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

The result was no consensus. The question raised here is whether Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) (with incorrect uppercase I) should remain as a split article separate from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and War in Donbass, or whether it should be omitted (redirected, merged or deleted) as a content fork. In assessing consensus, I'm discounting all arguments that are only votes without an argument, or that do not address the abovementioned question. This includes arguments for keeping or deleting the article because of the belief that Russian troops are, or are not, in fact involved in the current fighting (that question can be addressed, if need be, by renaming the article). The remaining arguments center on whether this article should be retained to cover only the most recent phase of the conflict allegedly distinguished by direct Russian involvement, or whether that phase should be covered as part of existing articles. There are valid arguments for either approach, and there is no clear solution resulting from the application of policies and guidelines, and no numerical consensus (although there is a slight majority of editors who would prefer omitting a separate article). In finding an absence of consensus, therefore, I recommend that editors focus on clearly delineating the scope of the various articles dedicated to the conflict and on cleaning them up (merging or splitting as necessary) after the conflict concludes.  Sandstein  19:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014)

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

This is a PoV fork of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and War in Donbass (currently fully protected) that was created without consensus and for unjustified reasons. I tried to move it to the draft space, but editors protested. I tried to nominate it for speedy deletion under criteria A10, but that was contested. Apparently this is a "new topic", they say, but that's not true at all. The articles cover the same scope, only that article hasn't been updated. Instead of updating that article, a POV fork was created, and this is highly inappropriate. Please speedily delete this article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - if the content is about the Russian-Ukrainian war, as a theater in of itself from the donbas war (w/ separatists) and intervention (incl. crimea) and all that preceded the mainland invasion, I think a split is justified, especially if the language now calls it a war. I dont agree with the current title, as you eluded to, invasion and intervention make the scope too similar. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No one calls it Russo-Ukrainian War, and even if they did, they'd be referring to the Donbass War. In other words, you'd be in the running for renaming that article, not creating a new article on the same war. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No one calls it Russo-Ukrainian War - true, which is why the title of the article is NOT "Russo-Ukrainian War" but "Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014". But since you bring it up, no one calls it "Donbass War". I have not heard that one anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"War in Donbass" was decided as a WP:NDESC title through consensus. "Russo-Ukrainian War" is a title that is neither neutral, nor non-judgemental, nor decided through consensus. I was referring to the initial title of this article, regardless. "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)" is just another way to say 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Change the name of that article and update it, don't make a new article that deals with the same subject matter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"War in Donbass" is a made up name, ultimately. Many call it "Russian-Ukrainian War", and there is nothing non neutral about "Russo-Ukrainian War" at all. Non judgemental? Consensus? What are you even talking about? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
It is a "made-up name". That's the point of WP:NDESC, which I wish you'd read. RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm going to quote you from the Donbas War talk page for a second: " The correct [name] would be Russo-Ukrainian War." -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I said that as opposed to "Russia-Ukraine War", which is improper with regard to standard war-naming conventions. I did not say that the article should be renamed or that forks should be created. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Well then...point taken -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
RGloucester, Thank you for your ongoing efforts to maintain proper objectivity on Wikipedia, but I have to respectfully disagree.
The name "War in Donbass" was agreed to at a time when reasonable minds could differ as to whether Russia was invading Ukraine or just allowing Russian nationals to join separatist Ukrainian forces in fighting against the Ukrainian government. At that time, it would have been non-nuetral and judgmental to describe the conflict as the "Russian Invasion of Ukraine." But times have changed and the fig leaf is gone. When columns of Russian armor are operating in Ukraine as part of the Russian chain of command and those Russian forces in Ukraine are engaged in combat with the forces of the recognized government of Ukraine, what you have is an invasion. It would be judgmental to call it a "wrongful" or "illegal invasion," even though certain agreements have certainly been violated, but it is clearly an invasion now. As circumstances change, the agreement regarding what to call the conflict - and how many articles should cover its different parts and phases - should properly be reconsidered. I personally believe that all events from the invasion (from military bases already there) and seizure of Crimea to the present invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russian forces now should properly be discussed as part of the "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine." Failing to call something what it clearly is, simply because Putin refuses to openly admit what he is doing, is non-neutral by suggesting the existence of ambiguity where there is none.
However, I acknowledge your expertise in this area and look forward to learning from your response.-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - switching to Neutral, see explanation below - it is neither a fork nor POV. What is the POV that is being pushed? The article, both in title and scope is based exclusively on highly reliable sources. Saying that an article "was created without consensus" is weird. Pretty much all Wikipedia articles are created without consensus. There's no central governing committee that approves article for creation. The other article, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, mostly covers events in Crimea. This article covers the participation of Russian troops in the Ukrainian conflict that occured in the last weeks of August, with an obvious emphasis on recent events. Like I said, reliable sources are writing about an "Invasion". I should note also that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was recently nominated for AfD as well (and it was kept) and RGloucester voted to delete that article. So this is suppose to be a fork of an article that the nom wants deleted anyway? Doesn't make sense. And there's no Wikipedia guidelines here which would support deletion. Volunteer Marek ( talk)
If that article was deleted, I would support the creation of this article. It wasn't. As it was kept, we have to use the article we have, rather than creating new ones to avoid the mess that is at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. If that article was renamed 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea, then this new article could deal with the intervention in Donbass. However, consensus (which I disagreed with) was consistently against limiting the scope of that article to Crimea, both at the recent AfD and in previous RMs. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've really thought a lot about this. And all those nonsense "Delete, I don't like it" votes are not helping their side either. But anyway, I do understand the argument that this is FORK. Not necessarily agree with that argument (hence, only Neutral), but understand it. I do strongly disagree with the notion that it is a POV fork. It is not. It's based on reliable sources and there isn't much room for argument on that front, except perhaps as to the appropriate name. I do think that the scope of this article is somewhat different than the "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" one. This was particularly true a few days ago but since then that article has improved a bit and it is now less - though still somewhat - true.

I should emphasize that I still very strongly oppose deletion of this article. If not kept, it should be preserved for its article history and the valuable material that is in it. So if it is not kept, I only favor a merger.  Volunteer Marek  23:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

VM, the problem fundamentally lies with the fact of a massive number of articles (many of which are really WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) having cropped up as a result of recent events in Ukraine. Now that we have some hindsight, I think it's time to regroup and mull over the existing articles: what is salient content and what is not. This would entail some serious work, but the clusters of information need to be pulled together. Only from a greater overview can it be determined where forks and splits are appropriate. It seems to me that, at the moment, we're working backwards from how to maintain articles as they stand in order to salvage them when we should be tossing the lot into a single heap and reconstructing logically. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with disaproval. I think that this is (a) a very bad article, (b) prematurely created, and (c) reflects the presence of a POV on the part of the contributors. However, I think it must be assumed that it has been created in good faith. PoV fork deletion is something that should only occur in extreme circumstances, and I see no evidence at this point that the article is being monopolised by a PoV agenda -- deletions of factual information, for instance, or edit warring, or refusal to seek consensus. There are many possible remedies to the current state of the article, and deletion should only be considered when these remedies have been denied or exhausted. I think it is a factually correct assertion to say that an invasion is a special case of intervention, and if an invasion occurs such that it generates significant historical detail -- is more than a paragraph in an article on military intervention -- then it is appropriate that the intervention article should link to an invasion article. 0x69494411 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven ( talk • contribs)
If that's the case, then the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article should be renamed "2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]". At present, the Crimean events are not painted as an invasion, implying they are different from the present events. Your approach would imply that, which doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree, the invasion began with Crimea and can't be considered separate, unless this topic is solely "invasion of mainland ukraine" but then will we need a new article for every oblast invaded? i say no that's dumb -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Which is why the easiest thing to do is rename 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, expand it with the material from this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
i looked at that article and its entirely about crimea -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Lvivske: Did you not see the huge EASTERN UKRAINE section? RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree with the concept of merging this article and the Crimean one into a single article regarding the "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine," but how can you justify separating the intervening phase of "War in Donbass" from the other parts of the invasion? The so-called war in Donbass has always been an international conflict with Russian soldiers "on leave" and weapons (on loan?) crossing the border, the supposed separatist forces being until very recently led by Russian (non-Ukrainian) nationals, and cross-border artillery, missile and anti-aircraft fire. One can debate about the percentage of the pro-Russian forces who came from Ukraine, but this has always been fought on the pro-Russian side by a mixture of Russian soldiers, Russian proxies and presumably some Ukrainians acting independently of Russia. Russia has been involved from the beginning as part of its ongoing efforts that have included the invasions of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In that context, I think the "War in Donbass" proxy conflict is fairly viewed as being just one phase of the Russian invasion. It's off-topic, but who wants to bet whether the ultimate Russian insistence is that any peace leaves Russia in control of Crimea and a land corridor leading to it, with no insistence on keeping most of the rest of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions?-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete and merge to War in Donbass and/or 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Obvious POV fork to get around full protection of War in Donbass and opposition from certain editors to defining Russian actions in eastern Ukraine as an invasion. I don't think this was done in bad faith, but it isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as frustrated as we all sometimes get with red tape and tendentious editors. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Striking my !vote for now. Let's see how the reconfiguration of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine shakes out. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It was quite nice of Putin to invade Ukraine just so that some editors could get around full protection of War in Donbass. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, he's very thoughtful that way, isn't he? Although it appears full protection was done yesterday, after Russian trucks and armor began rolling into Donbass...still not sure full protection was justified, but that's a different discussion. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I've already requested that the protection be removed at the protector's talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's absurd. The only reason most of the content is about Crimea is because, up-until-now, there wasn't any definitive proof of Russian intervention in Donbass. Now there is. Please read the deletion discussion for that article here, where consensus established that that article should be expanded to deal with Donbass, and that it wasn't just about Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The issue here is that there should be an article about the donbas conflict, that would take it off scope into a broad article. This should be the broad russia v. ukraine article, not about separatism. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
There is. It's called War in Donbass. I completely agree the article lends far too much credence to the Kremlin's disingenuous claims not to be involved with the separatists it obviously sponsors, but that's no justification for a POV fork. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 18:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The War in Donbass up to now was between mostly internal rebels, with mostly logistic support by Russia. The current invasion is a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. While of course related, they are arguably separate events. Thue ( talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly ( to me and NATO at least) the war is entering a new phase, with overt participation by Russia, and the new phase seems distinct enough that it makes sense for it to have its own article. Thue ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Already exists! This article already EXISTS. Please see 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Please see the recent AFD there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Which almost exclusively talks about the Crimea invasion, which was a completely seperate military operation. It makes perfect sense to have an article for each separate military operation. Thue ( talk) 19:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's absurd. The only reason most of the content is about Crimea is because, up-until-now, there wasn't any definitive proof of Russian intervention in Donbass. Now there is. Please read the recent deletion discussion for that article here, where consensus established that that article should be expanded to deal with Donbass, and that it wasn't just about Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The argument here is that the current Russian invasion is a separate military action, and therefore deserving of its own article. Thue ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete-there is no proof or evidence of any Russian invasion and Wikipedia shouldn't be used for propaganda purposes.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
You're taking the wrong angle here. Please don't shoot this discussion in the foot. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This is utter madness. Absurdity incarnate. I must count forks. I MUST. AHHHH! Will there every be any organisation in this confounded encyclopaedia? Any common sense? RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • IMO perfectly valid arguments have been presented as to why this newest invasion is a separate military operation, though you seem to conflate it with the quite different invasion of Crimea. It makes perfect sense to have an article for a seperate military operation, perfectly organized. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article is misnamed given its contents (being about Crimea), and should be merged with 2014 Crimean crisis. Thue ( talk) 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
You're driving me mad. MAD! I wanted to rename that article, and I wanted to merge it. Read the discussion. However, consensus was AGAINST IT! AGAINST IT! I fought for ages to do what you just said. Now I accept the consensus for what it was. That consensus said that that article was SEPARATE form 2014 Crimean crisis and that it dealt with DONBASS and not just CRIMEA. THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED! PLEASE follow the CONSENSUS established merely a week or so ago. This article is thus a FORK. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I honestly understand your frustration. But just because one thing went wrong we shouldn't make another thing go wrong. Sometimes we have to go with the second best. The first best in this situation would be to cut a bunch of stuff (which I've began doing) from the "Intervention" article, merge what is relevant to Crimea to the Crimea article and then combine the parts left over in the "Intervention" article with this present article. And then we can argue about whether the name should be "Intervention" or "Invasion" or "Russo-Ukrainian War". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's a reasonable proposal, but implementing it would be difficult. It also wouldn't gain consensus, as far as I can see, given the recent deletion review and deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Without reading all discussion from weeks ago, the current Russian invasion have only occured in the last few days. For you to say that the current invasion doesn't deserve its own article as a new development because of obviously obsolete consensus from a few weeks ago is then quite deranged, I agree. Thue ( talk) 20:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This is a POV fork of events that are already covered. - Hoplon ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Where exactly are they covered? There *might* be some other article where they *might* be covered or perhaps *should* be covered, but there is no other articles where these events actually *are* covered. And what's the POV? It's all reliably sourced. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is almost exclusively about the invasion of Crimea. The invasion of Crimea and the current invasion in Eastern Ukraine, while still being part of the larger conflict, and two completely separate military operations in the larger conflict. Merging them would make no more sense than to merge articles of random unrelated battles in WW2. Thue ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
It is not about Crimea. IT IS NOT ABOUT CRIMEA. This was drummed into my head ten-thousand times. Drummed. Please stop spewing falsities. Do you see "Crimea" in the title? No? That's because it is about "Ukraine", not Crimea. There were move attempts to move it to "in Crimea", but these were opposed. There was a recent deletion discussion to merge it, but consensus said that it was not about Crimea. It was about Ukraine. If you can't read, it is not my fault. I will not stand for this nonsense. I will fight it until the bitter end. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
RGloucester, I'm completely on your side here -- but chill out, man. Getting worked up and using ALL CAPS isn't helping anything and it just makes you (and by extension the other !merge voters) look unreasonable. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
As I have said to you many times now, the current Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) is about a specific notable subpart of the Russian invasion, deserving its own article. Which did not exist when those discussions happened. Bringing up consensus from before these event happened is still absurd, since whatever consensus was reached is self-evidently to non-mad people no applicable. Thue ( talk) 20:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm just tired of playing games, that's all. I've been playing them here for months, and I have no interest in playing them further. It is almost as if any effort to work on these articles is pointless, because the result is just a tragedy of organisation. A disaster. I was one of the most vehement supporters of merging the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article (from its inception), and previously I was in favour of a title change to "in Crimea". These were vehemently opposed, repeatedly. So I accepted the establishment of that article with a scope of "Ukraine" on the whole, as consensus dictated. I gave up on the deletion review. Now, of course, we're back to square one. Apparently the article is "only about Crimea" now, despite my being told repeatedly that it was not "just about Crimea", and despite that being part of the closure of the deletion discussion. Now we have forks all over the place, a mess that makes no sense. And there is no way to resolve it. I'm tired of this disaster. I've been trying to keep forks under control, but it is quite clear that the battle is lost and pointless. As far as you are concerned, Thue, you are acting dense. It isn't absurd at all. "Military intervention" and "invasion" mean the same thing. Crimea was invaded too. The title of that article is "in Ukraine". In fact, the deletion discussion closure specifically said that the scope of the article should expand with "current events". Please at least read it before spewing utter tosh. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
You are playing games right now, ignoring arguments left and right to fit into your narrative of a victim. Thue ( talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm not going to play your baiting game, so feel free walk away from this "discussion". RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Deletion discussions are not a vote. You need to provide a policy based argument. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Ok, how about this - Its part of the already existing article War in Donbass, thus making it a fork article, and a POV one at that. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Two problems with that. First, this content is not in that article. This article is specifically about the Russian participation in the war, while the other article is mostly about separatists fighting government forces. There's of course some topical overlap, but that just means these are related. Not the same. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Your opinion. EkoGraf ( talk) 09:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, you know, the problem with your response is that it can be used as a riposte to anything but it never means anything. The earth is round. Your opinion. 2+2=4. That's, like, just our opinion, man. Man has walked on the moon. That's only an opinion dude. There are whales in the ocean. But that's just an opinion. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. In your opinion! Jimbo Wales is an actual person. In my opinion he is a figment of our collective imagination and my opinion is just as valid as your opinion. At least one thing is true. An opinion, everything could be false, which means that the claim that everything is false is... anyway, it's just your opinion.  Volunteer Marek  06:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it is an obvious POV fork with an OR title. Any valid content that is there should be in War in Donbass. Articles should be written after the events they purport to detail have actually happened, and after neutral sources have written about those events. A general comment: I've intentionally avoided looking at the Ukraine-related articles until now, but they are much worse than I could have imagined. Has nothing been learned after the Syrian civil war where openly unapologetic pov editing skewed articles into being blatant propaganda pieces? Surely something can be done to stop Wikipedia being continually hijacked in this way. Or must all Wikipedia articles about current events be intrinsically untrustworthy and unreadable? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
How can it be "an OR title" when it's taken directly from reliable sources. And again, what's POV about? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The first 23 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article, the rest (setting aside that many are low-grade) have been cherry-picked to produce content for an article that has no reason to exist. If some day the fantasy of thousands of Russian tanks thundering across the Ukraine comes true - maybe then an article with this title can be justified. But not now. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
So your problem apparently is that the article doesn't harmonize with the Russian claims? The same Russia that claimed it did not invade Crimea, until they were disstributing medals to its soldiers for the invasion of Crimea? Russia has demonstrated again and again that it will lie obviously and shamelessly, but that should not stop Wikipedia from making an article about this event based on independent sources, no more than Bagdad Bob stops us from having an article on the invasion of Iraq. Thue ( talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The first 23 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article - ga.. ga... what????!!??? Are you sure you're at the right discussion? Or is this meant to be humorous?
the rest (setting aside that many are low-grade) have been cherry-picked to produce content for an article that has no reason to exist. - Well, there are 42 references in the article. Subtracting the 23 you insanely claim have "nothing to do with the subject" gives 19. So that's nineteen sources which were "cherry picked". Probably from something called "international newspapers" and "reliable sources". How in the monkey's hair can one "cherry pick" 19 different sources, all of them reliable and all of them saying more or less the same thing? Make sense please.
Oh yeah, and the false assertion that these are "low-grade" sources is more bunkum. These are all high quality sources (though yeah, ref info needs to be filled in). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Volunteer Marek has substantially changed 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine in the past hours, removing large swathes of information, including the section about Eastern Ukraine. Regardless of my own opinion about whether that information is ultimately worth keeping, I feel that this removal is inappropriate during this ongoing discussion, and misleading. That article did cover the events outside Crimea until it was removed today. RGloucester — ☎ 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
If only the rest of it could be merged into 2014 Crimean crisis and that overstuffed monstrosity converted into an umbrella page covering Russian actions and interference in post-Maidan Ukraine. Alas. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I would support exactly that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I've mostly removed "Timelines" which are replicated in other articles. And some other essentially off-topic stuff. I don't think I've removed much about events outside of Crimea - aside from stuff about Transnitria (!), some "commentary" and other off topic stuff. I didn't remove much about events outside of Crimea simply because there *wasn't* much in the article about events outside of Crimea (aside from the Timeline) - those who make that argument have a point. I support Kudzu1's proposal above. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Mr Marek, weeks ago at the deletion discussion you said that that article covered "a different aspect of the conflict than Crimean crisis". The so-called "timeline" was very large. I wanted to merge it ages ago, but consensus was against it, and so were you. Please don't be disingenuous here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
There's a difference between the scope of the title and the scope of the actual text. The title itself clearly covers aspects of the conflict other than Crimea. Unfortunately, the text, didn't. Trying to fix that now. Also, a weeks ago, there was no outright invasion yet. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
If you are going to fix it, I will help, and I agree with your current edits to that page. However, I maintain my position that these two articles cannot exist parallel. We need to choose one or the other. The easiest thing to do is move the content here to there, and then deal with a potential name change. I say that because that article has a long edit history, and because the existing article should be favoured. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The thing is, the present article (invasion) will be much easier to work with and make into a good article than the other one (intervention). For the time being, until both article do *actually* cover the same thing I think it's best to have both. If I see that either one is good enough for the topic at hand, I will happily agree with you. As it stands right now, the "intervention" article is still mostly about Crimea (though it shouldn't be), the War in Donbass article is mostly about pro-Russian separatists vs pro-government forces, and this article is primarily about Russian troops entering and invading Ukraine. I don't know, we have an article for German invasion of Belgium even though there's also obviously an article for World War I. I want to see the actual work/article first. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, because perhaps the above comment was a bit ramblin' - if you want to start mergin' then start mergin' (though not deletin') and if it works, great. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
(I should also add that I think it makes more sense to merge stuff *from* the "intervention" article to this new one, rather than vice versa). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
See, the burden of labour isn't on me. It is on those who create a content fork. That's unacceptable in every respect. One way or another, this needs to be resolved. I don't care how. But one of these articles needs to disappear so that we don't have a forking situation. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Opinion withdrawn: Keep as a new article covering the phase of the conflict in eastern Ukraine in which Russian armed forces have openly invaded Ukraine in large organized columns, rather than the earlier provision of individual Russian soldiers "on leave," weapons, and only small groups of Russian soldiers acting as part of the regular Russian chain of command. Alternatively, rename the War in Donbass article to reflect the current nature of the conflict by calling it "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" and merging it with the article covering the earlier phase of the invasion in which Russia seized and annexed Crimea.-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The peanut gallery has arrived, it seems. RGloucester — ☎ 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
RGloucester, I'm sorry, while I really appreciate your efforts at bringing consistency and rationality to these articles and was actually considering altering or deleting that post, I don't see how your comment is remotely productive. Am I, ignorant lurker that I so obviously am, mistaken about the purpose of this discussion? I thought it was for users to express their views on whether the article should be deleted. What did I get wrong and how does your rudeness help me do better next time?-- Dperrella ( talk) 23:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Did I misunderstand "All input is welcome" did you forget that "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive" or both? Please don't take out your frustration on us little people. -- Dperrella ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC) (aka the "peanut gallery" - I wish I could get that as a user name) reply
Oh, I mean no offence at all. This place tends to harden one's heart and make one rude, that's all! RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
All input is welcome but some input is more welcome than others. Input by people who make accounts just to vote in AfDs is never going to be particularly welcome. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I certainly don't expect my input to be as welcome as RGloucester's. I have seen and respect his work in rationally resolving various conflicts in many Wikipedia articles. However, my account, while very lightly used, is not brand-new and it was not created to participate in AfD debates, so I probably don't deserve the special "welcome" reserved for people who create accounts solely for that purpose. Yours from the peanut gallery, Dperrella ( talk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Returning to the original point, RGloucester is basically right that my post was not a good one. I had not fully read all the earlier discussion and my post was intended as essentially a "vote" but was not a fully informed vote. Essentially, I agree with you about combining articles, but I initially wanted to keep this new one because of my frustration with the names of the current Russian Intervention and War in Donbass articles. I think the "Intervention" name has always had and the "War in Donbass" name has now developed the appearance of an effort to avoid being judgmental by compromising between reality and those who deny it. The military seizure of Crimea was an invasion by any definition of the term that I'm aware of and current events in eastern Ukraine also pretty clearly constitute an invasion and shed a lot of light on the prior denials that the conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions has always been a Russian-controlled and instigated military venture. I would support an umbrella article covering all events from the invasion of Crimea to the invasion of eastern Ukraine under a title similar to "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" with links to articles covering the Crimean invasion and annexation, the pro-Russian campaign by irregular forces, and the current invasion by organized columns from the regular Russian army. I could also support an umbrella article under a title like "Crisis in Ukraine 2013-" that covered the Maidan protests and subsequent events. The name "War in Donbass" sticks in my craw because it suggests an internal/civil war, which has never been true and gives recognition to Donbass as an entity distinct from the two Ukrainian regions that make it up. However, I admit that I lack the knowledge of the region to know to what extent those two regions have historically been joined more closely than to other Ukrainian regions. If there is a strong historical basis for referring to these two regions as Donbass, that part of my difficulty with the name is misguided. However, I would still think that a title such as "Russian Intervention in and Invasion of Donbass" would be at least as neutral as "War in Donbass." This has always been a cross-border war. As I am not qualified to merge any of these articles, let alone take on the Herculean task of combining and reorganizing several of them, I don't feel qualified to have a strong opinion which is better, so I will withdraw my "vote." Should I delete my original comment and everything after it now? With affection from the Peanut Gallery Dperrella ( talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"War in Donbass" does not imply a civil war. In fact, it was chosen to avoid calling the conflict either a proxy war or a civil war, as these were POV assertions. It merely says "war" in a certain region, namely Donbass. This is neutral, and a statement of fact. There is "war" in the "Donbass" region. Donbass as a region is a quite traditional designation, and many Ukrainian institutions carry the name "Donbass", such as the Donbas National Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture and the Donbass Arena. Regardless, I too would like to see an umbrella article, as do you, but I don't think this should be accomplished through forking. Cleaning-up and expanding 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine seems like the best option, with a potential rename in the works after that work is done. I think a "2013–2014 crisis article" would essentially be WP:OR, however. RGloucester — ☎ 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree with almost everything you say and appreciate the time you have taken to respond. I think you are on the right track about what needs to be done with these articles. But I can't completely agree about the connotation of "War in Donbass" title. It certainly doesn't define the war as a civil war, but it does state that the war is "in" Donbass, which suggests - at least to me - that it is contained there. When the United States invaded Afghanistan, everyone rightly called it a U.S. invasion. Much of the early fighting was done by Northern Alliance and other Afghan fighters with assistance from U.S. air power and small numbers of special forces, but it was still referred to as the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, not the "War in Afghanistan (that some U.S. soldiers may have had something to do with)." I'm not saying that the name "War in Donbass" is totally unacceptable in reference to the insurgent/proxy phase of the conflict in Donbass, but it is inapplicable to the current phase and, I personally believe that subsequent events make clear that the proxy/insurgent phase was just a step in the Russian invasion that started in Crimea and has now reached an open phase in eastern Ukraine. I personally think that the entire pro-Russian and Russian-directed campaign against government forces in eastern Ukraine would more accurately be referred to as part of the "Invasion," but I can see that it is possible that some reasonable minds might disagree in good faith. Given the current evidence of Russian involvement, I would think that an appropriate title for the article discussing the proxy/insurgent phase of the conflict would be "Russian-Supported Insurgency in Eastern Ukraine" (or Donbass). It is objectively accurate and more informative than "War in Donbass" which tells you nothing about who was fighting there and, as mentioned, I still thing that the "War in" title contains some connotation that the war was contained within the borders of that region, which it wasn't. I meant everything I've said about respecting the work you do and I'm confident that with your help a reasonable consensus will be reached. The Peanut Gallery 00:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperrella ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and convert to a redirect page to the same, for all of the reasons outlined. But keep as a redirect page, rather than delete, in case Russia later moves to fully invade (with the intent to conquer the entire country) down the road at which point a fuller (separate) article with this title would be needed. -- IJBall ( talk) 05:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as it is the most logical target article for this title and the content here is clearly relevant there even if the intervention is only alleged at this point.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as both notable WP:GNG and well-sourced, it would be premature to delete this article at this time. Events are obviously unfolding rapidly, and the article will evolve in the coming days/weeks. While it may be appropriate to merge the military intervention article and the invasion article at some future time, it seems premature to do that at this time as well, simply because the fairly light involvement of Russian troops in the unrest in easter Ukraine since about March 2014, and the movement of a column of tanks into Ukraine (this article: "invasion") seem to be quite different phases of the military operation by Russia. N2e ( talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Er, was the invasion of Crimea "light"? They didn't give out the medal for nothing. Once again, I want to make clear the "military intervention" and "invasion" are synonyms. One of them is a euphemism, namely "military intervention". That means these articles have the exact same scope, meaning that this is fork. Regardless of whether this is a "new phase", the present title of the article doesn't indicate that. It just indicates "invasion in Ukraine in 2014 in general", which necessarily duplicates 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's a new stage of war when "pro-Russian insurgents" clearly were substituted by Russian regular army forces. NickSt ( talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's doesn't change the fact that we already have a long-standing article on this matter with a title that means exactly the same thing: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That article about March-April 2014 events must be renamed to 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea. NickSt ( talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
As one can see, these two mean EXACTLY the same thing. One is merely a euphemism, namely "military intervention". These two "articles" have exactly the same scope: "Russian military forces entering Ukraine in 2014". RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm not so sure. An "invasion" is a type of "military intervention". But so are, say, airstrikes, which are not an "invasion". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although they may be synonyms according to some definitions, an "intervention" to a layperson sounds like 1) there are few to no deaths during the intervention, which I guess could be true in the Crimean context, and, more importantly, 2) that the "intervening" country was intervening for a purpose other than holding on to that land. Technically, if you believe Russia, I guess one could argue that Russia intervened in Crimea to allow the "referendum" to happen and then Crimea asked to join Russia. I disagree with that interpretation of what happened, but either way...that is clearly NOT what is happening here. For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that the articles "Russian intervention in Ukraine" and "Russian invasion of Ukraine" should be separate. If merged, the title should be "Russian invasion of Ukraine." When there is a hot war going on with Russian soldiers on the ground with the intent of taking land away from Ukraine and it being under de facto control of Russia (if not officially part of Russia, that is not an intervention. The War in Donbass refers to the separatism in Donbass, but the Invasion of Ukraine also includes related events outside of Donbass, such reports of Russia building up forces in Crimea on border of Kherson region, as well as near Chernigiv, Kharkiv, etc. This article, unlike any other articles before it, deals with the traditional territorial invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Anything else is like calling the invasion of Poland a military intervention. The article "Military intervention in Ukraine" talks about Russia intervention in the form of sending arms and "volunteers." When it started sending troops, it became an invasion, and thus the conflict entered a new phase, and deserves a separate article dealing with aspects relating to Russia's introduction of Russian troops into Ukraine. First time posting so go easy guys (and girls). Vysotsky2 ( talk) 18:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
If you have a problem with the title of that article, the correct approach is to request to rename it. To go around that article and create a fork that's title means the same thing with different connotations is against policy. Are you calling the invasion of Crimea less an invasion than this one? The fact remains that these words are synonyms, and have the exact same scope. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I am saying that there is some disagreement on whether the invasion of Crimea qualified as an "invasion" in the traditional sense of the word. However, based on the latest developments, Russia's actions are an invasion in every respect. As such, there must be a new article devoted to the traditional invasion of mainland Ukraine by Russia. Yes, I believe that what happened in Crimea was an invasion, but it doesn't matter what I think. I can understand people who call it a military invention because of the reasons mentioned above, namely that it was largely peaceful and there was a so-called referendum to join Russia. More importantly, this article deserves to be separate because these events are distinct. Russia annexes Crimea. Now, it is sending troops into areas that have been peaceful and void of armed separatist activity for months, which can only be labeled as an invasion. This article is different from any other article because it focuses on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It cannot be limited to Crimea, Donbass, or even Eastern Ukraine because there are related events in other Oblasts, including Russia's military build-up around other Oblasts. Because every article primarily paints this conflict as an internal conflict in Ukraine or as pertaining only to Crimea, when Russian troops entered mainland Ukraine, those articles were no longer could adequately portray the events that transpired in the last couple of weeks. One more thought: I think this conflict will be remember in separate instances, because in reality they were distinct: Russia invades/annexes/intervenes in Crimea, pro-Russian uprising in East Ukraine, War in Donbass, and, now, the Russian invasion of main Ukraine. You cannot possibly to hope to adequately portray these four distinct events in one Wikipedia article without giving undue weight to some events, which will invariably happen. This is a complex conflict and the fact that it is happening in a relatively short period of time should not force us to pigeonhole it into one article under one boilerplate name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but the scope of this article at present doesn't say anything about the fact that it is different from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. You can do Russian invasion of Donbass (August 2014), Russian invasion of Ukraine (August 2014) or something similar. Then you could change the other article around. Regardless, that's not what's happening here. Here we have parallel articles with the exact same scope. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Please stop trolling this page as you have others in the past. The invasion isn't up for debate, just the content fork/merge issue. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 22:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with RGloucester in some ways, we already have this article located in Russian military intervention in Ukraine, so technically it would be considered a WP:FORK. However, the recent developments have wide press coverage.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 03:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No one disagrees with the "amount of press coverage" or the importance of the events. I only disagree with the way this was established. War in Donbass was fully protected at the time, and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was in a sorry state that no one could condone. Therefore, to go around all that trouble, a fork was created here. That's the definition of PoV fork. One shouldn't go around discussions (merger/deletion/renaming) just to advance one's point-of-view, or to right the great wrong of the inability to update an article due to full protection. One should work within the existing articles, work with editors to solve problems. Now we have two articles with the exact same scope, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and this article, along with another that has severe overlap, War in Donbass. The basis for this "article" (which started at the title Russo-Ukrainian War) is flawed, in that tries to overwrite everything that happened previously and claim that "the Russo-Ukrainian war became a fact". Regardless of anything else, this is not a "new war" separate from the Donbass one. Whilst I do now agree with having a separate article for Russian intervention/invasion whatever, there should only be one. The existing article should be it, because many previous and even recent discussions determined that that article was meant to serve the same purpose as this one. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't understand how this article is the same scope as War in Donbass or Russian Intervention in Ukraine. There is relevant content that can be added here, that cannot be added anywhere else. For example, there are credible reports of Transinistria mobilizing and Russian troops on border of Chernigiv Oblast. Geographically, the scope of this article is and will be outside Donbass and Eastern Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's in the scope of the existing 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and so it can go there. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Can we please not take into account shill / sockpuppet trolling accounts like this ? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 22:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
This user has called "trolls" others on this page, purely for expressing a different opinion. Can we please ignore such people, at least on Wikipedia? They clearly have a propaganda agenda. Viktor5 ( talk) 09:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
...says another likely sockpuppet account with only two edits to this particular username. You know, if you're only gonna make two edits to Wikipedia with an account, it's pretty damn obvious that you're a sockpuppet if both of them happen to be to an AfD.  Volunteer Marek  06:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Here are just two pages I created back in 2006: [1] and [2] Care to take your words back,  Propagandist ? Viktor5 ( talk) 07:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge - When users insist on creating subpage after subpage for long drawn out current events, as the conflict in Ukraine certainly is, it simply creates confusion and inconvenience. Potential POV issues aside, the right answer to current events is to recognize that Wikipedia is not a news source, and does not to be creating articles on events exactly as they happen. In this case, an article of this sort may very well be needed in the future, but readers would be better served is this does not exist as a standalone until the situation can actually be more clearly evaluated.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 01:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That article already exists. It is called 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. See WP:SPLIT. This article is a mainly content-based split, not a fork. The readable prose of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is about 36 kb and War in Donbass about 118 kb. Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014) is about 5.3kb. So merging this article into 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine would in principle be doable without violating the WP:SPLIT rule of thumb for length. But official international government reactions ("responses") and mainstream media reports, cited in the article, widely report this as a qualitatively different phase of the conflict - a significant escalation, and literally an "invasion". This seems to me to justify a content-based split. The readable prose content has grown by about 2kb in the 2 days since the article was AfD'd. If RS'd NPOV material continues growing at 1kb/day, then that would make about 36 + 5 + 14 = 55 kb in a fortnight, in which case a split by length would also start to become preferable. There probably should be a discussion about the title, e.g. Russian invasion of mainland Ukraine (2014) might be better as a descriptive title, but that's a requested move, not a deletion procedure. Boud ( talk) 03:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Those "responses" could easily have their own sub-article (as it usually does in most cases), so that would never become a problem (and would be WP:CRYSTAL at this point anyway). This article is a PoV fork. It was created at the title Russo-Ukrainian War to go around consensus and avoid full protection at War in Donbass. We have an article ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine) that covers this topic already. It isn't, as you say, too long, and is longstanding. This title means exactly the same thing as that one, and is meant to cover the same topic. Once again, the only reason this article exists is to push a PoV, and avoid discussion/article protection processes. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I believe that in future the situation may change and this article may become useful. The discussed article should be reworked and either merged with already existing article, or made its subarticle. -- UA Victory ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All references in this article are to publications by NATO, the Kiev government, and other interested parties in the propaganda war. Moreover, in those referenced articles all the allegations are qualified by phrases like "allegedly", "it is believed", "NATO said", while the Wiki article presents them as facts. Viktor5 ( talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Brand new account with only two edits = sockpuppet. Even the reason given is not policy based.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I showed above that I was on Wikipedia since 2006. The reasons I stated may or may not be policy based, however you interprete the policy, but giving references to only one-sided view of the conflict, tampering citations by removing qualifying expressions, and calling your opponents names is nothing but propaganda, and very primitive at that. Viktor5 ( talk) 07:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Aside from NATO commentary, not a neutral party concerning Russia, the are no sources that state this as fact. As such, this is propaganda and not historical fact. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Even if any of this was true, which it is not, "POV" is not a reason for deletion. Notability is. Comment does not address Wikipedia guidelines.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
My comments clearly address wiki policy. If an historical article is not based on fact, and has no reliable sources, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 15:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually no. Deletion is not about POV or reliable sources but about notability. Anyway, the article is brimming with reliable sources, so you're just making stuff up, hoping nobody will notice. So even that, irrelevant, objection is false.  Volunteer Marek  17:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
No one is contesting "notability". What is contested is whether this a fork. As we already have an article on this subject matter, this is a fork. Pure and simple. Worse, it is a fork that was created to avoid full protection at War in Donbass, and to avoid having to go through RM processes at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This flies in the face of all Wikipedia norms. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think this article started as a content fork, but there's some merit in devoting an article to cover the specific Russian military actions themselves, as long as the article is not framed as an alternative take on War in Donbass (of which it is now a subarticle). As updated and improved, I see no reason to delete this article, especially considering the article size issues with War in Donbass and, to a lesser extent, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 03:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is misguided and wrong, and still doesn't address the fact that we have two articles with titles that mean the exact same thing. There are no length issues with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which is only at 5.3kb. There is plenty of space for the minuscule content here at that article, and that is where it belongs. It is a fork, and nothing more. There is nothing improved or updated about this fork. RGloucester — ☎ 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As RGloucester notes, "the only reason this article exists is to push a PoV". Also, the idea that Russia has invaded Ukraine is an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedea readers. See How can you tell whether Russia has invaded Ukraine? Ukraine is in a civil war, and NATO is on Kiev's side. To quote Ism schism, "Aside from NATO commentary, not a neutral party concerning Russia, the are no sources that state this as fact." Having an article about an event which only NATO claims exists (even Kiev seems to have stopped claiming that there is a Russian invasion, if for no other reason than it being invaded would make it ineligible for IMF loans) is to turn Wikipedia into a outlet for NATO propaganda. – Herzen ( talk) 05:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Again, what you need to do here is to provide a policy based reason for deletion, not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a link to some crazy ass blog. "POV" is actually NOT a reason for deletion, even if it was relevant. It's a reason for improving an article. And my understanding is that even RGloucester has backed off from the claim that the article is a POV fork, just that it could potentially duplicate the coverage of the "Intervention" article.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete According to the OSCE there is no evidence of a Russian invasion. [3]-- Dag13 ( talk) 07:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You do realise that the OSCE are only allowed to monitor two official border crossings and are not permitted by the Russians to monitor the remainder of the 75km border under rebel control? -- Nug ( talk) 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
OSCE send teams to Mariupol and Novoazovsk where are reportedly russians soliders. [4]-- Dag13 ( talk) 17:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. This article seems to be about the recent invasion in south eastern Ukraine while the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine seems to be a broader article that encompasses the military intervention in Crimea as well. The latter article exceeds 100k in size, so this article is an acceptable content fork. -- Nug ( talk) 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is a blatant falsity. It is War in Donbass which exceeds 100k. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is barely at 5k. RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
??? My browser shows 119kB for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. -- Nug ( talk) 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Mine shows ~121kB. War in Donbass is ~336kB. WP:TOOBIG is fairly clear on this. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't know where you are getting the numbers for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. War in Donbass is not up for discussion here. I've already said that I'm happy to partake in splitting debates for that article. However, this is not a legitimate split. This is a PoV fork. There is no need for WP:HASTEy PoV forking. The guideline is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Kudzu1 and Nug, I've already tried to address this issue above. The point is that there is more than one article in need of restructuring. Trying to salvage the same articles and content as they stand is working backwards. Deconstructing the content then working out what is redundant (bloat) and where forks and splits are logical is the only workable approach. Allowing the self-same content to be replicated because 'we can make it kind of different' is not a strategy but an excuse for child articles and more fork articles to be created so that, dependent on which page a reader lands on, they'll be taken on a POV ride. The only way to handle it is to stop, regroup and tackle information from individual main entries, not a series of replica articles with each interest group getting to tell the story per their WP:COATRACK. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge with the appropiate article or articles. The dust hasn't settled yet, between Russia & Ukraine & so it's best we avoid forking. GoodDay ( talk) 12:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  • PS: I've no objection to this article title & wouldn't oppose its usage in a 'merged' article. GoodDay ( talk) 13:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Not a valid reason for deletion.  Volunteer Marek  15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but that's not what the problem is here. The problem is that we already have an article on that subject ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine), and that this particular page was forked only to get around protection at War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
With the organizational problems 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine -- which both you and I !voted in favor of deleting just a few weeks ago -- has historically struggled with, it seems wise to (as I suggested above, as you agreed with at the time) use that article as an umbrella to cover both Russian intervention in Crimea and Donbass. Crimea already has a focus page, 2014 Crimean crisis. This article, as overhauled (quite drastically changed from when you initially nominated for deletion, and much improved, IMO) is the Donbass counterpart to 2014 Crimean crisis. It is no longer a POV fork, which I agree was the original intent of the article. It is a proper subarticle to prevent the level of detail (and, often, subsequent edit-warring) from getting incredibly out of hand on War in Donbass and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, as they have in the past. It covers a specific phase and operation of War in Donbass and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
No. We don't need anymore articles. This remain a POV fork. Our "focus page" is War in Donbass. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (only 5kb now) handles instances of Russian intervention in that conflict. Organisational problems do not warrant forking. Forking must stop. It is destroying this encyclopaedia. We now have five articles that cover the same subject-matter: War in Donbass, Timeline of the War in Donbass, Battle of Novoazovsk, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). This is absolutely absurd. It is essentially a theatre of different people with different ideas creating and editing different articles about the same thing. This must stop. RGloucester — ☎ 19:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The war article is massive and overstuffed with details that really need to be broken out per WP:SPINOFF, including the invasion. The timeline article is a timeline article, which is not suitable for laying out an overview of the campaign, reactions, effects, etc. The battle article is about a specific battle that is only part of the Russian operation in eastern Ukraine. The intervention article predates the Donbass invasion and covers the Crimean events as well, which were a separate operation. The invasion article is appropriate to have per WP:SPINOFF, considering the War in Donbass article is very large and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article has multiple focuses. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
We do need to work on spinning-off content, doubt. But we already have the appropriate spin-off article for these events: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that all of these articles contain different takes on the same exact events. You will be able to read the same events at different articles. This is an absurd situation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The intervention page also covers Crimea. It also doesn't contain much information about the specific Russian invasion, but includes a lot of background information that is itself duplicated on War in Donbass. In short, it's a bit of a hash. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
That's not an excuse for creating yet-another screwed-up article. Improve the existing one, don't make a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
What's wrong with the following? Russian military intervention in Ukraine is an overarching article that contains information on the 2014 Crimean crisis, the War in Donbass, Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russian invasion started in August 2014, as described in the article, when Russian forces entered Ukraine and engaged the Ukrainian military. Prior to that, Russia was arming and supporting separatism in the War of Donbass, which according to many was still an internal conflict between separatists and Ukrainian army, even if Russia was seriously involved. When the separatists started losing, Russia decided to invade. All articles have a different scope. 50.153.131.7 ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Sorry, forgot to sign. Vysotsky2 ( talk) 22:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
First, I appreciate your feedback and I honestly believe that people like you make Wikipedia a better place, although I disagree with you on this particular issue. With that being said, I was wondering what you about the following addition that I took the liberty to add (hopefully without violating any rules). The Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2014 article's scope is limited to after the introduction of Russian troops in Ukraine. Prior to that, the armed conflict in Donbass was limited to Russia's indirect military involvement, and hence not considered an invasion per se and was limited to geographically to Donbass. The Crimean annexation has its own article, 2014 Crimean crisis. The overarching article about Russian military intervention in post-Euromaidan Ukraine, we have the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The problem with merging War in Donbass with Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2014 is the events were of inherently different character. For example, if U.S. invaded Cuba after the failed Bay of Pigs, we would not merge Bay of Pigs and American Invasion of Cuba into one article because they were distinct events. As such, all of the above events are distinct as well and have different scopes as outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect There is nothing in this article that couldn't be in War in Donbass-- 71.110.129.100 ( talk) 17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pure POVFORK. Catlemur ( talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK, No concrete evidence yet that Russia invaded Ukraine, might want to wait for a declaration of war or something, because it is not in WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and merge/subsitute into Russo-Ukrainian War. Sending armed militia as an occupying force (supported by regular army units) into an other country is as much an act of war or an invasion as only sending in regular army units into an other country. Russia is the only country in the world that denies their involvment and the cover-up policy used by Russia for hiding their direct participation, is called a clear lie by nearly all country's in the world. Proof of Russia's direct involvment is mountaining and stated by most non-Russian press. Wikipedia as an encyclopadia should not participate in a cover-up of a war.-- Niele ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Please don't be dense. None of this has anything to do with this discussion, and there is no article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War". In fact, that was the original title of the article that is up for discussion here. The problem is that we already have an article on this very situation that you are so keen on, called 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Therefore, this article is merely a duplication of that article. This is called content forking, and is not something that our guidelines smiles upon. We don't want to "cover-up" anything, merely not have thousands of duplicate article on the same subject. RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I appreciate your patience and persistence in this matter. On a side note, I'd say the extraordinary claims require multiple reliable sources rule applies here. I follow what the Western press is writing about the war, and you don't see the BBC or NY Times mentioning an invasion, even as something that may or may not have happened. So it's eerie that Wikipedia has an article on his subject, whereas the top reliable sources don't even mention it. – Herzen ( talk) 02:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
you don't see the BBC or NY Times mentioning an invasion, even as something that may or may not have happened. - uh... you're either not really following the press, or you're talking about some other "BBC" or "NY Times": [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. That's just some of BBC. Here's NYT: [10], [11], [12], and basically at that point I'm just bored and tired of refuting blatant misinformation.  Volunteer Marek  05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Only one of the BBC articles seems to treat an invasion as confirmed, with two of the articles not even being about invasion claims. Instead they are about fairly weak claims of tanks being sent from Russia.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep on spinnin'  Volunteer Marek  06:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge If the article is about the brief invasion of Russian tanks, then it is too narrow and doesn't deserve an article. If it is about Russian activities generally,(secret agents and arming of rebels etc.), then it belongs in the War on Donbass 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article. Kingsindian ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as POV fork. No confirmation from OSCE observers of any Russian armored units crossing the border. Such allegations can be discussed in other (existing) relevant articles. - Helvetica ( talk) 04:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
It doesn't matter whether OSCE confirmed it or not (btw, are there any OSCE independent observers in Ukraine that aren't held as hostages by the separatists?), what matters is whether reliable source say there has been an invasion or not (whether armored or not, also doesn't matter). And they do.  Volunteer Marek  04:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Except, Mr Marek, that doesn't matter at all. What matters is that we already have an article that covers these notable concerns, and that this article is an exercise in subversion. RGloucester — ☎ 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@V.M. - Your snark aside, the fact remains that OSCE, which has monitors on the ground - on both sides of the Russia/Ukraine border - has said that they can't confirm allegations of a Russian invasion. See for example here in the Kiev Post (certainly not a pro-Russian source): http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/osce-secretary-general-says-it-is-difficult-to-confirm-presence-of-regular-russian-forces-on-ukrainian-territory-362885.html
You say that "reliable source say there has been an invasion," but they don't. They say that Kiev, NATO have *alleged* that there's been a Russian "invasion," or "incursion," or whatever term they use.
By having a Wikipedia article with the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine," Wikipedia asserts these disputed allegations as fact. This violates NPOV policy. And indeed, this seems the sole purpose of this article. Hence it's a POV-fork. - Helvetica ( talk) 06:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all arguments above,also there is confirmed news that 1,000 Russian troops have crossed the Border,the conflict has entered a new phase. Alhanuty ( talk) 05:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The "invasion" article will be warranted when Russia really invades Ukraine: about 30000 troops would probably qualify as an invasion, whereas several hundred troops are a military intervention. -- Ghirla -трёп- 14:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
We already have an article on that stuff ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine). This is just a duplicate with more spin. That's the essence of a PoV fork. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge as per WP:POVFORK. There really isn't much to explain that hasn't already been said.-- Franz Brod ( talk) 15:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Suggestion Change this article to "2014 Russian intervention in/invasion of Donbass" & change "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" to "2014 Russian intervention in/invasion of Crimea". Alternatively, merge w/"War in Donbass" or " 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine". Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 23:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Except, as has been established numerous times, that article isn't about Crimea. In fact, more content at that article is about Donbass than Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to an appropriately titled article. Everyking ( talk) 02:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge As a reader, I would find it easier if this article was merged as a subsection under the "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" article, because of the closely related nature of events. I almost missed it as its own separate article, and the past week of developments aren't covered well in "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine"; had I missed this article I wouldn't have been informed on the topic. I don't see any reason why it's not merged... Some comments mentioned size, but the 1k words of content in this article can't significantly affect another article's size. Also, all these articles read like news feeds, which is understandable given the developing nature of events, but this suggests to me there is a lot of room to cut bloat. If articles are too big, I suggest adapting the reference style; a large part of these articles is references. For example, War in Donbass has 18k words of content supported by 15k words of references, while this article has 1k words of content supported by 1.7k words of references. 76.104.163.204 ( talk) 10:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- 37.191.201.149 ( talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'm going to develop a bit further my opinion expressed earlier. 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. Its name, along with the 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". Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 23:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am not sure I stated my formal position yet. The article has a different scope than the others, both geographically and substantively. It obviously doesn't belong in the Crimean Crisis article because, although related, most people consider them to be different events and many people disagree on whether the annexation of Crimea was an invasion per se. It doesn't belong in the War in Donbass article, because the War in Donbass was limited to Donbass, and most people consider that conflict to be primarily between the separatists/rebels/Russian volunteers and Ukraine. This conflict directly affects the territories outside Donbass, and there is every reason to believe that that will continue to be so. There are reports, for example, of Kharkiv preparing for a siege. Perhaps the biggest question is whether this article has the same scope as Russian military intervention in Ukraine. But, it is important to keep in mind that this conflict is, as far as I know, unlike any other because of the distinct phases it is being fought in. The annexation of Crimea, the War in Donbass, and now the formal Russian invasion of Ukraine are really different events, despite happening in a relatively short span of time. As such, there needs to be a unifying article that can links all of these articles in a coherent way. That article is Russian military invention in Ukraine because it is broadly worded enough to encompass the annexation of Crimea, the War in Donbass, and the formal Russian invasion of Ukraine by virtue of Russian regular troops being in Ukraine. I see no other way to organize these articles. Vysotsky2 ( talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Firstly, you already voiced your "keep" once before. Secondly, I cannot comprehend your remarks here. There has been nothing outside of the Donbass at this point in time, so that's a bunch of WP:CRYSTAL BOLLOCKS. Regardless, that's not the issue here, as those who seek a merger have designated 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as the target, which could theoretically include non-Donbass events if they were to occur. That's inappropriate to discuss, as it is WP:CRYSTAL, but it makes plain that whatever concerns you have are not warranted. RGloucester — ☎ 04:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Er, that doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014)&oldid=1151017851"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The question raised here is whether Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) (with incorrect uppercase I) should remain as a split article separate from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and War in Donbass, or whether it should be omitted (redirected, merged or deleted) as a content fork. In assessing consensus, I'm discounting all arguments that are only votes without an argument, or that do not address the abovementioned question. This includes arguments for keeping or deleting the article because of the belief that Russian troops are, or are not, in fact involved in the current fighting (that question can be addressed, if need be, by renaming the article). The remaining arguments center on whether this article should be retained to cover only the most recent phase of the conflict allegedly distinguished by direct Russian involvement, or whether that phase should be covered as part of existing articles. There are valid arguments for either approach, and there is no clear solution resulting from the application of policies and guidelines, and no numerical consensus (although there is a slight majority of editors who would prefer omitting a separate article). In finding an absence of consensus, therefore, I recommend that editors focus on clearly delineating the scope of the various articles dedicated to the conflict and on cleaning them up (merging or splitting as necessary) after the conflict concludes.  Sandstein  19:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014)

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

This is a PoV fork of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and War in Donbass (currently fully protected) that was created without consensus and for unjustified reasons. I tried to move it to the draft space, but editors protested. I tried to nominate it for speedy deletion under criteria A10, but that was contested. Apparently this is a "new topic", they say, but that's not true at all. The articles cover the same scope, only that article hasn't been updated. Instead of updating that article, a POV fork was created, and this is highly inappropriate. Please speedily delete this article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - if the content is about the Russian-Ukrainian war, as a theater in of itself from the donbas war (w/ separatists) and intervention (incl. crimea) and all that preceded the mainland invasion, I think a split is justified, especially if the language now calls it a war. I dont agree with the current title, as you eluded to, invasion and intervention make the scope too similar. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No one calls it Russo-Ukrainian War, and even if they did, they'd be referring to the Donbass War. In other words, you'd be in the running for renaming that article, not creating a new article on the same war. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No one calls it Russo-Ukrainian War - true, which is why the title of the article is NOT "Russo-Ukrainian War" but "Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014". But since you bring it up, no one calls it "Donbass War". I have not heard that one anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"War in Donbass" was decided as a WP:NDESC title through consensus. "Russo-Ukrainian War" is a title that is neither neutral, nor non-judgemental, nor decided through consensus. I was referring to the initial title of this article, regardless. "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)" is just another way to say 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Change the name of that article and update it, don't make a new article that deals with the same subject matter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"War in Donbass" is a made up name, ultimately. Many call it "Russian-Ukrainian War", and there is nothing non neutral about "Russo-Ukrainian War" at all. Non judgemental? Consensus? What are you even talking about? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
It is a "made-up name". That's the point of WP:NDESC, which I wish you'd read. RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm going to quote you from the Donbas War talk page for a second: " The correct [name] would be Russo-Ukrainian War." -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I said that as opposed to "Russia-Ukraine War", which is improper with regard to standard war-naming conventions. I did not say that the article should be renamed or that forks should be created. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Well then...point taken -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
RGloucester, Thank you for your ongoing efforts to maintain proper objectivity on Wikipedia, but I have to respectfully disagree.
The name "War in Donbass" was agreed to at a time when reasonable minds could differ as to whether Russia was invading Ukraine or just allowing Russian nationals to join separatist Ukrainian forces in fighting against the Ukrainian government. At that time, it would have been non-nuetral and judgmental to describe the conflict as the "Russian Invasion of Ukraine." But times have changed and the fig leaf is gone. When columns of Russian armor are operating in Ukraine as part of the Russian chain of command and those Russian forces in Ukraine are engaged in combat with the forces of the recognized government of Ukraine, what you have is an invasion. It would be judgmental to call it a "wrongful" or "illegal invasion," even though certain agreements have certainly been violated, but it is clearly an invasion now. As circumstances change, the agreement regarding what to call the conflict - and how many articles should cover its different parts and phases - should properly be reconsidered. I personally believe that all events from the invasion (from military bases already there) and seizure of Crimea to the present invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russian forces now should properly be discussed as part of the "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine." Failing to call something what it clearly is, simply because Putin refuses to openly admit what he is doing, is non-neutral by suggesting the existence of ambiguity where there is none.
However, I acknowledge your expertise in this area and look forward to learning from your response.-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - switching to Neutral, see explanation below - it is neither a fork nor POV. What is the POV that is being pushed? The article, both in title and scope is based exclusively on highly reliable sources. Saying that an article "was created without consensus" is weird. Pretty much all Wikipedia articles are created without consensus. There's no central governing committee that approves article for creation. The other article, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, mostly covers events in Crimea. This article covers the participation of Russian troops in the Ukrainian conflict that occured in the last weeks of August, with an obvious emphasis on recent events. Like I said, reliable sources are writing about an "Invasion". I should note also that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was recently nominated for AfD as well (and it was kept) and RGloucester voted to delete that article. So this is suppose to be a fork of an article that the nom wants deleted anyway? Doesn't make sense. And there's no Wikipedia guidelines here which would support deletion. Volunteer Marek ( talk)
If that article was deleted, I would support the creation of this article. It wasn't. As it was kept, we have to use the article we have, rather than creating new ones to avoid the mess that is at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. If that article was renamed 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea, then this new article could deal with the intervention in Donbass. However, consensus (which I disagreed with) was consistently against limiting the scope of that article to Crimea, both at the recent AfD and in previous RMs. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've really thought a lot about this. And all those nonsense "Delete, I don't like it" votes are not helping their side either. But anyway, I do understand the argument that this is FORK. Not necessarily agree with that argument (hence, only Neutral), but understand it. I do strongly disagree with the notion that it is a POV fork. It is not. It's based on reliable sources and there isn't much room for argument on that front, except perhaps as to the appropriate name. I do think that the scope of this article is somewhat different than the "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" one. This was particularly true a few days ago but since then that article has improved a bit and it is now less - though still somewhat - true.

I should emphasize that I still very strongly oppose deletion of this article. If not kept, it should be preserved for its article history and the valuable material that is in it. So if it is not kept, I only favor a merger.  Volunteer Marek  23:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

VM, the problem fundamentally lies with the fact of a massive number of articles (many of which are really WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) having cropped up as a result of recent events in Ukraine. Now that we have some hindsight, I think it's time to regroup and mull over the existing articles: what is salient content and what is not. This would entail some serious work, but the clusters of information need to be pulled together. Only from a greater overview can it be determined where forks and splits are appropriate. It seems to me that, at the moment, we're working backwards from how to maintain articles as they stand in order to salvage them when we should be tossing the lot into a single heap and reconstructing logically. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with disaproval. I think that this is (a) a very bad article, (b) prematurely created, and (c) reflects the presence of a POV on the part of the contributors. However, I think it must be assumed that it has been created in good faith. PoV fork deletion is something that should only occur in extreme circumstances, and I see no evidence at this point that the article is being monopolised by a PoV agenda -- deletions of factual information, for instance, or edit warring, or refusal to seek consensus. There are many possible remedies to the current state of the article, and deletion should only be considered when these remedies have been denied or exhausted. I think it is a factually correct assertion to say that an invasion is a special case of intervention, and if an invasion occurs such that it generates significant historical detail -- is more than a paragraph in an article on military intervention -- then it is appropriate that the intervention article should link to an invasion article. 0x69494411 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven ( talk • contribs)
If that's the case, then the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article should be renamed "2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]". At present, the Crimean events are not painted as an invasion, implying they are different from the present events. Your approach would imply that, which doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree, the invasion began with Crimea and can't be considered separate, unless this topic is solely "invasion of mainland ukraine" but then will we need a new article for every oblast invaded? i say no that's dumb -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Which is why the easiest thing to do is rename 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, expand it with the material from this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
i looked at that article and its entirely about crimea -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Lvivske: Did you not see the huge EASTERN UKRAINE section? RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree with the concept of merging this article and the Crimean one into a single article regarding the "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine," but how can you justify separating the intervening phase of "War in Donbass" from the other parts of the invasion? The so-called war in Donbass has always been an international conflict with Russian soldiers "on leave" and weapons (on loan?) crossing the border, the supposed separatist forces being until very recently led by Russian (non-Ukrainian) nationals, and cross-border artillery, missile and anti-aircraft fire. One can debate about the percentage of the pro-Russian forces who came from Ukraine, but this has always been fought on the pro-Russian side by a mixture of Russian soldiers, Russian proxies and presumably some Ukrainians acting independently of Russia. Russia has been involved from the beginning as part of its ongoing efforts that have included the invasions of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In that context, I think the "War in Donbass" proxy conflict is fairly viewed as being just one phase of the Russian invasion. It's off-topic, but who wants to bet whether the ultimate Russian insistence is that any peace leaves Russia in control of Crimea and a land corridor leading to it, with no insistence on keeping most of the rest of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions?-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete and merge to War in Donbass and/or 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Obvious POV fork to get around full protection of War in Donbass and opposition from certain editors to defining Russian actions in eastern Ukraine as an invasion. I don't think this was done in bad faith, but it isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as frustrated as we all sometimes get with red tape and tendentious editors. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Striking my !vote for now. Let's see how the reconfiguration of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine shakes out. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It was quite nice of Putin to invade Ukraine just so that some editors could get around full protection of War in Donbass. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, he's very thoughtful that way, isn't he? Although it appears full protection was done yesterday, after Russian trucks and armor began rolling into Donbass...still not sure full protection was justified, but that's a different discussion. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I've already requested that the protection be removed at the protector's talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's absurd. The only reason most of the content is about Crimea is because, up-until-now, there wasn't any definitive proof of Russian intervention in Donbass. Now there is. Please read the deletion discussion for that article here, where consensus established that that article should be expanded to deal with Donbass, and that it wasn't just about Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The issue here is that there should be an article about the donbas conflict, that would take it off scope into a broad article. This should be the broad russia v. ukraine article, not about separatism. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
There is. It's called War in Donbass. I completely agree the article lends far too much credence to the Kremlin's disingenuous claims not to be involved with the separatists it obviously sponsors, but that's no justification for a POV fork. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 18:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The War in Donbass up to now was between mostly internal rebels, with mostly logistic support by Russia. The current invasion is a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. While of course related, they are arguably separate events. Thue ( talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly ( to me and NATO at least) the war is entering a new phase, with overt participation by Russia, and the new phase seems distinct enough that it makes sense for it to have its own article. Thue ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Already exists! This article already EXISTS. Please see 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Please see the recent AFD there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Which almost exclusively talks about the Crimea invasion, which was a completely seperate military operation. It makes perfect sense to have an article for each separate military operation. Thue ( talk) 19:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's absurd. The only reason most of the content is about Crimea is because, up-until-now, there wasn't any definitive proof of Russian intervention in Donbass. Now there is. Please read the recent deletion discussion for that article here, where consensus established that that article should be expanded to deal with Donbass, and that it wasn't just about Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The argument here is that the current Russian invasion is a separate military action, and therefore deserving of its own article. Thue ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete-there is no proof or evidence of any Russian invasion and Wikipedia shouldn't be used for propaganda purposes.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
You're taking the wrong angle here. Please don't shoot this discussion in the foot. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This is utter madness. Absurdity incarnate. I must count forks. I MUST. AHHHH! Will there every be any organisation in this confounded encyclopaedia? Any common sense? RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • IMO perfectly valid arguments have been presented as to why this newest invasion is a separate military operation, though you seem to conflate it with the quite different invasion of Crimea. It makes perfect sense to have an article for a seperate military operation, perfectly organized. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article is misnamed given its contents (being about Crimea), and should be merged with 2014 Crimean crisis. Thue ( talk) 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
You're driving me mad. MAD! I wanted to rename that article, and I wanted to merge it. Read the discussion. However, consensus was AGAINST IT! AGAINST IT! I fought for ages to do what you just said. Now I accept the consensus for what it was. That consensus said that that article was SEPARATE form 2014 Crimean crisis and that it dealt with DONBASS and not just CRIMEA. THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED! PLEASE follow the CONSENSUS established merely a week or so ago. This article is thus a FORK. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I honestly understand your frustration. But just because one thing went wrong we shouldn't make another thing go wrong. Sometimes we have to go with the second best. The first best in this situation would be to cut a bunch of stuff (which I've began doing) from the "Intervention" article, merge what is relevant to Crimea to the Crimea article and then combine the parts left over in the "Intervention" article with this present article. And then we can argue about whether the name should be "Intervention" or "Invasion" or "Russo-Ukrainian War". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's a reasonable proposal, but implementing it would be difficult. It also wouldn't gain consensus, as far as I can see, given the recent deletion review and deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Without reading all discussion from weeks ago, the current Russian invasion have only occured in the last few days. For you to say that the current invasion doesn't deserve its own article as a new development because of obviously obsolete consensus from a few weeks ago is then quite deranged, I agree. Thue ( talk) 20:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This is a POV fork of events that are already covered. - Hoplon ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Where exactly are they covered? There *might* be some other article where they *might* be covered or perhaps *should* be covered, but there is no other articles where these events actually *are* covered. And what's the POV? It's all reliably sourced. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is almost exclusively about the invasion of Crimea. The invasion of Crimea and the current invasion in Eastern Ukraine, while still being part of the larger conflict, and two completely separate military operations in the larger conflict. Merging them would make no more sense than to merge articles of random unrelated battles in WW2. Thue ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
It is not about Crimea. IT IS NOT ABOUT CRIMEA. This was drummed into my head ten-thousand times. Drummed. Please stop spewing falsities. Do you see "Crimea" in the title? No? That's because it is about "Ukraine", not Crimea. There were move attempts to move it to "in Crimea", but these were opposed. There was a recent deletion discussion to merge it, but consensus said that it was not about Crimea. It was about Ukraine. If you can't read, it is not my fault. I will not stand for this nonsense. I will fight it until the bitter end. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
RGloucester, I'm completely on your side here -- but chill out, man. Getting worked up and using ALL CAPS isn't helping anything and it just makes you (and by extension the other !merge voters) look unreasonable. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
As I have said to you many times now, the current Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) is about a specific notable subpart of the Russian invasion, deserving its own article. Which did not exist when those discussions happened. Bringing up consensus from before these event happened is still absurd, since whatever consensus was reached is self-evidently to non-mad people no applicable. Thue ( talk) 20:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm just tired of playing games, that's all. I've been playing them here for months, and I have no interest in playing them further. It is almost as if any effort to work on these articles is pointless, because the result is just a tragedy of organisation. A disaster. I was one of the most vehement supporters of merging the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article (from its inception), and previously I was in favour of a title change to "in Crimea". These were vehemently opposed, repeatedly. So I accepted the establishment of that article with a scope of "Ukraine" on the whole, as consensus dictated. I gave up on the deletion review. Now, of course, we're back to square one. Apparently the article is "only about Crimea" now, despite my being told repeatedly that it was not "just about Crimea", and despite that being part of the closure of the deletion discussion. Now we have forks all over the place, a mess that makes no sense. And there is no way to resolve it. I'm tired of this disaster. I've been trying to keep forks under control, but it is quite clear that the battle is lost and pointless. As far as you are concerned, Thue, you are acting dense. It isn't absurd at all. "Military intervention" and "invasion" mean the same thing. Crimea was invaded too. The title of that article is "in Ukraine". In fact, the deletion discussion closure specifically said that the scope of the article should expand with "current events". Please at least read it before spewing utter tosh. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
You are playing games right now, ignoring arguments left and right to fit into your narrative of a victim. Thue ( talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm not going to play your baiting game, so feel free walk away from this "discussion". RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Deletion discussions are not a vote. You need to provide a policy based argument. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Ok, how about this - Its part of the already existing article War in Donbass, thus making it a fork article, and a POV one at that. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Two problems with that. First, this content is not in that article. This article is specifically about the Russian participation in the war, while the other article is mostly about separatists fighting government forces. There's of course some topical overlap, but that just means these are related. Not the same. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Your opinion. EkoGraf ( talk) 09:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, you know, the problem with your response is that it can be used as a riposte to anything but it never means anything. The earth is round. Your opinion. 2+2=4. That's, like, just our opinion, man. Man has walked on the moon. That's only an opinion dude. There are whales in the ocean. But that's just an opinion. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. In your opinion! Jimbo Wales is an actual person. In my opinion he is a figment of our collective imagination and my opinion is just as valid as your opinion. At least one thing is true. An opinion, everything could be false, which means that the claim that everything is false is... anyway, it's just your opinion.  Volunteer Marek  06:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it is an obvious POV fork with an OR title. Any valid content that is there should be in War in Donbass. Articles should be written after the events they purport to detail have actually happened, and after neutral sources have written about those events. A general comment: I've intentionally avoided looking at the Ukraine-related articles until now, but they are much worse than I could have imagined. Has nothing been learned after the Syrian civil war where openly unapologetic pov editing skewed articles into being blatant propaganda pieces? Surely something can be done to stop Wikipedia being continually hijacked in this way. Or must all Wikipedia articles about current events be intrinsically untrustworthy and unreadable? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
How can it be "an OR title" when it's taken directly from reliable sources. And again, what's POV about? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The first 23 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article, the rest (setting aside that many are low-grade) have been cherry-picked to produce content for an article that has no reason to exist. If some day the fantasy of thousands of Russian tanks thundering across the Ukraine comes true - maybe then an article with this title can be justified. But not now. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
So your problem apparently is that the article doesn't harmonize with the Russian claims? The same Russia that claimed it did not invade Crimea, until they were disstributing medals to its soldiers for the invasion of Crimea? Russia has demonstrated again and again that it will lie obviously and shamelessly, but that should not stop Wikipedia from making an article about this event based on independent sources, no more than Bagdad Bob stops us from having an article on the invasion of Iraq. Thue ( talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The first 23 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article - ga.. ga... what????!!??? Are you sure you're at the right discussion? Or is this meant to be humorous?
the rest (setting aside that many are low-grade) have been cherry-picked to produce content for an article that has no reason to exist. - Well, there are 42 references in the article. Subtracting the 23 you insanely claim have "nothing to do with the subject" gives 19. So that's nineteen sources which were "cherry picked". Probably from something called "international newspapers" and "reliable sources". How in the monkey's hair can one "cherry pick" 19 different sources, all of them reliable and all of them saying more or less the same thing? Make sense please.
Oh yeah, and the false assertion that these are "low-grade" sources is more bunkum. These are all high quality sources (though yeah, ref info needs to be filled in). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Volunteer Marek has substantially changed 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine in the past hours, removing large swathes of information, including the section about Eastern Ukraine. Regardless of my own opinion about whether that information is ultimately worth keeping, I feel that this removal is inappropriate during this ongoing discussion, and misleading. That article did cover the events outside Crimea until it was removed today. RGloucester — ☎ 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
If only the rest of it could be merged into 2014 Crimean crisis and that overstuffed monstrosity converted into an umbrella page covering Russian actions and interference in post-Maidan Ukraine. Alas. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I would support exactly that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I've mostly removed "Timelines" which are replicated in other articles. And some other essentially off-topic stuff. I don't think I've removed much about events outside of Crimea - aside from stuff about Transnitria (!), some "commentary" and other off topic stuff. I didn't remove much about events outside of Crimea simply because there *wasn't* much in the article about events outside of Crimea (aside from the Timeline) - those who make that argument have a point. I support Kudzu1's proposal above. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Mr Marek, weeks ago at the deletion discussion you said that that article covered "a different aspect of the conflict than Crimean crisis". The so-called "timeline" was very large. I wanted to merge it ages ago, but consensus was against it, and so were you. Please don't be disingenuous here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
There's a difference between the scope of the title and the scope of the actual text. The title itself clearly covers aspects of the conflict other than Crimea. Unfortunately, the text, didn't. Trying to fix that now. Also, a weeks ago, there was no outright invasion yet. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
If you are going to fix it, I will help, and I agree with your current edits to that page. However, I maintain my position that these two articles cannot exist parallel. We need to choose one or the other. The easiest thing to do is move the content here to there, and then deal with a potential name change. I say that because that article has a long edit history, and because the existing article should be favoured. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The thing is, the present article (invasion) will be much easier to work with and make into a good article than the other one (intervention). For the time being, until both article do *actually* cover the same thing I think it's best to have both. If I see that either one is good enough for the topic at hand, I will happily agree with you. As it stands right now, the "intervention" article is still mostly about Crimea (though it shouldn't be), the War in Donbass article is mostly about pro-Russian separatists vs pro-government forces, and this article is primarily about Russian troops entering and invading Ukraine. I don't know, we have an article for German invasion of Belgium even though there's also obviously an article for World War I. I want to see the actual work/article first. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, because perhaps the above comment was a bit ramblin' - if you want to start mergin' then start mergin' (though not deletin') and if it works, great. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
(I should also add that I think it makes more sense to merge stuff *from* the "intervention" article to this new one, rather than vice versa). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
See, the burden of labour isn't on me. It is on those who create a content fork. That's unacceptable in every respect. One way or another, this needs to be resolved. I don't care how. But one of these articles needs to disappear so that we don't have a forking situation. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Opinion withdrawn: Keep as a new article covering the phase of the conflict in eastern Ukraine in which Russian armed forces have openly invaded Ukraine in large organized columns, rather than the earlier provision of individual Russian soldiers "on leave," weapons, and only small groups of Russian soldiers acting as part of the regular Russian chain of command. Alternatively, rename the War in Donbass article to reflect the current nature of the conflict by calling it "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" and merging it with the article covering the earlier phase of the invasion in which Russia seized and annexed Crimea.-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The peanut gallery has arrived, it seems. RGloucester — ☎ 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
RGloucester, I'm sorry, while I really appreciate your efforts at bringing consistency and rationality to these articles and was actually considering altering or deleting that post, I don't see how your comment is remotely productive. Am I, ignorant lurker that I so obviously am, mistaken about the purpose of this discussion? I thought it was for users to express their views on whether the article should be deleted. What did I get wrong and how does your rudeness help me do better next time?-- Dperrella ( talk) 23:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Did I misunderstand "All input is welcome" did you forget that "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive" or both? Please don't take out your frustration on us little people. -- Dperrella ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC) (aka the "peanut gallery" - I wish I could get that as a user name) reply
Oh, I mean no offence at all. This place tends to harden one's heart and make one rude, that's all! RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
All input is welcome but some input is more welcome than others. Input by people who make accounts just to vote in AfDs is never going to be particularly welcome. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I certainly don't expect my input to be as welcome as RGloucester's. I have seen and respect his work in rationally resolving various conflicts in many Wikipedia articles. However, my account, while very lightly used, is not brand-new and it was not created to participate in AfD debates, so I probably don't deserve the special "welcome" reserved for people who create accounts solely for that purpose. Yours from the peanut gallery, Dperrella ( talk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Returning to the original point, RGloucester is basically right that my post was not a good one. I had not fully read all the earlier discussion and my post was intended as essentially a "vote" but was not a fully informed vote. Essentially, I agree with you about combining articles, but I initially wanted to keep this new one because of my frustration with the names of the current Russian Intervention and War in Donbass articles. I think the "Intervention" name has always had and the "War in Donbass" name has now developed the appearance of an effort to avoid being judgmental by compromising between reality and those who deny it. The military seizure of Crimea was an invasion by any definition of the term that I'm aware of and current events in eastern Ukraine also pretty clearly constitute an invasion and shed a lot of light on the prior denials that the conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions has always been a Russian-controlled and instigated military venture. I would support an umbrella article covering all events from the invasion of Crimea to the invasion of eastern Ukraine under a title similar to "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" with links to articles covering the Crimean invasion and annexation, the pro-Russian campaign by irregular forces, and the current invasion by organized columns from the regular Russian army. I could also support an umbrella article under a title like "Crisis in Ukraine 2013-" that covered the Maidan protests and subsequent events. The name "War in Donbass" sticks in my craw because it suggests an internal/civil war, which has never been true and gives recognition to Donbass as an entity distinct from the two Ukrainian regions that make it up. However, I admit that I lack the knowledge of the region to know to what extent those two regions have historically been joined more closely than to other Ukrainian regions. If there is a strong historical basis for referring to these two regions as Donbass, that part of my difficulty with the name is misguided. However, I would still think that a title such as "Russian Intervention in and Invasion of Donbass" would be at least as neutral as "War in Donbass." This has always been a cross-border war. As I am not qualified to merge any of these articles, let alone take on the Herculean task of combining and reorganizing several of them, I don't feel qualified to have a strong opinion which is better, so I will withdraw my "vote." Should I delete my original comment and everything after it now? With affection from the Peanut Gallery Dperrella ( talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"War in Donbass" does not imply a civil war. In fact, it was chosen to avoid calling the conflict either a proxy war or a civil war, as these were POV assertions. It merely says "war" in a certain region, namely Donbass. This is neutral, and a statement of fact. There is "war" in the "Donbass" region. Donbass as a region is a quite traditional designation, and many Ukrainian institutions carry the name "Donbass", such as the Donbas National Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture and the Donbass Arena. Regardless, I too would like to see an umbrella article, as do you, but I don't think this should be accomplished through forking. Cleaning-up and expanding 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine seems like the best option, with a potential rename in the works after that work is done. I think a "2013–2014 crisis article" would essentially be WP:OR, however. RGloucester — ☎ 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree with almost everything you say and appreciate the time you have taken to respond. I think you are on the right track about what needs to be done with these articles. But I can't completely agree about the connotation of "War in Donbass" title. It certainly doesn't define the war as a civil war, but it does state that the war is "in" Donbass, which suggests - at least to me - that it is contained there. When the United States invaded Afghanistan, everyone rightly called it a U.S. invasion. Much of the early fighting was done by Northern Alliance and other Afghan fighters with assistance from U.S. air power and small numbers of special forces, but it was still referred to as the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, not the "War in Afghanistan (that some U.S. soldiers may have had something to do with)." I'm not saying that the name "War in Donbass" is totally unacceptable in reference to the insurgent/proxy phase of the conflict in Donbass, but it is inapplicable to the current phase and, I personally believe that subsequent events make clear that the proxy/insurgent phase was just a step in the Russian invasion that started in Crimea and has now reached an open phase in eastern Ukraine. I personally think that the entire pro-Russian and Russian-directed campaign against government forces in eastern Ukraine would more accurately be referred to as part of the "Invasion," but I can see that it is possible that some reasonable minds might disagree in good faith. Given the current evidence of Russian involvement, I would think that an appropriate title for the article discussing the proxy/insurgent phase of the conflict would be "Russian-Supported Insurgency in Eastern Ukraine" (or Donbass). It is objectively accurate and more informative than "War in Donbass" which tells you nothing about who was fighting there and, as mentioned, I still thing that the "War in" title contains some connotation that the war was contained within the borders of that region, which it wasn't. I meant everything I've said about respecting the work you do and I'm confident that with your help a reasonable consensus will be reached. The Peanut Gallery 00:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperrella ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and convert to a redirect page to the same, for all of the reasons outlined. But keep as a redirect page, rather than delete, in case Russia later moves to fully invade (with the intent to conquer the entire country) down the road at which point a fuller (separate) article with this title would be needed. -- IJBall ( talk) 05:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as it is the most logical target article for this title and the content here is clearly relevant there even if the intervention is only alleged at this point.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as both notable WP:GNG and well-sourced, it would be premature to delete this article at this time. Events are obviously unfolding rapidly, and the article will evolve in the coming days/weeks. While it may be appropriate to merge the military intervention article and the invasion article at some future time, it seems premature to do that at this time as well, simply because the fairly light involvement of Russian troops in the unrest in easter Ukraine since about March 2014, and the movement of a column of tanks into Ukraine (this article: "invasion") seem to be quite different phases of the military operation by Russia. N2e ( talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Er, was the invasion of Crimea "light"? They didn't give out the medal for nothing. Once again, I want to make clear the "military intervention" and "invasion" are synonyms. One of them is a euphemism, namely "military intervention". That means these articles have the exact same scope, meaning that this is fork. Regardless of whether this is a "new phase", the present title of the article doesn't indicate that. It just indicates "invasion in Ukraine in 2014 in general", which necessarily duplicates 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's a new stage of war when "pro-Russian insurgents" clearly were substituted by Russian regular army forces. NickSt ( talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's doesn't change the fact that we already have a long-standing article on this matter with a title that means exactly the same thing: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That article about March-April 2014 events must be renamed to 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea. NickSt ( talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
As one can see, these two mean EXACTLY the same thing. One is merely a euphemism, namely "military intervention". These two "articles" have exactly the same scope: "Russian military forces entering Ukraine in 2014". RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm not so sure. An "invasion" is a type of "military intervention". But so are, say, airstrikes, which are not an "invasion". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although they may be synonyms according to some definitions, an "intervention" to a layperson sounds like 1) there are few to no deaths during the intervention, which I guess could be true in the Crimean context, and, more importantly, 2) that the "intervening" country was intervening for a purpose other than holding on to that land. Technically, if you believe Russia, I guess one could argue that Russia intervened in Crimea to allow the "referendum" to happen and then Crimea asked to join Russia. I disagree with that interpretation of what happened, but either way...that is clearly NOT what is happening here. For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that the articles "Russian intervention in Ukraine" and "Russian invasion of Ukraine" should be separate. If merged, the title should be "Russian invasion of Ukraine." When there is a hot war going on with Russian soldiers on the ground with the intent of taking land away from Ukraine and it being under de facto control of Russia (if not officially part of Russia, that is not an intervention. The War in Donbass refers to the separatism in Donbass, but the Invasion of Ukraine also includes related events outside of Donbass, such reports of Russia building up forces in Crimea on border of Kherson region, as well as near Chernigiv, Kharkiv, etc. This article, unlike any other articles before it, deals with the traditional territorial invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Anything else is like calling the invasion of Poland a military intervention. The article "Military intervention in Ukraine" talks about Russia intervention in the form of sending arms and "volunteers." When it started sending troops, it became an invasion, and thus the conflict entered a new phase, and deserves a separate article dealing with aspects relating to Russia's introduction of Russian troops into Ukraine. First time posting so go easy guys (and girls). Vysotsky2 ( talk) 18:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
If you have a problem with the title of that article, the correct approach is to request to rename it. To go around that article and create a fork that's title means the same thing with different connotations is against policy. Are you calling the invasion of Crimea less an invasion than this one? The fact remains that these words are synonyms, and have the exact same scope. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I am saying that there is some disagreement on whether the invasion of Crimea qualified as an "invasion" in the traditional sense of the word. However, based on the latest developments, Russia's actions are an invasion in every respect. As such, there must be a new article devoted to the traditional invasion of mainland Ukraine by Russia. Yes, I believe that what happened in Crimea was an invasion, but it doesn't matter what I think. I can understand people who call it a military invention because of the reasons mentioned above, namely that it was largely peaceful and there was a so-called referendum to join Russia. More importantly, this article deserves to be separate because these events are distinct. Russia annexes Crimea. Now, it is sending troops into areas that have been peaceful and void of armed separatist activity for months, which can only be labeled as an invasion. This article is different from any other article because it focuses on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It cannot be limited to Crimea, Donbass, or even Eastern Ukraine because there are related events in other Oblasts, including Russia's military build-up around other Oblasts. Because every article primarily paints this conflict as an internal conflict in Ukraine or as pertaining only to Crimea, when Russian troops entered mainland Ukraine, those articles were no longer could adequately portray the events that transpired in the last couple of weeks. One more thought: I think this conflict will be remember in separate instances, because in reality they were distinct: Russia invades/annexes/intervenes in Crimea, pro-Russian uprising in East Ukraine, War in Donbass, and, now, the Russian invasion of main Ukraine. You cannot possibly to hope to adequately portray these four distinct events in one Wikipedia article without giving undue weight to some events, which will invariably happen. This is a complex conflict and the fact that it is happening in a relatively short period of time should not force us to pigeonhole it into one article under one boilerplate name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but the scope of this article at present doesn't say anything about the fact that it is different from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. You can do Russian invasion of Donbass (August 2014), Russian invasion of Ukraine (August 2014) or something similar. Then you could change the other article around. Regardless, that's not what's happening here. Here we have parallel articles with the exact same scope. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Please stop trolling this page as you have others in the past. The invasion isn't up for debate, just the content fork/merge issue. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 22:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with RGloucester in some ways, we already have this article located in Russian military intervention in Ukraine, so technically it would be considered a WP:FORK. However, the recent developments have wide press coverage.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 03:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No one disagrees with the "amount of press coverage" or the importance of the events. I only disagree with the way this was established. War in Donbass was fully protected at the time, and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was in a sorry state that no one could condone. Therefore, to go around all that trouble, a fork was created here. That's the definition of PoV fork. One shouldn't go around discussions (merger/deletion/renaming) just to advance one's point-of-view, or to right the great wrong of the inability to update an article due to full protection. One should work within the existing articles, work with editors to solve problems. Now we have two articles with the exact same scope, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and this article, along with another that has severe overlap, War in Donbass. The basis for this "article" (which started at the title Russo-Ukrainian War) is flawed, in that tries to overwrite everything that happened previously and claim that "the Russo-Ukrainian war became a fact". Regardless of anything else, this is not a "new war" separate from the Donbass one. Whilst I do now agree with having a separate article for Russian intervention/invasion whatever, there should only be one. The existing article should be it, because many previous and even recent discussions determined that that article was meant to serve the same purpose as this one. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't understand how this article is the same scope as War in Donbass or Russian Intervention in Ukraine. There is relevant content that can be added here, that cannot be added anywhere else. For example, there are credible reports of Transinistria mobilizing and Russian troops on border of Chernigiv Oblast. Geographically, the scope of this article is and will be outside Donbass and Eastern Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That's in the scope of the existing 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and so it can go there. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Can we please not take into account shill / sockpuppet trolling accounts like this ? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 22:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
This user has called "trolls" others on this page, purely for expressing a different opinion. Can we please ignore such people, at least on Wikipedia? They clearly have a propaganda agenda. Viktor5 ( talk) 09:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
...says another likely sockpuppet account with only two edits to this particular username. You know, if you're only gonna make two edits to Wikipedia with an account, it's pretty damn obvious that you're a sockpuppet if both of them happen to be to an AfD.  Volunteer Marek  06:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Here are just two pages I created back in 2006: [1] and [2] Care to take your words back,  Propagandist ? Viktor5 ( talk) 07:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge - When users insist on creating subpage after subpage for long drawn out current events, as the conflict in Ukraine certainly is, it simply creates confusion and inconvenience. Potential POV issues aside, the right answer to current events is to recognize that Wikipedia is not a news source, and does not to be creating articles on events exactly as they happen. In this case, an article of this sort may very well be needed in the future, but readers would be better served is this does not exist as a standalone until the situation can actually be more clearly evaluated.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 01:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That article already exists. It is called 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. See WP:SPLIT. This article is a mainly content-based split, not a fork. The readable prose of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is about 36 kb and War in Donbass about 118 kb. Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014) is about 5.3kb. So merging this article into 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine would in principle be doable without violating the WP:SPLIT rule of thumb for length. But official international government reactions ("responses") and mainstream media reports, cited in the article, widely report this as a qualitatively different phase of the conflict - a significant escalation, and literally an "invasion". This seems to me to justify a content-based split. The readable prose content has grown by about 2kb in the 2 days since the article was AfD'd. If RS'd NPOV material continues growing at 1kb/day, then that would make about 36 + 5 + 14 = 55 kb in a fortnight, in which case a split by length would also start to become preferable. There probably should be a discussion about the title, e.g. Russian invasion of mainland Ukraine (2014) might be better as a descriptive title, but that's a requested move, not a deletion procedure. Boud ( talk) 03:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Those "responses" could easily have their own sub-article (as it usually does in most cases), so that would never become a problem (and would be WP:CRYSTAL at this point anyway). This article is a PoV fork. It was created at the title Russo-Ukrainian War to go around consensus and avoid full protection at War in Donbass. We have an article ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine) that covers this topic already. It isn't, as you say, too long, and is longstanding. This title means exactly the same thing as that one, and is meant to cover the same topic. Once again, the only reason this article exists is to push a PoV, and avoid discussion/article protection processes. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I believe that in future the situation may change and this article may become useful. The discussed article should be reworked and either merged with already existing article, or made its subarticle. -- UA Victory ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All references in this article are to publications by NATO, the Kiev government, and other interested parties in the propaganda war. Moreover, in those referenced articles all the allegations are qualified by phrases like "allegedly", "it is believed", "NATO said", while the Wiki article presents them as facts. Viktor5 ( talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Brand new account with only two edits = sockpuppet. Even the reason given is not policy based.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I showed above that I was on Wikipedia since 2006. The reasons I stated may or may not be policy based, however you interprete the policy, but giving references to only one-sided view of the conflict, tampering citations by removing qualifying expressions, and calling your opponents names is nothing but propaganda, and very primitive at that. Viktor5 ( talk) 07:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Aside from NATO commentary, not a neutral party concerning Russia, the are no sources that state this as fact. As such, this is propaganda and not historical fact. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Even if any of this was true, which it is not, "POV" is not a reason for deletion. Notability is. Comment does not address Wikipedia guidelines.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
My comments clearly address wiki policy. If an historical article is not based on fact, and has no reliable sources, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 15:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually no. Deletion is not about POV or reliable sources but about notability. Anyway, the article is brimming with reliable sources, so you're just making stuff up, hoping nobody will notice. So even that, irrelevant, objection is false.  Volunteer Marek  17:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
No one is contesting "notability". What is contested is whether this a fork. As we already have an article on this subject matter, this is a fork. Pure and simple. Worse, it is a fork that was created to avoid full protection at War in Donbass, and to avoid having to go through RM processes at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This flies in the face of all Wikipedia norms. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think this article started as a content fork, but there's some merit in devoting an article to cover the specific Russian military actions themselves, as long as the article is not framed as an alternative take on War in Donbass (of which it is now a subarticle). As updated and improved, I see no reason to delete this article, especially considering the article size issues with War in Donbass and, to a lesser extent, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 03:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is misguided and wrong, and still doesn't address the fact that we have two articles with titles that mean the exact same thing. There are no length issues with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which is only at 5.3kb. There is plenty of space for the minuscule content here at that article, and that is where it belongs. It is a fork, and nothing more. There is nothing improved or updated about this fork. RGloucester — ☎ 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As RGloucester notes, "the only reason this article exists is to push a PoV". Also, the idea that Russia has invaded Ukraine is an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedea readers. See How can you tell whether Russia has invaded Ukraine? Ukraine is in a civil war, and NATO is on Kiev's side. To quote Ism schism, "Aside from NATO commentary, not a neutral party concerning Russia, the are no sources that state this as fact." Having an article about an event which only NATO claims exists (even Kiev seems to have stopped claiming that there is a Russian invasion, if for no other reason than it being invaded would make it ineligible for IMF loans) is to turn Wikipedia into a outlet for NATO propaganda. – Herzen ( talk) 05:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Again, what you need to do here is to provide a policy based reason for deletion, not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a link to some crazy ass blog. "POV" is actually NOT a reason for deletion, even if it was relevant. It's a reason for improving an article. And my understanding is that even RGloucester has backed off from the claim that the article is a POV fork, just that it could potentially duplicate the coverage of the "Intervention" article.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete According to the OSCE there is no evidence of a Russian invasion. [3]-- Dag13 ( talk) 07:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You do realise that the OSCE are only allowed to monitor two official border crossings and are not permitted by the Russians to monitor the remainder of the 75km border under rebel control? -- Nug ( talk) 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
OSCE send teams to Mariupol and Novoazovsk where are reportedly russians soliders. [4]-- Dag13 ( talk) 17:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. This article seems to be about the recent invasion in south eastern Ukraine while the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine seems to be a broader article that encompasses the military intervention in Crimea as well. The latter article exceeds 100k in size, so this article is an acceptable content fork. -- Nug ( talk) 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is a blatant falsity. It is War in Donbass which exceeds 100k. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is barely at 5k. RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
??? My browser shows 119kB for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. -- Nug ( talk) 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Mine shows ~121kB. War in Donbass is ~336kB. WP:TOOBIG is fairly clear on this. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't know where you are getting the numbers for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. War in Donbass is not up for discussion here. I've already said that I'm happy to partake in splitting debates for that article. However, this is not a legitimate split. This is a PoV fork. There is no need for WP:HASTEy PoV forking. The guideline is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Kudzu1 and Nug, I've already tried to address this issue above. The point is that there is more than one article in need of restructuring. Trying to salvage the same articles and content as they stand is working backwards. Deconstructing the content then working out what is redundant (bloat) and where forks and splits are logical is the only workable approach. Allowing the self-same content to be replicated because 'we can make it kind of different' is not a strategy but an excuse for child articles and more fork articles to be created so that, dependent on which page a reader lands on, they'll be taken on a POV ride. The only way to handle it is to stop, regroup and tackle information from individual main entries, not a series of replica articles with each interest group getting to tell the story per their WP:COATRACK. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge with the appropiate article or articles. The dust hasn't settled yet, between Russia & Ukraine & so it's best we avoid forking. GoodDay ( talk) 12:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  • PS: I've no objection to this article title & wouldn't oppose its usage in a 'merged' article. GoodDay ( talk) 13:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Not a valid reason for deletion.  Volunteer Marek  15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but that's not what the problem is here. The problem is that we already have an article on that subject ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine), and that this particular page was forked only to get around protection at War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
With the organizational problems 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine -- which both you and I !voted in favor of deleting just a few weeks ago -- has historically struggled with, it seems wise to (as I suggested above, as you agreed with at the time) use that article as an umbrella to cover both Russian intervention in Crimea and Donbass. Crimea already has a focus page, 2014 Crimean crisis. This article, as overhauled (quite drastically changed from when you initially nominated for deletion, and much improved, IMO) is the Donbass counterpart to 2014 Crimean crisis. It is no longer a POV fork, which I agree was the original intent of the article. It is a proper subarticle to prevent the level of detail (and, often, subsequent edit-warring) from getting incredibly out of hand on War in Donbass and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, as they have in the past. It covers a specific phase and operation of War in Donbass and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
No. We don't need anymore articles. This remain a POV fork. Our "focus page" is War in Donbass. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (only 5kb now) handles instances of Russian intervention in that conflict. Organisational problems do not warrant forking. Forking must stop. It is destroying this encyclopaedia. We now have five articles that cover the same subject-matter: War in Donbass, Timeline of the War in Donbass, Battle of Novoazovsk, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). This is absolutely absurd. It is essentially a theatre of different people with different ideas creating and editing different articles about the same thing. This must stop. RGloucester — ☎ 19:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The war article is massive and overstuffed with details that really need to be broken out per WP:SPINOFF, including the invasion. The timeline article is a timeline article, which is not suitable for laying out an overview of the campaign, reactions, effects, etc. The battle article is about a specific battle that is only part of the Russian operation in eastern Ukraine. The intervention article predates the Donbass invasion and covers the Crimean events as well, which were a separate operation. The invasion article is appropriate to have per WP:SPINOFF, considering the War in Donbass article is very large and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article has multiple focuses. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
We do need to work on spinning-off content, doubt. But we already have the appropriate spin-off article for these events: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that all of these articles contain different takes on the same exact events. You will be able to read the same events at different articles. This is an absurd situation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The intervention page also covers Crimea. It also doesn't contain much information about the specific Russian invasion, but includes a lot of background information that is itself duplicated on War in Donbass. In short, it's a bit of a hash. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
That's not an excuse for creating yet-another screwed-up article. Improve the existing one, don't make a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
What's wrong with the following? Russian military intervention in Ukraine is an overarching article that contains information on the 2014 Crimean crisis, the War in Donbass, Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russian invasion started in August 2014, as described in the article, when Russian forces entered Ukraine and engaged the Ukrainian military. Prior to that, Russia was arming and supporting separatism in the War of Donbass, which according to many was still an internal conflict between separatists and Ukrainian army, even if Russia was seriously involved. When the separatists started losing, Russia decided to invade. All articles have a different scope. 50.153.131.7 ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Sorry, forgot to sign. Vysotsky2 ( talk) 22:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
First, I appreciate your feedback and I honestly believe that people like you make Wikipedia a better place, although I disagree with you on this particular issue. With that being said, I was wondering what you about the following addition that I took the liberty to add (hopefully without violating any rules). The Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2014 article's scope is limited to after the introduction of Russian troops in Ukraine. Prior to that, the armed conflict in Donbass was limited to Russia's indirect military involvement, and hence not considered an invasion per se and was limited to geographically to Donbass. The Crimean annexation has its own article, 2014 Crimean crisis. The overarching article about Russian military intervention in post-Euromaidan Ukraine, we have the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The problem with merging War in Donbass with Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2014 is the events were of inherently different character. For example, if U.S. invaded Cuba after the failed Bay of Pigs, we would not merge Bay of Pigs and American Invasion of Cuba into one article because they were distinct events. As such, all of the above events are distinct as well and have different scopes as outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect There is nothing in this article that couldn't be in War in Donbass-- 71.110.129.100 ( talk) 17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pure POVFORK. Catlemur ( talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK, No concrete evidence yet that Russia invaded Ukraine, might want to wait for a declaration of war or something, because it is not in WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and merge/subsitute into Russo-Ukrainian War. Sending armed militia as an occupying force (supported by regular army units) into an other country is as much an act of war or an invasion as only sending in regular army units into an other country. Russia is the only country in the world that denies their involvment and the cover-up policy used by Russia for hiding their direct participation, is called a clear lie by nearly all country's in the world. Proof of Russia's direct involvment is mountaining and stated by most non-Russian press. Wikipedia as an encyclopadia should not participate in a cover-up of a war.-- Niele ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Please don't be dense. None of this has anything to do with this discussion, and there is no article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War". In fact, that was the original title of the article that is up for discussion here. The problem is that we already have an article on this very situation that you are so keen on, called 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Therefore, this article is merely a duplication of that article. This is called content forking, and is not something that our guidelines smiles upon. We don't want to "cover-up" anything, merely not have thousands of duplicate article on the same subject. RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I appreciate your patience and persistence in this matter. On a side note, I'd say the extraordinary claims require multiple reliable sources rule applies here. I follow what the Western press is writing about the war, and you don't see the BBC or NY Times mentioning an invasion, even as something that may or may not have happened. So it's eerie that Wikipedia has an article on his subject, whereas the top reliable sources don't even mention it. – Herzen ( talk) 02:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
you don't see the BBC or NY Times mentioning an invasion, even as something that may or may not have happened. - uh... you're either not really following the press, or you're talking about some other "BBC" or "NY Times": [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. That's just some of BBC. Here's NYT: [10], [11], [12], and basically at that point I'm just bored and tired of refuting blatant misinformation.  Volunteer Marek  05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Only one of the BBC articles seems to treat an invasion as confirmed, with two of the articles not even being about invasion claims. Instead they are about fairly weak claims of tanks being sent from Russia.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep on spinnin'  Volunteer Marek  06:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge If the article is about the brief invasion of Russian tanks, then it is too narrow and doesn't deserve an article. If it is about Russian activities generally,(secret agents and arming of rebels etc.), then it belongs in the War on Donbass 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article. Kingsindian ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as POV fork. No confirmation from OSCE observers of any Russian armored units crossing the border. Such allegations can be discussed in other (existing) relevant articles. - Helvetica ( talk) 04:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
It doesn't matter whether OSCE confirmed it or not (btw, are there any OSCE independent observers in Ukraine that aren't held as hostages by the separatists?), what matters is whether reliable source say there has been an invasion or not (whether armored or not, also doesn't matter). And they do.  Volunteer Marek  04:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Except, Mr Marek, that doesn't matter at all. What matters is that we already have an article that covers these notable concerns, and that this article is an exercise in subversion. RGloucester — ☎ 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@V.M. - Your snark aside, the fact remains that OSCE, which has monitors on the ground - on both sides of the Russia/Ukraine border - has said that they can't confirm allegations of a Russian invasion. See for example here in the Kiev Post (certainly not a pro-Russian source): http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/osce-secretary-general-says-it-is-difficult-to-confirm-presence-of-regular-russian-forces-on-ukrainian-territory-362885.html
You say that "reliable source say there has been an invasion," but they don't. They say that Kiev, NATO have *alleged* that there's been a Russian "invasion," or "incursion," or whatever term they use.
By having a Wikipedia article with the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine," Wikipedia asserts these disputed allegations as fact. This violates NPOV policy. And indeed, this seems the sole purpose of this article. Hence it's a POV-fork. - Helvetica ( talk) 06:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all arguments above,also there is confirmed news that 1,000 Russian troops have crossed the Border,the conflict has entered a new phase. Alhanuty ( talk) 05:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The "invasion" article will be warranted when Russia really invades Ukraine: about 30000 troops would probably qualify as an invasion, whereas several hundred troops are a military intervention. -- Ghirla -трёп- 14:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
We already have an article on that stuff ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine). This is just a duplicate with more spin. That's the essence of a PoV fork. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge as per WP:POVFORK. There really isn't much to explain that hasn't already been said.-- Franz Brod ( talk) 15:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Suggestion Change this article to "2014 Russian intervention in/invasion of Donbass" & change "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" to "2014 Russian intervention in/invasion of Crimea". Alternatively, merge w/"War in Donbass" or " 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine". Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 23:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Except, as has been established numerous times, that article isn't about Crimea. In fact, more content at that article is about Donbass than Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to an appropriately titled article. Everyking ( talk) 02:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge As a reader, I would find it easier if this article was merged as a subsection under the "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" article, because of the closely related nature of events. I almost missed it as its own separate article, and the past week of developments aren't covered well in "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine"; had I missed this article I wouldn't have been informed on the topic. I don't see any reason why it's not merged... Some comments mentioned size, but the 1k words of content in this article can't significantly affect another article's size. Also, all these articles read like news feeds, which is understandable given the developing nature of events, but this suggests to me there is a lot of room to cut bloat. If articles are too big, I suggest adapting the reference style; a large part of these articles is references. For example, War in Donbass has 18k words of content supported by 15k words of references, while this article has 1k words of content supported by 1.7k words of references. 76.104.163.204 ( talk) 10:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- 37.191.201.149 ( talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'm going to develop a bit further my opinion expressed earlier. 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. Its name, along with the 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". Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 23:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am not sure I stated my formal position yet. The article has a different scope than the others, both geographically and substantively. It obviously doesn't belong in the Crimean Crisis article because, although related, most people consider them to be different events and many people disagree on whether the annexation of Crimea was an invasion per se. It doesn't belong in the War in Donbass article, because the War in Donbass was limited to Donbass, and most people consider that conflict to be primarily between the separatists/rebels/Russian volunteers and Ukraine. This conflict directly affects the territories outside Donbass, and there is every reason to believe that that will continue to be so. There are reports, for example, of Kharkiv preparing for a siege. Perhaps the biggest question is whether this article has the same scope as Russian military intervention in Ukraine. But, it is important to keep in mind that this conflict is, as far as I know, unlike any other because of the distinct phases it is being fought in. The annexation of Crimea, the War in Donbass, and now the formal Russian invasion of Ukraine are really different events, despite happening in a relatively short span of time. As such, there needs to be a unifying article that can links all of these articles in a coherent way. That article is Russian military invention in Ukraine because it is broadly worded enough to encompass the annexation of Crimea, the War in Donbass, and the formal Russian invasion of Ukraine by virtue of Russian regular troops being in Ukraine. I see no other way to organize these articles. Vysotsky2 ( talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Firstly, you already voiced your "keep" once before. Secondly, I cannot comprehend your remarks here. There has been nothing outside of the Donbass at this point in time, so that's a bunch of WP:CRYSTAL BOLLOCKS. Regardless, that's not the issue here, as those who seek a merger have designated 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as the target, which could theoretically include non-Donbass events if they were to occur. That's inappropriate to discuss, as it is WP:CRYSTAL, but it makes plain that whatever concerns you have are not warranted. RGloucester — ☎ 04:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Er, that doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014)&oldid=1151017851"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE