Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian War (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Any future discussions of this article's title should take place via the process discussed at WP:RM, although I note that there seems to be a clear consensus in favor of the present name. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, war is when "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". There was nothing declared. Russia is also not in a war and Ukraine is officially also not in a war state.

This article definitely can't be called as it is. It is a civilian war in Ukraine and yes, there are several parties taking part direct or indirect in it. Now it is absolutely against the Wikipedia rules. It's political propaganda Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not And articles on Wikipedia should have neutral point of view. It would make sense to rename the article to "Ukraine crisis" or "Civil war in Ukraine" but as long as first version already exists it makes sense to take just part of this article and put it there and this article to be deleted. --Sputnik13 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic's title is a matter of common parlance as no-one seems to make formal declarations of war nowadays. Here's some books on the subject:
  1. Ukraine's Maidan, Russia's War
  2. Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine
  3. Ukraine and Russia: From Civilised Divorce to Uncivil War
  4. Putin's War Against Ukraine
  5. Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine
Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They use a thing called “authorization of military force” which is basically the same thing as declaring a conventional war against another country. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove structure of this article is almost 1:1 of War in Donbas and it is also about it. Some parts could be moved to Ukrainian crisis. But it is still definitely against Wikipedia rules as not neutral and as clear propaganda tool. In this case just apply Duck test. The only question, what parts should be kept.--Sputnik13 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw. good that all these wars were mentioned. Exactly because they were complicated and different parties took part there is only location in the name and for this conflict there is an article already War in Donbas--Sputnik13 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Russian military intervention in Ukraine or Russian involvement in the War in Donbas. There was never an open war between Ukraine and Russia and neither countries are officially in a state of war as the nominator said. Most sources don’t call it the Russo-Ukrainian War and I don’t think a bunch of books with metaphorical names are a good source to use for the name of this article. Al jazeera, france 24, CNN, fox news, reuters and many other articles do not use such a name either and back when Russia was building up it’s military in the border earlier this year, they published articles about russia and ukraine being on a “brink of war” rather than an escalation or anything like that. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/world/europe/russia-putin-navalny-ukraine.amp.html, https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/4/13/is-russia-moving-towards-war-with-ukraine. Instead of removing it, let’s revert the name to what it was before. Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC) — Ridax2020 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of IbrahimWeed (talk · contribs). [reply]
    To be honest, War in Donbas is the only article that should exist and present different points of view and this one exists only in order to have "Russia" in the title and influence social opinion about the current situation. The only goals are political and anti-Russian policy in different countries. We don't see here "American-Iraqian War" but just Iraq war, why? We don't have here Argentian-British war, but Falklands war, why? And in case Russia it is like normal. It is not a neutral point of view.--Sputnik13 (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with Sputnik13's criticisms about the name change of the Ukraine War article. To me, the name change seems to be oriented towards giving the conflict an ethnic-nationalist overtone. The goal (of these editors) is to highlight the perception that the conflict concerns Ukrainians fighting Russians. I believe that this editorial attitude fails to respect the truth, is irresponsible and, to be blunt, rather chauvinistic.
    Let's not overlook also that the decision to rename the article was made by a very small group of editors who appear to share the same biased attitude towards the subject. Those editors, I have noticed, are relying exclusively on pro-Ukrainian, and anti-Russian sources. I am deeply concerned that this small group of persons is not willing to listen to people who have different viewpoints. Worse yet, these pro-Ukrainian editors are refusing to consider a wide range of sources of information, including New York Times reports which contradict the facts expressed by the pro-Ukrainian sources they are using.
    Right now, the Ukraine War and Donbass War articles are looking more and more like anti-Russian rhetoric. This editorial attitude violates Wikipedia's policy of writing neutral, factually balanced articles. This is not good.
    I am surprised that Wikipedia doesn't appear to have a panel of neutral administrators who can adjudicate disputes between editors of articles. As things stand now, biased editors have the opportunity to hijack and control the content of articles, enabling them to push their biased POV or the propaganda and rhetoric of the governments and institutions whom they favor. This is not a good way to write encyclopedia articles for the benefit of the greater public.
    Kenmore (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OSCE is the primary source of reports incriminating Russia in the Donbass conflict. OSCE reports are now mentioned 68 times in the article, documenting military transports crossing from Russia into Ukraine overnight, presence of Russian advanced weapon systems in Donbass[1] and Russian military personnel crossing into Donbass. Can you elaborate on how OSCE reports are "anti-Russian rhetoric" granted that Russian Federation is an official member of OSCE and has its representatives in the monitoring mission all the time? Cloud200 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cloud200 - The article is using sources such as Unian and the Euromaidan Press. Unian is controlled by a Ukrainian oligarch who has very close ties with the Ukrainian state. It is well known that Unian echoes Kiev's rhetoric. As for Euromaidan Press, that's an anti-Russian propaganda outlet that came into existence shortly after the Maidan Revolution. The editors writing this article are treating those two publications as if they're respectable, credible media outlets, when in fact they are not. This is just one of many ways that the Wiki articles have devolved to the level of anti-Russian rhetoric. As for OSCE reports, I think they're fine. But, as I've already explained, the Ukraine War and Donbass War articles are using sources (bad ones) aside from OSCE. Hope this answers your question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking !vote of blocked sock. Also, @ basically all of you: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article contains years of laboriously collected records and sources detailing the background and, if I remember correctly, it was originally called Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and only then renamed into Russo-Ukrainian War. The current split between War in Donbass and this article is confusing, but certainly the latter doesn't deserve to be deleted. Quite the opposite, because both articles have significantly grown, we need to start splitting both into smaller articles and deduplicating their content. As for the "war" terminology, I'm not a specialist but evidence from reputable sources, such as OSCE SMM, is overwhelming in support of Russian state being the party that started the war in 2014 and has been fuelling it ever since. It's calling an armed conflict "civil war" that is a textbook example of political propaganda when a neighbouring state sends soldiers and covert military transports almost every night. Cloud200 (talk)
The main idea is to put this information to articles War in Donbas and Ukraine crisis, because this one is violating rules of Wikipedia--Sputnik13 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that, but your argument is based on the article being "political propaganda", an accusation which you have never proven in any way, while the body of evidence collected by OSCE and linked in the article tends to show otherwise. Cloud200 (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Open to renaming like "intervention" per Ridax2020, but this is not just about Donbas. This article includes sections on Crimea and "Other regions" and deals with the variety of Russia-Ukraine sub-conflicts at a higher level than War in Donbas. If there are duplicated bits, fix/summarize those instead of deleting everything. Neither declaration nor openness are essential to the definition of "war". Oxford[2]: "a situation in which two or more countries or groups of people fight against each other over a period of time". Cambridge[3] has similar. MagteiContrib 21:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Main topics are concerning War in Donbas, all other topics are here Ukraine crisis.--Sputnik13 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HI Gloucester - I hope you don't take this personally, but it's my impression that your contributions to the article (although quite intelligent) are highly biased in favor of the Ukrainian state, and hostile to the cause of the Russian Federation and the DPR/LPR. I've noticed that you are relying on sources (publications and scholars) that/who are outspokenly partisan in favor of the post-Euromaidan Ukrainian government. Those sources make no effort to understand and articulate the motives of the DPR/LPR and Kremlin for becoming embroiled in this conflict. Hence, the question must be asked if you in fact are the one who is "pushing POV." I'll have more to say about this in the future, when I find time to respond to your many other contributions to these discussions. Kenmore (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"understand and articulate the motives of the DPR/LPR and Kremlin for becoming embroiled in this conflict" — I would like to remind you that Russian Federation officially denies any involvement in the conflict and repeatedly denies any presence of military personnel and arms from Russian Federation. This position kind of naturally takes away their chance to "articulate the motives for becoming embroiled" simply because they deny the very fact of "being embroiled". Your accusations of "Kremlin for becoming embroiled in this conflict" therefore must be biased and Russophobic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cloud200 (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the Russian Federation's official position is to deny its (obvious) involvement in the war is beside the point. The deeper reality is that the Russian Federation has two very well articulated reasons for meddling in the Ukrainian crisis. First, is the Kremlin's long-standing policy of seeking to stonewall any further NATO expansion to the east, and into Ukraine in particular. Second is the Kremlin's position that it champions the cause of ethnic Russian and pro-Russian minorities in former Soviet republics. Regardless of whether one sympathizes with or abhors the Kremlin's policies, the article really should contain some content that elaborates on the RF's real reasons for intervening in this conflict. Presently, such explanatory content is missing in the article. The current Wiki article merely repeats (almost endlessly) that Russia's doing something illegal (under international law) in Ukraine, word's that seek to portray Russia as a malevolent interloper of sorts. The Wiki articles (the group of them focusing on this conflict) would be improved if it made a better attempt to explain what, in fact, is the real reason for Russia's interference in the Ukrainian situation.Kenmore (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is not neutral. There are many articles in Wikipedia concerning war conflicts, which were mentioned before. All of them have just one main article and there is only location in the title, so in this case War in Ukraine is the only logical one. Parts of this article to be shifted to other articles War in Donbas and Ukraine crisis.--Sputnik13 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SS. In the first place, this is not just one conflict, but a set of related conflicts as I described. Second of all, we could not possibly have only one article on the subject, as it would simply be too long. We follow RS, and the way we present the conflict is the same way RS do at the present time. What you suggest is WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 13:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is 'neutrality' would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Russian position, ignoring the consensus in RS on this subject. Neutrality does not mean creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE of different views, but giving weight proportionate to what RS say. RGloucester — ☎ 13:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral means have same rules to all topics without some special accent on any party. There are enough examples here in Wikipedia. Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Falklands War in this case War in Donbas + Ukraine crisis + this article. It is very logical to combine everything in War in Donbas (Ukraine) or similar. This is neutral--Sputnik13 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian crisis is about the political crisis, this one is about the military events that resulted from that crisis. This article isn't just about the war in Donbass, it's about the broader conflict between Russia and Ukraine, including Crimea and a few things in Odessa, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic is obviously notable. And propose a SNOW close. That said, I think there may be a legitimate question in regards to the article title. I don’t have an opinion on that, but suggest compiling a list of what reliable sources call this conflict, and taking the various options to WP:RM for further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure if "war" is the right framing, but the topic itself is obviously notable given the sourcing. Zaathras (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else. As pointed out by Sputnik13 the title of the article amounts to propaganda in favor of a particular narrative. Albeit anecdotal, this article is the first time I find this conflict or course of events named a "Russo-Ukrainian War". Lappspira (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable, per WP:GNG, as it has received significant coverage. A request to move would be more appropriate for what you've proposed. Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and recommend WP:SNOW close. The topic clearly passes WP:GNG, as it has received in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. This is not redundant to War in Donbas; this article includes the annexation of Crimea (which is not a part of the War in Donabas) and the two topics are not equivalents. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This request should be speedy closed as insincere: AFD is not for disposing of article titles we dislike. It should also be closed as WP:SNOW. To boot, it is built of false logic. “There was nothing declared,” “not in a war state” – there have been a couple hundred wars since 1945, and only about a dozen of them officially declared by any party. “It is a civilian war in Ukraine and yes, there are several parties taking part direct or indirect” – ahem, what parties? The International Criminal Court made a finding that both Crimea and the Donbas constitute an international conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (so the RF left the court). “It’s political propaganda” – I know you are but what am I? —Michael Z. 02:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am unpersuaded by the arguments put forth for deletion. The lack of a formal declaration of war may or may not mean that the title should be changed (noting that the same can be said for e.g. the Vietnam War), but it does not constitute a reason for deletion. As for duplication of scope with War in Donbas and/or Ukrainian crisis, I'm seeing overlap but not duplication (see e.g. comments by RGloucester and Mikehawk10). TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename So far, most mainstream media outlets (i.e., New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal et al) do not refer to the conflict as a "Russo-Ukrainian War." Respected journals that focus on international relations and conflict (i.e., Jane's Defence Weekly, Stratfor, Foreign Affairs, International Studies Quarterly et al) are not using that name either. As other editors here have pointed out, the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" seems to have originated only with certain persons who are compiling the article. I propose that Wiki names the article by using terms that are, at present, commonly used by mainstream media and respected analytical publications (such as those that I list above). If, in the future, these publications suddenly start referring to the conflict as a "Russo-Ukrainian War," then of course, Wiki could follow the same course. But let's hold off on that name until that point in the future, if it ever arrives.Kenmore (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a number of groups that are using the term "Russo-Ukranian war". The Atlantic Council (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), Foreign Policy (1, 2) The U.S. Army, slate, a journal article in World Affairs, a journal article in the Journal of Strategic Security, and several other journal articles. It seems like academics and military(-adjacent) groups are widely accepting the term "Russo-Ukranian war"; academics and military-focused publications are probably better sources than popular press on this sort of topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mikehawk: I appreciate the point you're making, but I disagree with your argument. Kindly allow me to explain why. Several of the sources you listed are known to be media outlets that are partisan in favor of Ukraine's government. Those same sources have committed to a staunchly anti-Russian (or anti-Putin, if you will) position in this conflict. For this reason, those sources are not neutral. They shouldn't be used as an inspiration for anything we write in this article unless - and only unless - they counterbalanced by sources that are partisan to the Russian (i.e., Kremlin) and LPR/DPR side. Concerning which specific sources I'm talking about (that are in the fight solidly on Kiev's side), the Atlantic Council, and the US Army publications are foremost on my mind. Why is this? Well, the Atlantic Council is NATO's think tank. It's been the Atlantic Council's job for several decades to publish studies that justify the expansion of NATO in an eastward direction. Therefore, the Atlantic Council's publications, by default, ignore the valid foreign policy concerns of the Russian Federation (primary of which is to stonewall NATO expansion). Not surprisingly, the Atlantic Council produces publications that depict Russia as the "bad guy" in the conflict while simultaneously playing up Ukraine as the "good guy." As for the US Army publications you listed, well, the Pentagon is the power behind NATO. Therefore US military publications are only going to propagate a pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian position regarding the conflict. In the end, each of these partisan publications has a motive to dramatize the conflict in a way which uses "loaded language," rather melodramatically, to conjure a state vs state or nation vs nation aspect of the affair. I'll repeat myself here for the sake of emphasis: using the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" enables the Atlantic Council and US Army media to make the conflict sound as if it's about one supposedly "good" state's struggle (i.e., Ukraine) against the aggression waged by a second supposedly "bad" state (i.e, Russia). I propose that we try to avoid echoing the rhetoric of media outlets and think tanks that are clearly not neutral in their analysis of the conflict. Hope this makes sense to you. Thanks,Kenmore (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kenmore. Just to briefly respond, even if we hold aside the Atlantic Council and the sources published by the U.S. army (and I'm not sure that we should), wouldn't that still leave multiple peer-reviewed journal articles articles that treat this as one topic? The point that I was trying to make was more that these groups consider the conflict to be a topic in and of itself, with the conflict encompassing more than either War in Donbas or Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation can cover in either individual article. If the opposition is to the term "war" in the title of the article, then maybe a move request discussion would be a proper to discuss that. But, why would we consider the title of the page as a compelling reason to delete it, when the topic of the page is notable and not substantially equivalent to that covered by another single page or a section thereof? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 articles about one topic There are three articles about current conflict in Ukraine: War in Donbas + Ukraine crisis + Russo-Ukrainian War. Talking into account similar conflicts like Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War it is logical and neutral to merge them all into War in Donbas (Ukraine) or similar. It is not neutral to have any country names, except the location of the conflict, in the title, because such articles in encyklopedia as Wikipedia can be misused for achieving political goals or influencing social opinions--Sputnik13 (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^ Above comment is not a vote. Sputnik13 already posted once in favor of removal. MagteiContrib 16:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More than three, likely more to be written, and who knows what future history may bring. See, for example, the wikilinks in Russo-Ukrainian War#Other regions and articles in Category:Russo-Ukrainian War, with 7 subcategories and 40 pages (cf. Category:Vietnam War, with 26 subcategories and 143 pages). —Michael Z. 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple sources provided by Andrew🐉, RGloucester, and Mikehawk10 which link the events covered by this article within a single framework, under which Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and War in Donbas serve as sub-topics rather than CForks. Whatever that conceptual framework is called is a matter for WP:RM, not AfD. This article also needs cleanup, but that also lies outside of AfD, with this article not being so bad as to need WP:TNT. CMD (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like there is a lot of non npov from a Russian narrative. But the RS are saying war, perhaps hybrid but still an undeclared war by the Russian government. Ip says (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per synthesis. This article combines various diplomatic disputes and armed conflicts between Russia and Ukraine to defend a thesis that war has existed between the two countries since 2014. It does that by combining material in existing articles rather than using sources about the alleged war, since such reliable sources do not exist. The only use I could find was a few right-wing editorials that use the term to promote a partisan agenda. TFD (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Such reliable sources do not exist' seems like a shockingly ignorant statement, given the number of books and journal articles cited in this discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 13:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover the topic as a whole, which is in line with WP:GNG. At minimum, the sources presented above are sufficient to establish that this isn't Wikipedia synthesizing this. Rather, it appears to be a framing that's discussed in the relevant literature, and it's certainly got enough coverage for an article in its own right. The arguments for deletion are unpersuasive, and at times, would appear to rely upon the highly questionable notion that sources thus far presented in this discussion have no merit. Additionally, the proposer's comment that the naming is mere political propaganda also rings hollow in light of the extant scholarly literature. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there are plenty of sources about conflict between Russia and Ukraine, it's synthesis to put them together and call it the "Russo-Ukraine War." It is similar to grouping together all the wars between Britain and France over the centuries, along with periods of peace, and calling in "The Franco-British War." Compare this with the Russo-Japanese War. A google book search returns 9 books of the first 9 hits using the term in the title.[4] The same search for Russo-Ukraine War returns none. TFD (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry TFD, I usually agree with you, but on this one I simply cannot. No one is grouping all conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, including 'periods of peace', into a synthesised 'Russo-Ukrainian War'. Instead, we are following reliable sources, which refer to a conflicted called the 'Russo-Ukrainian War', and documenting it as it has existed since 2014. Your book search clearly was not sufficient. Plenty of sources using this terminology were linked above. Nothing was made up out of thin air, or synthesised. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 3 July 2021 (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/Russo-Ukrainian_War_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1031986424"