| Revision as of 05:29, 6 March 2022 editMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,505 edits →Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine: d← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:30, 6 March 2022 edit undoMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,505 edits →Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in UkraineNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::{{ping|Indy beetle}} Er, I think the lead is pretty clear. Citing reliable sources (for example, and ), admittedly, limited to the journalistic ones that were available at the time the article was written, it tells you that, at the time of the unrest, a unified Ukrainian identity had not yet formed, that at least two separate political/ethnic traditions existed within the country, and that these contributed to the unrest (as distinct from Russia's later intervention, please note). The goal of the article was to provide the historical information, in one place, that explained the emergence of these traditions. Nothing is OR or SYNTH, as far as I can tell, because article itself doesn't actually draw any independent conclusions. It's just meant to provide additional information, additional context, to understand the breakout of the ]. In any case, I agree the article should be updated with academic sources, now that eight years have past. I just hadn't thought of doing so, nor has anyone else stepped up. My objection to the OP's actions was to his and placing it into this one, without context. I don't see how this would solve any problems with the article, and in any case, it is bad practice to copy content around from one place to the other, especially when that content changes the scope of the article. In return for my objection, and plea to discuss, however, I was granted a deletion nomination. I don't see how this behaviour can ever be seen as appropriate. ] — ] 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC) | ::{{ping|Indy beetle}} Er, I think the lead is pretty clear. Citing reliable sources (for example, and ), admittedly, limited to the journalistic ones that were available at the time the article was written, it tells you that, at the time of the unrest, a unified Ukrainian identity had not yet formed, that at least two separate political/ethnic traditions existed within the country, and that these contributed to the unrest (as distinct from Russia's later intervention, please note). The goal of the article was to provide the historical information, in one place, that explained the emergence of these traditions. Nothing is OR or SYNTH, as far as I can tell, because article itself doesn't actually draw any independent conclusions. It's just meant to provide additional information, additional context, to understand the breakout of the ]. In any case, I agree the article should be updated with academic sources, now that eight years have past. I just hadn't thought of doing so, nor has anyone else stepped up. My objection to the OP's actions was to his and placing it into this one, without context. I don't see how this would solve any problems with the article, and in any case, it is bad practice to copy content around from one place to the other, especially when that content changes the scope of the article. In return for my objection, and plea to discuss, however, I was granted a deletion nomination. I don't see how this behaviour can ever be seen as appropriate. ] — ] 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep''' it with the current scope which should not be changed to make the page into something that it is not. ] (]) 02:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC) | *'''Strong Keep''' it with the current scope which should not be changed to make the page into something that it is not. ] (]) 02:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. The "pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" was actually an organized attack by Russian GRU on Ukraine. That was a military aggression, not an "unrest", plain and simple. This article makes a point there were some objective reasons for this unrest to happen in 2014. There were actually none except the order from Putin, |
*'''Delete'''. The "pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" was actually an organized attack by Russian GRU on Ukraine. That was a military aggression, not an "unrest", plain and simple. This article makes a point there were some objective reasons for this unrest to happen in 2014. There were actually none except the order from Putin. He gave this order because he did his stooge Yanukovich was ousted, nothing else. And of course the entire operation of taking over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine was planned in advance by Russian military. This page as written (and starting from the title) is hopelessly misleading and qualify as "POV fork" in my opinion. ] (]) 05:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:30, 6 March 2022
Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research by providing a synthesis of regional histories and demographics which the reader is assumed to independently connect as the cause of the 2014 unrest, despite no sources suggesting so. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what to say in response to this. I guess this is proof that Misplaced Pages really is a waste of time. Please note, the proposer of this deletion request is trying to make a WP:POINT because I dared to ask for a bit of discussion before his copy-pasting masses of random content from other articles into this one. Synthesis? I don't think so, but then, at the time I wrote this article with a few other editors in good standing (you can see our collaboration on the talk page), my knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies wasn't as broad as it is now. At the time, there wasn't much good information about the historical factors at play in the conflict on Misplaced Pages, and because the main article was getting long, we decided to start a sub-article. All for nought, I guess.... RGloucester — ☎ 05:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not about making a point, I immediately saw this article as not being within the content standards of Misplaced Pages. i wanted to be constructive about it and shape the article into a form where it would be. I started by copying attributed content from other articles in order to quickly bring the article into a larger scope (which I believed was necessary for this article to make sense and which it has previously been), after which I could begin the slower process of writing original material on the basis of book research. Since that avenue was closed, I saw the only option as deletion as it would not live up Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion. Sorry about your wasted work, I really did want to include as much of it as possible. Maybe it can be moved elsewhere. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- All avenues were open, if only you would have followed the expected WP:BRD process. Instead, we have a deletion nomination. If the content is really is a bad as you say, it must certainly be deleted. Moving it elsewhere? I see that moving content around is your specialty, but no, if it is OR, if it is SYNTH, certainly, it must be deleted. Given your tone, I presume you must hold some high office of the encyclopaedia. I prostrate myself before your grasp of Misplaced Pages policies. My apologies for having deigned to defy you! RGloucester — ☎ 05:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm just gonna leave the rest of the discussion to issues relevant for the deletion and not take the bait. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- All avenues were open, if only you would have followed the expected WP:BRD process. Instead, we have a deletion nomination. If the content is really is a bad as you say, it must certainly be deleted. Moving it elsewhere? I see that moving content around is your specialty, but no, if it is OR, if it is SYNTH, certainly, it must be deleted. Given your tone, I presume you must hold some high office of the encyclopaedia. I prostrate myself before your grasp of Misplaced Pages policies. My apologies for having deigned to defy you! RGloucester — ☎ 05:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:POINTy nomination. AfD is not a substitute (or venue) for article improvement. OR/SYNTH concerns should be addressed on the talk, even if they're substantial and require an article re-scope/restructure. Contains plenty of well sourced historical background, so clearly not a WP:TNT case. Jr8825 • Talk 10:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Keepcalmandchill: if your concerns about the article scope/content aren't getting enough attention on the article talk page (it only has 37 watchers) try flagging it at WikiProject Ukraine/Military history, a noticeboard (e.g. WP:ORN), or the talk page of a more heavily trafficked, relevant article (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War). A requested move/merge process also an option. See WP:ATD. Jr8825 • Talk 10:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - article is plentifully-sourced and is not making points by synthesis. Issues can be fixed by discussion on the talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Question to nominator Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/GA2 Good article is nominated for deletion. Why and how this decision was made? Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:SYNTH in of itself is not a deletion criteria. Are you suggesting it doesn't meet WP:N due to lack of sourcing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I cannot fathom this nomination, and trust me, I know all about AfD nominations. This article should be worked upon, not dumped. doktorb words 16:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think its fair to have some concerns about SYNTH/OR in the article. For one, nothing outside the lede seems to actually tie any of this historical context directly to the events of 2014. But like the others I do not think this subject is so hopeless it ought to be deleted. More like reviewed at GAR and on the talk page. I think the course of action the nominator chose is not inherently wrong, but just perhaps not the best tool in this instance. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle: Er, I think the lead is pretty clear. Citing reliable sources (for example, this and this), admittedly, limited to the journalistic ones that were available at the time the article was written, it tells you that, at the time of the unrest, a unified Ukrainian identity had not yet formed, that at least two separate political/ethnic traditions existed within the country, and that these contributed to the unrest (as distinct from Russia's later intervention, please note). The goal of the article was to provide the historical information, in one place, that explained the emergence of these traditions. Nothing is OR or SYNTH, as far as I can tell, because article itself doesn't actually draw any independent conclusions. It's just meant to provide additional information, additional context, to understand the breakout of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. In any case, I agree the article should be updated with academic sources, now that eight years have past. I just hadn't thought of doing so, nor has anyone else stepped up. My objection to the OP's actions was to his indiscriminate copying of content from other articles and placing it into this one, without context. I don't see how this would solve any problems with the article, and in any case, it is bad practice to copy content around from one place to the other, especially when that content changes the scope of the article. In return for my objection, and plea to discuss, however, I was granted a deletion nomination. I don't see how this behaviour can ever be seen as appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Keep it with the current scope which should not be changed to make the page into something that it is not. Gusfriend (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The "pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" was actually an organized attack by Russian GRU on Ukraine. That was a military aggression, not an "unrest", plain and simple. This article makes a point there were some objective reasons for this unrest to happen in 2014. There were actually none except the order from Putin. He gave this order because he did his stooge Yanukovich was ousted, nothing else. And of course the entire operation of taking over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine was planned in advance by Russian military. This page as written (and starting from the title) is hopelessly misleading and qualify as "POV fork" in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)