-Ukrainian war. Unless we can rename Donbas War to that? The point from how I read the original was to show the Russian theater, not the "Ukraine vs. rebels" side of it or that Russian was supporting them. --LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 16:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to try renaming that article to Russo-Ukrainian War, be my guest. That proposal would be much more appropriate, as it wouldn't be establish a million forked articles. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (well, because the reason is wrong. We don't delete articles because they're "recently created" because then we'd have no articles on the encyclopedia. Same goes for "no relevant page history". And the article does NOT dupllicate any existing English Wikipedia topics.) --Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, its a new article, it has sources, and expands on the mainland invasion and actual war. that said, the original title should return, this article was made to show the war, not expand on intervention (as there is an article on that already) --LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolute disaster. An absolute disaster in every respect. Forks, forks, forks, forks. Fork after fork. Why have you forsaken me, JUNTA JUNTA? No long shall I count juntas, but now I shall be forced to count forks. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lol okay that made me laugh. Sorry, I'm not trying to go against you or anything. Okay, does the Donbas War and Russian-Ukrainian war cover the exact same scope? Personally I think there are two threads tht lead into a single overarching conflict. I'm willing to hear you out. I also am against forks so maybe I can see your side of this, maybe I'll turn around and I'm just in 'one of those moods' at the moment. --LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 17:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At present, I would say that they are the same scope. This invasion is Russian participation in the Donbass War. In fact, some would argue that the Donbass War has been a Russian "invasion" from the start. They opened a new front in that war with this new offensive. Crimea is essentially a separate matter (of the same thread), since it was an essentially bloodless annexation. Here is how I see it:
War in Donbass – War in the Donbass region between Ukrainian forces and Russian proxies, now also Russian troops.
Both Crimea and Donbass are two "theatres" of the over-arching Russian interference, but they have fundamental differences in how they were carried out (read "war" in Donbass, but mostly bloodless take-over in Crimea). There has been no expansion of the conflict beyond Donbass or Crimea (into Kharkiv, for example). RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear that "War in Donbass" and "Russian invasion of Ukraine" have different scope. The former concerns *mainly* the fighting between the separatists and Ukrainian government. Of course Russia has supported and probably organized these "rebels" but that's not quite the same as an outright invasion. The latter specifically deals with the entrance of Russian troops into Ukrainian territory. I really hope I'm wrong, but it's very likely that it will be the latter that becomes the dominant topic in the near future. It seems like you want to organize it by geographical area (Crimea and Donbass) whereas I'm pretty sure that the proper organization should focus on who is precisely involved and the scale of the conflict.
One could argue, a bit daftly, that the downing of the Malaysian Airline 77 was also just something that happened as "part of the War in Donbass". I mean, it did. But that even is notable and distinct from the overall conflict.
As far as forks go, yes, I agree with the sentiment. But just because there's lots of bad forks out there that doesn't mean that every relevant article is a fork. This one isn't. I do plan on going back and nominating or re-nominating some of these old forks for deletion, since they obviously failed to meet persistence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except we already have 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which dealt with the invasion of Crimea. It was expanded to deal with the Donbass, and consensus repeatedly resisted limiting that article to Crimea. Are you saying that this present invasion is separate from the original Crimean invasion? Was that not an invasion? This invasion is just another one in a series, and all belong at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. If you'd like to rename that article, fine. But having two parallel articles that deal with the same subject matter, one called "military intervention" and one called "invasion" is absurd, and reduces the importance of the Crimean events. RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that what is happening now is separate from both the invasion of Crimea and the War in Donbass. Related, but separate. Ok. If you take a serious stab at making the Russian military intervention in Ukraine a viable article, in a way which would actually make this article a redundant fork (I don't believe it is) then I might very well change my mind. But I've just seen it too often on Wikipedia where someone says "oh we have this other article that could be improved to cover this topic" and then nothing happens.
BTW, there was some "Shelling of ..." article created awhile ago which was another one of these forks and which obviously did not prove important in the conflict. There was an AfD but probably should revisit again. Do you remember what that article was? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shelling of Donetsk, Russia – Ought be deleted. Regardless, if that's what you think, this article needs to be renamed Russian invasion of the Donbass. Russia already invaded Ukraine in Crimea, so if you're separating it from Crimea, you need to narrow the scope of this article. Still, that doesn't make any sense, and I wouldn't support it. Consensus at the AfD and prior discussions for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was that that article dealt with the invasions/interference across Ukraine, not just Crimea. That's what makes this a fork. Regardless, that article already has the lead-up of the past few days to events described here. There is no reason why the small article here could not easily be merged there, resolving the issue of forking. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be reasonable except:
(map on right)
.
And Odessa. They're not fighting just for the Donbass (and that's assuming they won't roll into Kyiv just because they can).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no fighting in Odessa, no insurgency, no war. Odessa has been calm since the one incident on 2 May (which was civil unrest, not a war), as OSCE monitors have reported. That's all WP:CRYSTAL. If the war expands beyond Donbass, we can change the name of that article. It hasn't. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but then we need a separate article for the donbas war. the whole reason we made it was because of the "unrest in south-east ukraine" article got overloaded. we'd be going full circle of splitting off donbas, adding more regions, and making a catch-all article again. --LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 20:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but we can hit that nail when we get to that board. At the moment, this is WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester — ☎ 20:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) → Russo-Ukrainian War – Original name of the article, the conflict is described by sources as a war between Russia and Ukraine, and while the Donbas War article covers separatism and Russian military support, this article can be a split to discuss the direct war between the two states, as is beginning to be recognized internationally and bilaterally. LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
--LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For now, "Russian invasion" is better and I believe that's the name that is used by most sources, for example "Russian invasion of Ukraine Prompts a UN meeting". I haven't seen that many sources explicitly calling it the "Russo-Ukrainian War" yet, although, you're right, that's what this is, and this may very well change soon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I lumped all the sources in the first line showing it described as a war between Russia and Ukraine. Wars include invasions, a week from now will it still be an invasion or just occupation? Seems time dependent. --LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 17:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible that you're right, which is why I haven't explicitly "voted" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i think it should be merged with the russian mil intervention article and have the donbas conflict be its own thing, just as the crimean annexation is its own thing. There needs to be a single article about russian vs. ukrainian army regardless of territory, i think, but especially now that 'war' is official --LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 18:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Lvivske just said. RGloucester — ☎ 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the issue is then that while intervention began in feb, war didnt happen until now - are they the same thing? --LeVivsky(ಠ_ಠ) 20:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Different sections of that article, I'd imagine, as it is presently set-up. Just have a section that says "August Russian invasion of Ukraine". Mr Marek is already working on making that article more workable, so it should be easy to do. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate2014 Russo-Ukrainian War "Russo-Ukrainian War" should be a set index/disambiguation page about all Russo-Ukraine conflicts (ie. Muscovy v. Kiev ; Great/Little Russia ; Russia v Ruthenia), and USSR-Ukraine conflicts. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No RS consensus to consider the war in Donbass and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to be separate conflicts; indeed, the DPR/LPR are pretty transparent Russian clients/proxies being used by Russia to destabilize Ukraine, and the sense I get from media coverage (and from President Obama's remarks today, actually) is that this is simply the latest phase in the conflict. It's an escalation, to be sure, and it's noteworthy that Russia is directly involving its own troops -- maybe even noteworthy enough to merit its own article -- but it's not a new war. Move noms like this don't really help dispel the perception that this article is a POV fork of War in Donbass, I might add. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A descriptive title would be something like Late August 2014 sudden escalation of Russian proxy war in Donbass to outright invasion of eastern Ukraine. But that's a bit too long. Russo-Ukrainian War certainly doesn't have RS's for a common title, and as a descriptive title we would need disambiguation compared to the other related articles. Boud (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it is an invasion and there are no sources provided here which would call it a "Russo-Ukranian War". Red Slash 18:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Russia is occupying an annexing the Ukrainian Crimea-province and now occupying a narrow borderstrip from Luhansk to Novoazovs'k. In this borderstrip the Ukraining military is fighting both Russian regular troops and by Russia heavily-armed militants mostly from inside the Russian Federation. The goal of this war is the same as in Georgia and Moldova: Destabilizing democratizing neighboring country's by creating non-viable mini-states as South-Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistrië and now 'novo-Russia' and a Russian Crimea. This conflict is similar to the Russo-Georgian War and same naming should be used.
Sending armed militia as an occupying force (supported by regular army units) into an other country are as much an act of war as only sending in regular army units into an other country.--84.193.101.227 (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative - The 'Russian invasion' -- see ABC News article inaccurately cited by Marek -- makes clear that only one party, Ukraine, has described alleged actions by Russia as an 'invasion'. If we create a Wikipedia entry for every allegation from only our favored side in a conflict, we turn Wikipedia into a propaganda site and not an encyclopedia. Please delete this entry and fold its allegations into one of the Wikipedia entries that alleges Russian government intervention in Ukraine. Better yet, delete the 'alleged Russian intervention' articles completely, and coalesce everything into a 'foreign intervention in Ukraine' entry.Haberstr (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawl - This discussion is inappropriate at this time. The article is nominated for deletion, so I would ask you Lvivske to close this discussion. Otherwise, simply say "withdraw", so I'll help you close it. --George Ho (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD result is "no consensus". However, my comments still stand, and I will expect merge proposals sooner or later. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – If this article is going to stay, we might as well make it humorous. RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a suggestion for an article in Uncyclopedia!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a war between Ukraine (along with its paramilitary groups and foreign volunteers) on one side and pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists + Russia (also along with Russian and other countries' volunteers and paramilitaries), on the other side, and it started long before the regular Russian forces invaded the eastern parts of Ukraine. Concerning to the support from Russia before the invasion, there are also plenty of Serbians fighting there on the behalf of the insurgents, and I guess noone would consider to rename it as "Russo-Serbian-Ukrainian War"!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Well, first there's a move proposal along these lines, so I'm not sure why the OR tag is being added. But ok.
Don't remove the tag unless the situation is resolved, i.e. you find reliable sources that refer to the conflict NOW (not in a theoretical sense) as "Russo-Ukrainian War" - Here: Russo-Ukrainian War Now a Reality. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that the article should be moved to that name, or that it is the primarily used name, or even that is widely used. Just saying that it is in fact used by some sources (and I imagine that it'd be even easier to find non-English sources for this).
Still, if that's the only issue - and I honestly don't see any other instances of possible OR in the article - then I'm fine with removing that designation, just so we can get rid of the tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion piece, and WP:SOAP applies in turn. As far as I can see, this name is not a significant alternative name used in a large number of reliable sources. Even more so, even if it were to be used, it would be for the whole conflict, not just this invasion. Since people keep telling me this new article here is only about the August invasion, then clearly this is just a subset of other issues, and not a war in of itself. There is a lot of WP:OR involved in labelling this particular invasion as Russo-Ukrainian War, whether it be because this article is only about one incident, the August invasion, or because it simply isn't used by reliable sources in a significant way. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAP applies more to editors' comments on talk or a particular kinds of edits made to articles (when somebody starts soapboxing). It's not really about the nature of sources.
But notice that right above we have a proposal to rename the article to "Russo-Ukrainian War", with a few supports. Mine is not among them. Apparently a number of editors feel that not only is "Russo-Ukrainian War" not OR but also that it is the proper name for this article.
For now I am going to remove both the "Russo-Ukrainian War" designation and the tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, WP:SOAP does apply. "Commentaries" are not to be used, per the section on opinion pieces. Using an opinion piece in a "factual" manner is soapboxing. It is advocating the point-of-view of one commentator. RGloucester — ☎ 00:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RGloucester. I haven't seen Russo-Ukrainian War in any sort of common usage -- occasionally on Twitter or blogs -- and we already have an article for War in Donbass. My understanding was that we would keep and improve this article to provide detail on a particular phase of the conflict that has been ongoing since April, with significant and mostly indirect Russian involvement prior to the deployment of regular Russian troops in Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts. There is no basis for considering a "Russo-Ukrainian War" to be a separate conflict from the Donbass war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why this page was flawed from the start. It started at the name "Russo-Ukrainian War", and continues to act as if that's what the page is about. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not, and will never be a legitimate article. Your trying to fix it is the wrong approach. It must return to dust, where it shall stay. RGloucester — ☎ 21:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world, on a project that actually involved building an encyclopedia. In this world it's more likely that that other article, the "Intervention" one, will never become a legitimate article, while this one still has a chance. You brought up WP:KIBOSH before. Well, here's your chance. Does it really matter which one of the two becomes a legitimate article? This one is already off to a better start so it makes more sense to transfer content from there to here rather than vice versa. I think this is the fundamental issue in our disagreement. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care which one it is. However, our guidelines make it clear that the longstanding article is to be favoured in such situations. RGloucester — ☎ 01:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, whoever is inserting commentary pieces as references, stop it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source that suggests that NATO has claimed to have satellite photos of Russian troops invading Ukraine doesn't, as far as I can see from Google Translate, actually say this. --Slashme (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Haberstr moved this article, without discussion, in fact completely *ignoring* the discussion that is taking place right on this talk page to the highly WP:POV and WP:WEASELy " Alleged 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine ". He then removed it again to " Alleged August 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine". I don't know if the double move was done on purpose and I should probably AGF here, but I do know that this is an old trick for locking the original title so that the move cannot be undone without admin intervention.
This is highly disruptive, sanction worthy even.
Please do NOT move this page without consensus. Do not try to lock the existing title.
Also, hopefully we can get an admin to move it back to the title this article was under before, while we wait for move discussion above to conclude. Volunteer Marek 15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having the "I" in "invasion" capitalized looks very sloppy. Then again, I think the title needs a bit of work, generally speaking. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outrageous behaviour by Kudzu1 (talk·contribs) copied a large amount of material from War in Donbass without discussion and forked it here. He then proceeded to move the content from this article to War in Donbass. This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable under our content forking guidelines. In fact, it is an outrage. My concerns about this article being a POV fork are clearly well-founded, now that people are copying content here from other articles and removing it without attribution. Utterly absurd. I've restored the last un-forked version. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, War in Donbass is a very large article, and it goes into a level of detail on this phase of the conflict better suited for an article specifically about the Russian invasion. That information is better suited here, whereas more summary-level information is better suited there. Scream "outrage" all you want, but no information whatsoever was lost. Honestly, your crusade to have this article deleted -- something in which, once again, I originally agreed with you -- seems very bloody-minded. I have been trying to make this article into what it properly should be, and you have been opposing every attempt to fix the problems with the Ukraine war coverage at every turn seemingly because you are dead set on having this article deleted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for a more guidelines-oriented argument, hit that wl on content forking guidelines and check out the WP:SPINOFF section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copying content is unacceptable. The information is not better suited for this "article", an article that has been tainted from the start. It is a blight on Wikipedia's name. If it survives, it will be a calamity. Regardless of that, your attempts to "fix" this article prove how flawed it is. What's more, it's not as if you fixed any of the problems. You merely transferred all the problematic content to a different article, and took the content that had already been brought up to specification. That's a bunch of nonsense, and I will not tolerate it. As far as "spinning-off", it is not accepted that this is a legitimate "spin-off" article. No consensus approved such a move, nor is it agreed that this article should even exist. Much of that content you copied here had nothing to do with "Russian invasion", but with nitty-gritty fighting on the ground. Not only did you skew WP:NPOV, but you also didn't even provide any attribution. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So where does it say that "copying content is unacceptable"? Especially within a single project? More detailed information was swapped for more summary information, with the details going to a spinoff page and the summary going to a broader page. War in Donbass is about the war, and this article is about Russia's direct intervention in the war. That seems entirely appropriate to me, your hyperbole about "a blight on Wikipedia's name" and "a calamity" aside. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Russia's intervention in the conflict is aptly named 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Please read content forking. The idea that that information was more "summary" is absurd at face value. As TDA, someone I'm not usually prone to agree with, said "keep that drek at the POV fork". And "drek" it is. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Content forking. Ukraine is Ukraine. Crimea or Donbass, both are Ukraine (or should be, anyway). RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the policy; in fact, I have repeatedly cited WP:SPINOFF. I am waiting for you to answer my question. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What question? WP:SPINOFF requires consensus and attribution, first of all, and secondly, it must be done in a neutral manner, not in a way that promotes a PoV. This was not neutral, nor did it have consensus, nor was it even a spin-off. It was a transfer of information between two articles that did nothing to reduce the length of the other article. It added content that had nothing to do with a so-called "Russian invasion" to an article with that title, pushing a POV that these events were absolutely and with certainty a "Russian invasion", even with regards to Ilovaisk, which had nothing to do with Russia. It added bunk and poorly written PoV content to the War in Donbass article. This is not a legitimate spin-off article. It is a PoV fork. The spin-off article already exists. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed "copying content is unacceptable". You have failed to articulate where that statement is grounded in Wikipedia policy, which explicitly allows the duplication of content between related articles and the copying of content to spinoff articles. If you have POV concerns, I would be very happy to work on those with you. I don't understand your complaints about "attribution", considering the refs were copied over (a bot automatically fixes any citations that break within a short time). And I definitely don't know what basis you have for claiming the edit didn't shorten War in Donbass; in fact, it did by more than 6,000 characters. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is unacceptable for the reasons I already explained, and which are also explained at WP:Content forking and your beloved WP:SPINOFF. "Attribution" refers to the edit history, not references. RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It backs them up completely. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote the section of policy that says "copying content is unacceptable" to me, if you don't mind. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion". You've copied the content from another article to here so that it can be cast in the PoV light of "Russian invasion of Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I've done, and that doesn't state anything about duplication of content being "unacceptable". As I've said, I'm open to workshopping this article if you have POV concerns. I am treating this article as a spinoff of War in Donbass and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and I swapped paragraphs between this article and War in Donbass to shorten that article and present details on this daughter article while providing a summary on the parent. But I have a feeling we are talking in circles, aren't we? And there isn't really much point to this discussion? You appear to be single-minded and utterly immovable in your desire to have this article deleted and you will do whatever it takes to deny it any sort of legitimacy or relevance, in your mind -- and I want to improve the WikiProject Ukraine and clean up the deeply messy coverage of this conflict on Wikipedia, both through improving this article and giving it purpose, and through improving related and complementary articles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC) -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once something is corrupted, it is tainted for good. Corruption will spread, unless one burns it out. We must burn the corruption. There is no improvement, for all it can be is corruption, lest we burn it. Its birth determined what it would be, and it can never be anything but that. I can see through your guise. RGloucester — ☎ 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the absolute craziest argument I've ever had in some nine years I've been active on Wikipedia. Clearly, engaging with you any further is pointless. We'll just have to see what the closing admin decides to do with the deletion proposal. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing crazy about it. There is no excuse for allowing corruption to taint Wikipedia, hence WP:KIBOSH. Like I said, I'm all for the eventual splitting-up of War in Donbass. This is not the way to do it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious RGloucester ? Don't you find the following even a _little_ crazy: "Once something is corrupted, it is tainted for good. Corruption will spread, unless one burns it out. We must burn the corruption. There is no improvement, for all it can be is corruption, lest we burn it. Its birth determined what it would be, and it can never be anything but that." We _are_ just editing an open encyclopedia after all.Haberstr (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a melodramatic person by nature. Regardless, the essence of that floral statement is my view. RGloucester — ☎ 15:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In August 2014, during the War in Donbass, Russian Armed Forces crossed the Russo-Ukrainian border and engaged the Ukrainian military in direct fighting.[15][16] Note that not even the writer of that sentence terms such alleged actions an "invasion," yet that is the title of this entry. Reference [15] is to an opinion piece on 'Vox', a new internet site. Reference [16] is RS but nonetheless is an anti-Russian hit piece, basically collecting all the scarce evidence for the proposition that regular Russian military have intervened in Ukraine and not presenting any countervailing evidence. In sum, the foundational premise of this encyclopedia entry, that there is uncontroversially and NOT allegedly an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, rests on the following sentences in reference [16]: "The evidence suggests a new level of Russian involvement in the war, not merely funneling weapons and volunteers across the border to the pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, but sending regular Russian ground forces on missions into Ukrainian territory." Does anyone find the words "invasion" or "invade" in the preceding? I didn't think so. Nonetheless we have an article called "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) on Wikipedia. Pathetic.Haberstr (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the POV problem you describe rests more with the title than the lede. Wikipedia tends to frown on euphemism, and the policy of assigning due weight should not be interpreted to allow a single dishonest actor to muddy the waters when it is apparent that something is so (see, for instance, Evolution and Moon landing). That being said, Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine appear to be on rather a smaller scale than one would expect from an all-out invasion. I take Putin at his word when he says Moscow's troops could be in Kyiv in two weeks if he gave the order. Right now, we appear to be looking at a sort of expeditionary force of one to a few thousand, largely serving to add firepower to the separatist ranks and relieve pressure from Donetsk and Luhansk proper. But if we want to have a new title -- which emphatically should not be the ridiculous originally researched "Russo-Ukrainian War" -- we would have to figure out a verifiable title based in reliable sourcing to which to move the page. -15:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
All such changes must be put on hold until the deletion discussion is complete. It it closed as keep, scope changes can be discussed. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no documentation for the allegation that the Russian military has engaged the Ukraine military in direct conflict. Such documentation would be easy to produce, and every Western media and intelligence agency is attempting to do so. Since it has not been produced, and the RS consensus is that direct Russian intervention is a speculation or assertion rather than a fact, the Wikipedia entry should reflect that truth.Haberstr (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple reliable sources that report seeing "little green men" and Russian armor in eastern Ukraine and have spoken with both separatist and Ukrainian officials and soldiers who confirm contact with Russian forces in Ukraine. There are social media accounts of Russian soldiers talking about being deployed to fight in Ukraine. There is documentation of Russian soldiers being given quiet funerals after allegedly dying in Ukraine. All of that in addition to NATO intelligence (from an alliance that seems incredibly reluctant to actually do anything about the conflict, mind you) providing documentary evidence of Russian artillery and armor on the Ukrainian side of the border. I'm not sure how much proof we need. Putin is not going to admit his troops are in Ukraine, because it isn't in Russia's interest to do so. If we are waiting on Russia to confirm its forces' presence, we will be waiting for a long time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try to keep clear what we're talking about. We all agree and RS confirms that many private Russian citizens, many of them former or off-duty Russian military, are fighting for the rebels in Ukraine. We also all can agree that military equipment is coming into Ukraine from Russia. What is unclear to all RS news articles (I'm not talking about opinion pieces) is whether the actual Russian military has intervened inside Ukraine. RS state that as a contention by Ukraine officials and their Western allies. RS also nearly always include strong denials of that contention by Russian officials. Why aren't our Wikipedia entries very similar?Haberstr (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the flags of Ukraine and Novorussia deleted? Galant Khan (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are back. Someone at the German version explained there are probably server problems with pictures at commons. Galant Khan (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently the article presents allegations of Russian involvement as facts. The Russian government still denies any involvement, and the evidence presented so far, especially satellite pictures, has been contested even by western experts, except for the captured soldiers and reports about secretive burials and protests by relatives of soldiers in Russia as far as I know. Galant Khan (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are right. This is the worst, most biased, article I've ever seen in Wikipedia. By the way the burials, which aren't secret, could be of private Russian volunteers and not of the official 'Russian military'. No one knows, and like you say almost everything should be stated as as allegations and claims.Haberstr (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mothers of soldiers and interviewed soldiers said there were soldiers being told they would go to trainings and then they ended up in the Ukraine, so I don't buy that the burials are of volunteers. Also I don't see why there should be secrecy about such burials then, recruitment of volunteers also is not secret but even takes place in official military buildings as far as I read. Galant Khan (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please examine the RS sources of fairly dramatic and large-scale charges. Referring to the Independent article [1] where this allegation appears, here is the direct quote: "Several regional leaders of the Soldiers' Mothers group have claimed that servicemen supposed to be on training exercises on the Russian side of the border have been killed and buried." Note the proper use of the word 'claimed' by the RS source (are we imitating RS or have we taken an OR step and turned a claim into a 'Wikipedia fact'?), and that no servicemen are quoted. Or are you referring to the article from the Telegraph [2] reprinted in the National Post, which is about the nine Russian paratroopers who inadvertently crossed the border? Yes, they may have been on a training mission near the unmarked border and apparently they crossed it. Is that the root of the wild charges? Or is it the provocatively titled Washington Post piece [3] which doesn't mention the 'tricked by fake training exercise into going across the border' allegation.Haberstr (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specific examples and sources or this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Russian government's denial is already noted in the article. Volunteer Marek 13:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot be serious, the article is full of it. As an example: "While the Russian military has attacked Ukrainian positions previously", source New York Times. There is lots of other media that is more skeptical. Another example, "Ukrainian forces [...] were bombarded by Russian forces", source for example the Guardian just writes the Ukrainians say so, it is not presented as a fact. Galant Khan (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you're the one who's not being serious. There's nothing wrong with NYT or the Guardian as sources. On the other hand you're trying to insert material based on blogs of advocacy groups which is, anyway, WP:UNDUE [4]. *That* is POV. Volunteer Marek 22:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there's obviously five sources used to back the "Ukrainian forces [...] were bombarded by Russian forces" statement. Yes, some, but not all of them attribute it to Ukrainians, but if anything the present text downplays what actually happened: the Russian troops said they were going to let Ukrainian forces withdraw (through this "green corridor") and then once they were withdrawing attacked and massacred them. Volunteer Marek 22:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are claims purely based on fox news, like about Russian tanks, of which no remains have been shown to the public, not even photos. You even want to hide the fact that there are considerable doubts about such claims and downplay it as "blogs and advocacy groups". The "advocacy group" consists of veteran experts from nearly all US intelligence agencies, one of them was Time magazine's person of the year 2002 for her whistleblowing on the mishandling of intelligence information around 9/11, they correctly raised doubts on the lies about WMD in Iraq that had been presented to justify the Iraq war, and reliable sources like Süddeutsche Zeitung, Stern, The Nation, and Mother Jones report about them. You say it was Russian forces who massacred Ukrainians, however, there is a lot of media that write it was the rebels. Obviously in many ways supported by Russia, but many are skeptical if actual Russian forces are involved. Galant Khan (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are claims based on reliable sources. Your own original research is not relevant. Your insisting on putting in some obscure letter stuff is WP:UNDUE. There is no justification for a POV tag just because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT article. Putting a POV tag on an article which is not POV is POV pushing itself. And after a certain point it's disruptive. Volunteer Marek 15:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine[edit]
Many editors have proposed a merger instead of outright deletion. A discussion may help this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be NPOV to merge with an entry entitled 2014 claims of Russian military intervention in Ukraine or Alleged Russian military intervention in Ukraine in 2014. Can we change the title of the existing 'intervention' entry?Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, please stick to the deletion discussion. If you'd like a merger or whatever, say so in that discussion, which can result in a merge if enough people support it. RGloucester — ☎ 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! Besides that, the name of this article, along with its content, doesn't make sense, since Russia already invaded another part of Ukraine (Crimea) in February 2014, and the name of this article (along with its content) suggests that it only invaded it in August, in Donbass. In my opinion the content of this article should be transferred to the previous one, and the other one being possibly renamed as "invasion" instead of "military intervention". I've already expressed my opinion in the deletion discussion, but I can develop my opinion there.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, keep this discussion in the deletion discussion, as that's what will determine what happens, whether merging, deletion, or renaming. RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to ascertain why sources such as Morning Star which boasts the credentials "We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society." qualifies as a WP:RS, or how RIA and AntiWar com qualify as being RS. Scratching up an article in Süddeutsche.de which criticises the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" as being out of the loop and not privy to facts on the ground is actually an argument for dismissing the letter to Merkel as WP:FRINGE. Do not reintroduce this crud unless you wish me to refactor it as being a letter from a think tank of retired, senile loons as characterised by the Süddeutsche article. Without RS context, introducing the letter is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They don't and are not. Similarly, op-ed and commentary pieces (especially by people with an obvious bias, such as Mikhail Saakashvili) should not be used to make factual assertions, nor should they be presented without due weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a newspaper shall be less reliable just because it is owned by private people. The same holds for any publishing company that is at the stock market. And why should something be more reliable if it's owned by Robert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi? Furthermore, the Morning Star source only copied the open letter. Many reliable sources report about the letter. The Süddeutsche Zeitung is neither op-ed nor commentary. You obviously don't speak German, the article doesn't criticise the veteran intelligence professionals for being out of the loop, the author criticises them for not discussing other evidence than the NATO satellite pictures. Which changes nothing about the fact that the open letter exists and is worth mentioning given the history of the veteran intelligence professionals who rightly warned about the abuse of politicised US intelligence as "proof" for inexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the Iraq war. The news is also reported by the German weekly Stern[5] and The Nation: [6] and is also covered in our article on the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Galant Khan (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the RS secondary evaluation? The Nation has simply reproduced the letter without any evaluation of the material, meaning that it's a primary source and evaluating it yourself = WP:OR. As for Stern, I'm hardly brimming with excitement over using the magazine which published the Hitler Diaries, plus is behind a number of other seriously embarrassing moments in the history of journalism. As for the coverage in 'our' article, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, well, erhem, it's there because you just added it. So, please explain to me, how did your opinion just qualify as being RS? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move request: Russia during the war in Donbass[edit]
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.
Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) → Russian involvement in the war in Donbass – Some WP:POV concerns have been raised with the current title, and I think there's an argument to be made that it is overly specific in its scope as well. As editors like RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, and others have noted, Russia was a player in this conflict before it moved army trucks, troops, armor, and artillery over Ukraine's border late last month, and it is a player in this conflict whether it has 1,000, 10,000, or 0 soldiers in Donbass right now. This move would allow us to port over more information from the bloated War in Donbass, as well as 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (which right now covers some details of the conflict that have ended up there mostly because there's no better place to put them at the moment). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a title is even closer in meaning to "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine." The present entry is duplicative of that article, but it does serve an additional propaganda function for the anti-Novorossiyan side, represented by editors like RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, because it publicizes and presents as fact the obvious ALLEGATION that Russia has invaded Ukraine. That is what is behind this entry's existence and the fact it has not been merged/disappeared yet. This sort of abuse, of short-term advantage in the New Cold War, is destroying our encyclopedia's reputation.Haberstr (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, drop it with the accusations or you're gonna wind up at WP:AE. Volunteer Marek 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been deleted, and that is the reality of the situation. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument, and that's what your comment boils down to. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going down this line, the better title would be "Russian involvement in the war in Donbass" (like the section in the main article), which can discuss allegations, claims, facts, &c. However, if this is done, I don't know what we would do with all the stuff at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This debate wouldn't have been if the article was actually deleted and merged with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This is not an invasion. There are no Russian aircraft carrying out tactical airstrikes on Ukrainian military targets, no large-scale Russian naval deployments, absolutely nothing that could even remotely imply that Russia is carrying out an operation on a deep strategic level. Not even the media are talking about a "Russian invasion of Ukraine", and the current title is completely unacceptable. To avoid similarity with other articles, I would recommend renaming this to Rebel counteroffensive in Donbass or something similar. Any claims of Russian involvement can still be included. - ☣TourbillonA ? 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what this article is about, though. I'm not sure what it is about, but I do know that it isn't about the over-all counter-offensive in Donbass. It is about specific allegations of Russian involvement in areas like Novoazovsk. We already have a Battle of Novoazovsk article. I strongly oppose your proposed title, though I do agree with your concerns about the closure of the deletion/merger discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, the article is all claims and allegations of Russian involvement in rebel military operations. In other words, it has no substance, is a POVFORK, and will remain so unless it is rewritten or appropriately expanded. An article about the August counteroffensive itself (Donetsk, Luhansk, surrounding areas and Novoazovsk with a link to the battle page) would be much more appropriate, more informative and easier to maintain neutral. Russian involvement in these operations could fit quite well, especially with regards to specific allegations like Russian units attacking Ukrainian troops around Mariupol and Luhansk airport. The title is just an example, I'm merely proposing something along those lines. - ☣TourbillonA ? 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I'm not opposed to such an article. However, that article would not be this article, which is about something else all together, if anything at all. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of having redundant articles called 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) that have redundant names, but the second one only focuses on Donbass (like there wouldn't have been any similar event in Crimea), could we separate the events and rename as, for instance 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea and 2014 Russian military intervention in Donbass (or invasion, as it is found more appropriate according to Wikipedia rules and as other similar kind of events are described on Wikipedia)?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this idea. Leave 2014 Crimean crisis as the main Crimea article. Leave the military intervention article as a summary article of both interventions. If this article is going to say, move it to a "Russian involvement in the war in Donbass" spin-off of War in Donbass, which perhaps makes it a more acceptable article. Transfer most of the Donbass content from the military intervention article here. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Good point! But it might still be kept anyway, since earlier both 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and 2014 Crimean crisis coexisted, and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea could become a sub-article (an independent article, I don't think it would make sense) of the 2nd one. Either that or merge both military interventions, please!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Nevertheless, Russian involvement in the war in Donbass is a good idea. I'd agree with that!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've thought on the situation with care and, while I can see why this was a potentially useful proposal, I think that the proposal to merge this article with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine makes more sense, Kudzu1. That would allow us as close to a clean slate as we're going to be able to get in order that we can work out which spin off/child articles are developed. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The title is over-the-top. Srnec (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There has been an edit war about the inclusion of the information about the open letter to Angela Merkel on this page and at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that's why I thought it's probably best to get previously uninvolved users here who don't already have bad feelings as I see here given various reports to administrators and arbitration on Eastern Ukrainian issues. Please also see the above section Talk:Russian_Invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014)#Reliable sources (again). Galant Khan (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about you list the sources you want to include, and describe where in the article you think they should go and how they should be presented. Otherwise, it's kind of like one of those scammy banner ads that asks, "Do you want $100?" -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the difference in the history of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity where all sources are included. I agree that it's not really necessary to include all these sources but I think it's useful if the readers have the option to compare how it's presented by media from different countries. Also I had the impression that users here who are not familiar with German misunderstand German sources and draw wrong conclusions. Galant Khan (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you've just added information to another article using the same sources already identified as being unreliable and wish to duplicate the same WP:UNDUE content and somehow work it into this article. Incidentally, this is all a waste of energy as both this article and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine are about to go through some major overhauls as both are being used as tug-of-war WP:COATRACKs. The content you wish to introduce will probably be WP:DUE in one of their incarnations, or in one of the child articles (provided some decent sources are found, or that the information comes with WP:INTEXT attribution). Until it's decided how to clean up these articles, it's impossible to even know where it all fits in (in case you are unaware of the fact that there's an RM currently underway). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Süddeutsche Zeitung and Stern are not unreliable sources at all!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem, Mondolkiri1. The problem is that it would be WP:UNDUE to include it, meaning that the group that issued the statement's opinion isn't really relevant (WP:SOAP). We don't serve as soapbox for that organisation, and their opinion isn't particular WP:DUE in comparison to the opinions of states, the UN, or Human Rights Watch. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Sorry for the little delay. Well, in 2003 there was the IAEA and France disputing the validity of the American Intelligence proofs about the WMDs in Iraq. Well, taking into account that now also the Amnesty International has validated the Russian invasion (an organization to which I give more credit than to any government in the world), I guess this group is not so relevant. I remove! (Anyway, the paragraph was only stating the position of the group itself, it was not any affirmation about the facts).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is germane to the subject, with a reliable source. It should stay in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like undue weight to me. Was this event even mentioned in any RS? --Precision123 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my bad faith, but is there some WP:COI going on here? Volunteer Marek 01:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a 'tad', VM. Please note that the same contributor has started an RfC on the use of the identical content on VIPS article. Seriously, this nothing short of attempting to game the system. How many ways can you hedge your bets? No attempts were made to engage in WP:BRD by the editors wanting to introduce the content. Instead, it was handled via edit warring. No discussion existed until I created the section above. Finally, as there was no quick fix to introduce the content via discussion, an RfC is introduced. If this isn't WP:TE in practice, I'm a monkey's aunt. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles affected by the same question, that's why I put both up at request for comments. Would not know of a better solution. Regarding the above question if it was mentioned in a reliable source, Süddeutsche Zeitung together with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is considered the best newspaper in Germany, Stern (magazine) is one of the most notable weeklies. It was also mentioned in taz[7]. The Nation is "the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States", according to our own article. Any more questions? Galant Khan (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the low profile nature of the organisation and the context in which you're proposing to introduce the content to the article, it's still WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Galant Khan: I had added again, since the sources are very reliable, but on this discussion I agreed that it is WP:UNDUE, so I removed it myself. Check what WP:UNDUE is and read the rest of the discussion here! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use the Open Letter It seems to me that dissent from the American Government by former intelligence officials is fairly important. The pro-Russian side should be taken into account within an international response. In fact, this open letter to Angela Merkel is perhaps the most interesting part of the article. Surely a minority opinion should be taken in to account. Dissent within the American message is pretty important. Wikipedia strives to be unbiased, and not including this open letter in the article is a severe omission. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Former officials are not part of the American government. It would not be appropriate to list their remarks alongside those of sitting government officials, any more than it would be appropriate to mention the perspectives of Joe Scarborough or Jay Carney (both "former officials" themselves). -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point since the International Response Section is about official government responses. Perhaps there should be a section about the controversy over whether Russian troops are really in Ukraine. That seems like a key part of the war anyway. Then the open letter could be used. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily object to it being included in the "Status of Russian soldiers" section, if presented in an NPOV way and with due weight. This group isn't exactly a household name in the States, so it shouldn't be presented as if it is some sort of alternative to CNN or, god forbid, the CIA. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. It would simply be an interesting point within the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a low profile organisation, even if you would like it to be like that. One of them was Time magazine's person of the year 2002, they come from nearly all US intelligence agencies, and their letter has been reported about in many highly reliable sources and in many countries. I find arguments like "amnesty says there are Russians, so that other group needs to be removed" highly disturbing. They did not say there are no Russian forces, especially not after August 31 because that's when they published their letter. They wrote intelligence should not be misused and cast doubt on satellite photos published bu NATO, which is remarkable in the context, especially given that in 2003 they were correct in their warnings about politicised intelligence about WMD in Iraq that was in the end shown to be forged. Galant Khan (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sry Galant Khan - this has been going for some time now and we have to assume that you are well aware that the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" article you mentioned earlier, does criticise the "Intelligence Professionals" and their methods much more than it does criticise NATO evidence. It´s just a minor group with mediocre influence at best. Alexpl (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense, the article clearly says they cannot be disregarded since there are experienced intelligence people in the group like Ray McGovern who informed George Bush senior in the White House and Coleen Rowley who was Time magazine's person of the year 2002 for her whistleblowing about intelligence failures before 9/11. There are also whistleblowers William Binney and Ann Wright. All notable enough to have wikipedia articles. Has been reported widely in the media, even though this letter not so much in US/UK media given that it was a letter to a German politician. Galant Khan (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to the people beeing somewhat relevant, the article refers to what they say beeing not so relevant. Maybe I should translate the last part: "The experts, having not been in active service for years, havent looked around in ukraine themselfs. Hints pointing to russian army personel having been deployed there and injured or killed russian soldiers (like the ones moscow-correspondent Julian Hans is listing in this article) are beeing ignored by them. The admission of the separatists, several thousand russian soldiers would fight in Ukraine during their freetime is equally ignored like the fact, that regular russian paratroopers had been captured there. Additionally their claim, that the separatists enjoy "great support by the local population", contradicts the findings of western media."[8]
In other words: forget it. Alexpl (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally deleted, and other editors have deleted, this phrase or something similar from the lede several times now. It seems to be just one or maybe two editors insisting on having this wording (along with a slew of WP:OVERCITE refs, which curiously all seem to be either op-ed pieces being referenced as if they were news articles, which they are not, or WP:PRIMARY statements of foreign governments at loggerheads with the Kremlin) presented prominently in the article -- in the first sentence, no less.
I am aware some editors were in favor of fashioning this article into something called a "Russo-Ukrainian War". As I observed at the time, in the move discussion that was closed with no consensus in favor of that title, this term appears to be WP:OR, and claims of a war between Russia and Ukraine seem to be so much POV-pushing and soapboxing (in the case of WP:SOAP, relying on opinion pieces to make an argument that there is a "Russo-Ukrainian War" and what so far appear to be fairly limited clashes between Russian soldiers illegally operating on Ukrainian soil and a pretty ragtag group of Ukrainian Army defenders constitutes "a war between the two countries"). Russia and Ukraine are not at war, no matter how much this conflict may seem like a war between them, until they announce they are at war. (Considering the pathological dishonesty of the Kremlin and its mouthpieces concerning Ukraine, I would settle for a clearly articulated statement, reported by verifiable and reliable sources, from the president of Ukraine to that effect.) It is neither the prerogative nor the purpose of Wikipedia to declare war on behalf of Ukraine.
I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the language and inappropriate references repeatedly through edit summaries and hopefully should have gotten across by now to Lvivske and anyone else trying to force these edits through that there is no consensus for this language in the article. But I figured I would post this lengthy screed on the Talk page just to make sure it is clear. I welcome arguments to the contrary, although I would prefer not to be accused of being a pro-Kremlin shill, please. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"(...) are not at war (...) until they announce they are at war." That is a diplomatic statement and somewhat out of place here. War, as a descriptive title for an article in the WP, is usually an armed conflict of a certain dimenson, not a diplomatic status. I share your wish to prevent a further RL escalation of the "ukrainian domestic conflict", but thats not the job of an encyclopedia. Alexpl (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.PNG)