Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Crimea

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

The result was speedy keep. Keep (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian invasion of Crimea[edit]

Russian invasion of Crimea (edit | 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 Crimean crisis with a POV title. It makes the statement

On 26 February 2014, Russian-speaking gunmen in Russian military uniform, said to be Russian soldiers, established a checkpoint between the major Crimean cities of Sevastopol and Simferopol.

which is supposedly supported by articles on the CNN and Globe and Mail Web sites. What CNN actually says is : "A CNN team in the area encountered more than one pro-Russian militia checkpoint on the road from Sevastopol to Simferopol." The Globe and Mail says that a Russian flag was flown at one checkpoint, and that there was an armoured personnel carrier there, but says that the armed men there called themselves "volunteers". Neither says they were wearing military uniforms.

It also says "The UN Security Council held a special meeting on Russia's aggression against Ukraine", with a Yahoo News story cited. The story uses the phrase "the escalating crisis in Ukraine", only using the term "Russian aggression" when quoting the Ukrainian government. —rybec 07:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is a difference between both conflicts. The 2014 Crimean crisis is a civil conflict, while Russian intervention in Crimea is military one. Starting March 1, both countries have practically entered a war. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Foreign Ministry on it's website, says that its' troops stationed in The Crimea are protecting certain locations, according to agreements. [1] This doesn't make it an occupation. There have been no reports of resistance in The Crimea, I would therefore struggle to call this either an invasion or a war. I would keep the article but change the language to be less provocative.--Jimmydreads (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should either be deleted or merged with 2014 Crimean crisis and have POV issues cleaned up, per my comments in said article's talk page. It doesn't take a keen eye to see that this is a POV fork representing western-Ukrainian views of the crisis. Plenty of reliable sources use terms like "Russian aggression" and "sovereignty" etc. but this is not the same thing as an outright military invasion/war. LokiiT (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On March 1, two Baltic Fleet anti-submarine vessels entered the Sevastopol Bay.[1] Russian Army has been increasing its presence without consulting with anybody. Unmarked, unindentified, armed men and military vehicles were allowed by the Russian border service to cross the borders into Ukrainian territory, the Russian legislative allowed military action in Ukraine. What more is needed to constitute an invasion?Psubrat2000 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A military action is wholly separate from protests and political upheaval that preceded it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with the new title and focus. This is all over the news, just google it. Poeticbent talk 08:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/us-ukraine-crisis-warships-idUSBREA200VA20140301
  • Merge into 2014 Crimean crisis, there has been no formal invasion per se. Just unacceptable movements of Russian forces already in the Crimean peninsula. There are too many goddamn articles related to the Euromaidan and this topic is becoming EXTREMELY difficult to navigate, reduce the amount of articles if we can... --Kuzwa (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, subjectivity is allowed on this page? Okay, well, in that case, I don't agree with you. Every page has its own purpose and the fact there are so many is because they're all illustrating the chaos happening in Ukraine right now. But that doesn't make the current events less of an invasion, and Russia not being at war with Ukraine. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, see Suez Crisis. For how this page should look... --Kuzwa (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
War has already broken out. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is the most peaceful war I've ever heard of. LokiiT (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with 2014 Crimean crisis. This seems a POV fork from 2014 Crimean crisis. The latter is a much better article. Otto (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A military intervention is separate from protests/riots. Different interwikies. NickSt (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the main page section is growing by the minute, it is better to have another article about the Russian military intervention.60.229.178.55 (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Psubrat2000 and Kudzu1 above. 87.61.168.145 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The crisis has clearly taken on the characteristics of a military conflict as several Ukrainian military units in Crimea have been placed under siege by Russian troops and pro-Russian fighters and Putin obtained the parliament's approval for direct military intervention. --KoberTalk 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge with 2014 Crimean crisis. It's really not conducive to finding information if it's split into so many different articles. IMO we already had a problem like that with Euromaidan topic. The crisis and the invasion are directly connected, right now it is impossible to treat them separately. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, we have one comprehensive Russo–Georgian War article, not separate articles for the initial Georgian assault and then for the Russian reaction. It would be illogical to have it otherwise.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis per Kuzwa above, the formal order has not been issued so far by Putin, who is the commander-in-chief of the Russian military. Brandmeistertalk 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can anybody possibly tell that Putin has not yet issued any order to invade the Ukraine? He may very well have done so already, only secretly. The Russian armed forces may be preparing themselves by now. 87.61.168.145 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both articles have merit separately. This article is about the use of Russian military against the Ukraine. JOJ Hutton 14:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge. Same topic. Have the debate over the name of the article at 2014 Crimean crisis. — goethean 14:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the same topic. We simply don't know yet if Putin will intervene in only Crimea, or in all of Ukraine. 87.61.168.145 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary keep. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't yet say how these events will unfold and what relationship they will have between each other. It could go towards an all-out war with Russia, annexation of Crimea, Russian withdrawal, and many other possibilities. I think at this point in time we just don't have enough information yet to decide on whether to merge or keep them split. CodeCat (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Corn cheese (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles have similar subject but there is a need for a dedicated article on Russian military involvement. This involvement could not be adequately covered in the 2014 Crimean crisis article which is primarily about civilian unrest. Tomh903 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a lot of people making their political evaluation on the situation based on disinformation. The decision of invasion was adopted and there were Russian Special Operation units of the Black Sea Fleet before the decision that tried to take over the Ukrainian military installations. A fact that is not being broadly recorded in the western media. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article tells almost everything about the Russian intervention in Crimea, so I think this could be a helpful article. As the two states are on the brink of a war, it would be good to have the article ready, instead of creating a new article when a war breaks out. So that is why i don't want this article to be deleted. Keep me informed. --Babestress (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Babestress[reply]
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis as a fork.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis, Both articles cover basically the same material. Obviously the one page may grow to an extreme length if it does blow out to a massive war but at this time it is localised to Russia and Ukraine. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 16:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP—this may have been debatable from c. 26 Feb through 1 March, but now, on 2 March 2014, when many worldwide media outlets and major nation-states are calling it just that—a Russian military intervention in the Crimea—it would be a major disservice to Wikipedia readers to not have an article on this event. Wikipedia is not censored. The military intervention activities of any government ought to be covered in Wikipedia, as long as notability is demonstrated and verifiability is shown by the inclusion of reliable sources, of which this article has plenty. This is not merely a "crisis" and any move/merge to the other title would mislead. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename 2014 Crimean crisis to 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia has already invaded. Multiple countries have condemned them for it. Every major media outlet in the world is covering the war. Crisis is a misleading euphemism that understates the severity of the event.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with the 2011 events in Libya, the external intervention and the conflict itself deserve separate articles. Note also that even the different roles played by the US, NATO, and a couple other countries like Canada have articles devoted to their parts in the war. Orser67 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to something more neutral, like 2014 military intervention in Crimea or even 2014 political violence in Crimea.VR talk 16:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what's going to be the difference between 2014 Crimean crisis and your suggested article 2014 political violence in Crimea?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more neutral? But this is factually a military intervention. Euphemisms and supposed 'neutrality' does not make bad things less bad – they merely obscure bad things. 87.61.168.145 (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the intervention may soon be more notable than the crisis. More should be done to distinguish the two.Information about the apparently independent actions of Crimean protesters and militias, both pro- and anti-Russian, is quite plentiful. All the finer details of the military intervention (involving individual Russian units or Ukrainian bases) should go here, so the crisis page can make broader statements about how the intervention affected the overall situation.--Martin Berka (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis, the POV fork complaint has not been fully addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - things have changed a lot since the original user's arguments for deletion. The article is not POV: it IS an invasion. - 79.67.255.217 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems that there's a distinct boundary between the crisis (appointment of new PM of Crimea and violent protests) and the Russian intervention. Both are noteworthy events. Kiralexis (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. DDima 18:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per evidence above. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Martin Berka. This is a distinct part of the larger Ukrainian crisis. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per evidence above. --Kyknos (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. This military intervention is a whole different animal from the political unrest in Crimea that preceded it. Pstanton (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE—the article we are discussing here appears to no longer be named the Russian invasion of Crimea, which is the title of this page, and is the name given at the top of this AfD above all the comments. Rather, that article has been moved to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which is what the Russian invasion of Crimea link redirects to. N2e (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then it was moved to Russo-Ukrainian War--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but only for about ten minutes. That second move was quickly undone, as there was no consensus.
The point is that some of the editors providing opinions in the discussion above may possibly be offering opinions and rationale based on a mis-understanding of the current name of the article. N2e (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_invasion_of_Crimea&oldid=1138324428"