Jump to content

Talk:2014 Crimean crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements not confirmed by sources

[edit]

Currently a source is used to claim "opposition by Russia", while the source used clearly speaks about thousands of local protesters. While there is no doubt that stationed troops were later used by Russian Federation, that should not mean we can erase information about protesters which is confirmed by numerous reliable sources such as The Guardian or BBC. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just another example of the pervasive bias and anti-reality stance of this Wikipedia entry. That's why I tagged it as POV. But that was reverted, without discussion and against Wikipedia rules, three hours later.Haberstr (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worst I've ever seen; tagged as NPOV-challenged

[edit]

"Worst I've ever seen" modified in the sense that all the Ukraine conflict Wikipedia articles are profoundly POV-biased and Russo-phobic. A revolution occurred in Crimea, and there is ample evidence contradicting the 'Russia invaded' or 'Russia took over' narrative created by Ukraine and Western imperialist creative writers. Our duty as Wikipedia editors in these 'disputed recent history' contexts is to include both sides in a balanced way, relying on RS.Haberstr (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Russo-phobic", really? The articles on the topic area accurately reflect the consensus view among non-deranged and non-propaganda sources (i.e. reliable sources) that Russian regular and irregular troops played an instrumental role in seizing control of the Crimean government, disarming elements of the Ukrainian military on the peninsula, and arranging a hastily organized "referendum" in an effort to legitimize Russian annexation. It would be shameful if this article did not reflect that narrative of events that actually, verifiably did happen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I neglected to add: if you have specific examples of bias and "Russo-phobia" in this article that you feel must be addressed, then point them out. I am sick to death of certain editors periodically coming to these Eastern Europe content pages, complaining broadly about "bias" and "narrative" and "Western imperialist" nonsense and then not being willing or able to make any constructive suggestions for how to improve the article. It all smacks of so much WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see the difference between, on the one hand, hard facts and real evidence and on the other allegations by either side in the new cold war, then a discussion is not really worthwhile. There is no world consensus on what exactly happened in Crimea, there is only an agreement on a narrative among the propagandists in the capitals of the Western globalization camp. A world encyclopedia balances between the perspectives on both sides of the propaganda battle lines, relies on hard facts and recognizes when they aren't there (which is the obvious case with this entry), and reflects the perspective of non-aligned parties. Hold off on assumptions about how active I may or may not be. Change is coming; I have a pretty good track record. Frankly I am obligated to explain my POV tag, which was glaringly needed, but debating here whether or not the Crimea entry is biased or not is not productive or interesting. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense who is not overwhelmed by aggressive imperial propaganda masquerading as news.Haberstr (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is world consensus on what exactly had happened in Crimea - as reflected in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: actually, we should merge 2014 Crimean crisis and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation into the latter (and after that, "infobox event" is to be replaced by sort of "conflict" infobox). These articles have exactly same timespan (late Feb. - late March 2014) and tell us about one and same event. Likewise, Category:2014 Crimean crisis should be renamed into Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (or, if use shorter title, Category:2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia or something like that). Currently, we have WP:REDUNDANTFORK situation (not WP:POVFORK, because both crisis and annexation articles take more-or-less same stance). This is not a good thing. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I find the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation to be in much better shape than this one. We don't need parallel articles. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If so, one should gradually move some content from here to "Annexation" article. Not everything is duplication. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Some material is unique, but it can be migrated to the other page. This article is redundant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But one must be very careful. For example, I think the content of this section should be merged to International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis, content of this section should be merged to 2014 anti-war protests in Russia, and so on. Some sections on this page provide a lot more information than "main" pages, such as "2014 anti-war protests in Russia". But other than that, I tend to agree: this page makes an impression of a giant "coat rack". My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and do it. Even if we end up keeping this page for whatever reason, it can be slimmed down and its related and daughter articles improved with content from here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MVBW, I agree with you. I wouldn't trash the whole article. The useful content should be kept and moved to the appropriate pages, and then this page redirected. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorically oppose this action. No proper procedures were followed for a merge. The content of this article is separate from the issue of incorporation of Crimea by Russian Federation which was only the aftermath of the Crisis.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this page moved without prior vote?

[edit]

If somebody wants to move the page it should be done after a vote. I note that this was done without prior voting and in effect a lot of crucial information was left deleted. I will restore the page and then a vote can be made if it should be moved or not. Incorporation of Crimea into Russian Federation happened after the Crisis and shouldn't be merged, as these are two different events. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "vote" on Wikipedia. See the above discussion, where it was established. No crucial information was deleted. It was merged to the appropriate sub-articles. RGloucester — ☎ 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "vote" on Wikipedia Actually we do vote on wikipedia and de facto removing articles without prior discussion is a pretty controversial move. If you want to move such article please start appropriate process called request to move which has its own template. " See the above discussion, where it was established" appropriate procedures for moving articles are already on Wikipedia and I don't find them above.Since a large portion of relevant information was removed, and crisis is something different from incorporation by Russia I see no reason not to restore the page.
We don't vote. Please see WP:NOTDEMO. The change was discussed above. It was a merger. It had unanimous support. No "move" took place". If any content was missed in the merger, please add it in here. Most of it was moved to the appropriate sub-articles. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there's something in an old revision not reflected on the Annexation page (not "Incorporation", I must remind), bring it to Talk. Be specific, please. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here, if you want to move article you should pursue this [[1]], however it is true that your action resembles more of a delete than move, making it even more controversial. It had unanimous support-precisely because of the fact that a couple of people with similar views can be of common opinion in a matter of minutes, deleting or moving the article prior to consensus by other Wikipedians the above template and others were created. The deletion of the article was too quick and not followed prior procedures.It requires debate and discussion that didn't take place.Since you haven't presented any reasons for it to be deleted and I have presented reasons why it should stay(incorporation is not a similar process to annexation) I will restore the article and ask you to start a proper procedure if it should be deleted.If it does, then per snowball rule you will have a chance to delete it quickly.Again, please follow proper procedures.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not deleted. It was merged. It was a merger discussion, and has nothing to do with an RM or deletion. Any reversion of the merger will be reverted, and considered disruptive by the guardians of the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 19:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it is clear that you are trying to create a PoV fork. That's not to be tolerated. "Incorporation" and "annexation", huh? We've had that discussion before. Don't waste our time. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was already existing, hence I am not creating anything. "Don't waste our time" ? Are you speaking on behalf of some group? Why are you talking in plural? Again you have not provided any reason why proper procedures were not followed. Again, we also have a merge request as well.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to answer those questions too. Yes, he or she is speaking on behalf of a group, and that's why he/she is speaking in the plural.Haberstr (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Incorporation" is bunk. What you are talking about is an impermissible WP:POVFORK. The article for Russia's takeover of Crimea is Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. If you don't like that title, well, that has nothing to do with this page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo, the page 2014 Crimean crisis was merged into the page Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation as the result of a merger discussion, to be seen above. Our reasons were given. The two articles had overlap, and there was a coatrack situation ongoing. Hence, they were merged. If you want to change the longstanding title of this article, be my guest. However, we shall only have one article, and that's this. The proper procedures were followed. We had a merger discussion, and merged it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proper procedures were followed

No, they weren't. Here is the list of steps you need to do in order to create a merger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#Requests_for_merge_assistance_and_feedback 1.Create a place for discussion. Go to the Talk Page (also known as the discussion page) of the TARGET ARTICLE (the one you want to merge to) and create a section (eg: "Merger proposal") to discuss the merger. If there's already a discussion on the talk page regarding the merger, you can omit this step. Whether the discussion is new or old, make sure the discussion section names all articles involved and links to them. The section name can be anything that includes the word merge (for example ==Merger proposal==). 2.Put one of the merger tags at the top of the articles you wish to be merged. The templates {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}}, or {{merge}} are the most common ones. Remember to make sure that the Discuss link in each tag points to the section you've created in step 1 (this is to prevent having two separate discussions on different talk pages). 3.If the proposed merge is controversial or potentially difficult to carry out, follow the directions under #Requests for merge assistance and feedback to add it to the list.

Neither point 2 or 3 were followed. . However, we shall only have one article, and that's this. This is not for you to decided, please drop the authoritative and unfriendly tone here. And again-why are you speaking in plural? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBURO, Molobo. The merger was discussed amongst many editors, and we all came to same conclusion. I'm speaking for us. There is no requirement for such a procedure. If you want to rename the article, try and do so. The merger is done. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The merger procedure was not followed. The editors you speak of are involved ones and you have missed the part where the text speaks about involving uninvolved editors in discussion as well. I'm speaking for us. Who is us?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Us" refers to the participants in the above discussion, which you decided to ignore. RGloucester — ☎ 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved without a proper vote because the POV editors want the merged title to be the POV Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation rather than the NPOV, appropriate and entire-event-encompassing 2014 Crimean Crisis.Haberstr (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" was reached by consensus, as you will see if you look back through the Talk page archives. If you want to suggest a move, by all means, start a movereq discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers that are controversial or potentially difficult to carry out(..)need assistance from uninvolved editors in determining whether to merge the pages.

[edit]

As per my above points this move was highly controversial and debated far too quickly by group of like minded editors, without involving a wider group including other editors who worked on this subject. The above line is from [[2]] I will restore the page, as proper discussion was not followed. Then a proper discussion can be made as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#Requests_for_merge_assistance_and_feedback --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing controversial, and nothing difficult. The merger is done, per the discussion. Do not continue this disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was controversial and requires proper debate. You haven't carried out steps 2 and step 3 as per proper merger procedure.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not controversial to the participants in the discussion. There is no proper procedure, per WP:NOTBURO. We make decisions based on discussions through consensus. You've got not argument, Molobo. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no justification for a content fork. Not liking the word "annexation" does not count. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:CANVASS. This is getting really tiresome. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haberstr was participant of that discussion(which didn't follow proper procedures) and contrary to your claim of overwhelming support he didn't seem to support it, contacting editors who participated already as such is allowed(editors can contact :Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You selectively chose Haberstr because of his point of view. He did not participate in the merger discussion. The only thing he did was make a unilateral nonsense page move of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation to Crimea joins the Russian Federation. If you'd like that to be the article title, perhaps you could open an RM. RGloucester — ☎ 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He did not participate in the merger discussion Then who did actually? Because he is in the above discussion. Are you really trying to tell me RGloucester that an event about significant international crisis was removed from Wikipedia pages because in less than a day three like minded editors agreed with each other? It is precisely for this kind of situations we have proper procedures which should be followed. If we had a proper request for merge, followed by proper discussion, the controversy here could have been avoided.Now please restore the article and start a proper procedure so a civilized, sensible debate can be made with diverse views by numerous editors, including non-involved ones. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No "event" or "crisis" was removed. All content was merged into this article or sub-articles. This article covers the crisis. Previously, we had two parallel articles covering the same thing. Now, we have one. This is an article about the crisis that led to the annexation. If you want to change the name, be my guest. The merger discussion is complete. It was civilised, well thought, and followed the spirit of Wikipedia's principles. This was merely a consolidation of content to avoid forks and to allow easier access for the reader. If a specific piece of content is missing, please tell us so that it can be restored. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merger discussion is complete. It was civilised, well thought, and followed the spirit of Wikipedia's principles. Since it didn't involve anyone disagreeing with you-as no notification was made that would make other Wikipedians aware, this is not a surprise. Had you followed procedures for merging articles, you would have encountered more diverse opinions. I am sorry RGlloucester, the article needs to be restored, and then a proper merge debate can happen, I have given you links to correct templates and description on how to do it. If indeed consensus is as strong as you believe the debate will be over quickly.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper procedure was followed, per WP:NOTBURO. We had diverse opinions, and no one here as solicited like-minded opinions other than you. No notification is required, and indeed a notification would be canvassing, which is prohibited. The merger is complete. The discussion is complete. Please focus on improving the content of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proper procedure for merging articles is located at [3]

You haven't followed it, neither proper merger tags have been put in place nor step 3 followed. Please do so next time, when the article is restored. As evident on this talkpage the discussion is neither over nor merger has happened as it was simply a mass blanking of an article without merger procedure being followed. and no one here as solicited like-minded opinions Please explain what you mean by this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I can tell, this "discussion" is a pro-Russia partisan arguing in dubious faith that a content fork should exist because he doesn't agree with describing the Russian takeover of Crimea as "annexation". That is not a valid argument, and content forks are not allowed under Wikipedia policy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with personal attacks.There was no "content fork" as the article was created a long time already. If anything annexation of Crimea article is a content fork.However this is of no relevance here at the moment, the article was fine, full of sources and was effectively deleted without any procedure. As such the only thing remaining is to restore it and editors interested can either request delete or merge using proper procedures and templates, while discussing this with other viewpoints. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was deleted. Why don't you look at what happened? All content was transferred and merged. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All content was transferred and merged That is completely false as just today I had to move information about local protests that previously suffered attempts of deletion.Much of the rest remains missing as well. Furthermore the article is POV as it incorporation by Russia happened after local protests. I am afraid by not following the procedure RGloucester and his effective deletion of the information was very controversial.If the choice to merge the article and equalize protests that happened before Russia took with the take over is so simple, than why is RGloucester so hesitant to carry out the correct steps to merge the article which would have to involve discussion in which he would have to participate? By doing so and notifying all potential sides to the discussion(and as seen above he is aware of them because he provided link to an edit by another editor I was unaware of and which spoke against this merge I believe) we could avoid this and concentrate on carrying out productive discussion. C'mon guys, let's do it right, restore the article and start a correct procedure which will involve discussion by all editors actively involved in this article before. Why not? Also I would know RGloucester answer to his statement that and no one here as solicited like-minded opinions Please explain what you mean by this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correct procedure took place. If I missed some content that was not duplicated, please restore it here, as I told you to before. I'm still working on ensuring adequate incorporation. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Molobo, please review WP:POVFORK. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like if all users here, regardless of persuasion, helped to ensure that we have a good article here. This is our chance. The Crimean articles have been a mess for months, and now, a year on, it is time that we cleaned them up. We now have the benefit of hindsight, of historical documents, and no longer have to rely on breaking news reporting. This is our chance. Please, all of you, instead of arguing here, edit the article. Improve it. Ensure that these events have good coverage on the encylopaedia. Now that the information is consolidated, this will be much easier. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can make the first step to ensure we have a good article here, by restoring it from the mass blanking that happened. The current arbitrary de facto removal of the article and equalization of local protests and political tension with incorporation by Russian Federation is highly POV, and it seems you were aware that other users of different opinion than yours, weren't supportive of the idea as your link to another user edit indicates.I am fine with working with others on the article to make it good, but first it needs to be restored. If you want to merge it, proper procedures and steps have been pointed out to you upon which a debate involving ALL viewpoints can be had not just one can be had as was envisioned by the policy on such actions. So, as a will of good gesture and willingness to work with others in name of NPOV will you revert your blanking of the article and work along with Wikipedia procedures by engaging in good standards of debate and informing others of proposed drastic changes to this article? Also please could you explain what you mean by t and no one here as solicited like-minded opinions  ? I have kindly asked you about this several times.

Kind regards --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is "annexation", Molobo, not "incorporation". Your repeated use of the Russia-sympathetic term doesn't do anything to dispel the appearance you want to keep this article alive as a POV counterweight to the main article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No "blanking" took place. This was a page merge. I will not work with someone who lies to make a point. No drastic change took place, and there is nothing non-neutral about it. If you want to change the name of the article, start an RM. The fact remains that this was one event over the course of less than a month, and should have one article. By "no one here has solicited like-minded opinions, other than you", I meant that none of the discussion participants engaged in canvassing like-minded users, meaning that your accusations of a cabal are baseless WP:ASPERSIONS. You, on the other hand, did so. RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No "blanking" took place. This was a page merge Please point to appropriate edit where you have included merge template. If you want to change the name of the article, start an RM. I don't need to as the article still exists under its old name, only with blanked content and redirect.As there is no reason for it to remaining blanked, the content should be restored. You, on the other hand, did so I didn't and I kindly ask you to stop with the personal attacks here.

The fact remains that this was one event over the course of less than a month, and should have one article. It is fine to have an opinion, but if you want to represent it on Wikipedia you need to follow correct procedures. RGloucester-please tell me, why not have a proper and correct procedure like Wikipedia policy advises? Why are you refusing to do so? All that above discussion wouldn't have taken place if you had done that. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ts: tendentious and tedious. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "correct procedure". WP:NOTBURO is policy. Consensus through discussion is policy. No template is required. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester-there is a policy for merging articles, if you believe it is wrong you need to start a separate procedure to change. Now, why don't we have a debate involving all viewpoints?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not read what I linked, Molobo:

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

It is very simple, Molobo. Anyway, there is no "merging policy". There is only WP:Merging, which is not a policy. RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussionIf you would follow the WP:Merging procedure you would engage in this. Anyway you seem to contradict yourself. At first you stated you followed merge,but then retracted and stated there is no policy.Anyway I will think how to resolve the blanking on this page over the night.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had a discussion. One editor who doesn't like the result for no policy reason does not constitute disagreement, it constitutes disruption. The tide of consensus is against you. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No merge discussion took place, no merge tag was placed as per the correct procedure, no uninvolved editors were invited as per the procedure. No different views were allowed to discuss.As such we can't say that a merge discussion took place. Once a proper discussion is initiated we will see if the consensus is against me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A merge discussion took place, no template is required by policy, no one is required to have been invited, as that would be WP:CANVASSING. No different views were expressed during the discussion. You cannot override consensus in a discussion, Molobo. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A merge discussion took place, no template is required by policy, no one is required to have been invitedPolicy specifies exactly that template needs to be provided and uninvolved editors invited. You cannot override consensusWhy are you reluctant to engage in debate that will examine what the consensus is? Anyway I will think of ways to seek friendly mediation and advice since you are unwilling to revert blanking this page.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No page was "blanked". The content was merged. What policy requires use of templates? None. WP:Merging says right at the top that it is not a policy. However, WP:NOTBURO, as cited above, is a policy. I adhered to the letter of WP:NOTBURO. There is no need for debate. We had the debate already. The only one who has a problem is you, and that's because you are trying to make PoV forks that no one has an appetite for. If there is a problem with the article, fix it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No page was "blanked".This page was blanked. WP:Merging says right at the top that it is not a policy You again are contradicting yourself, just above you stated it is a policy.WP:NOTBURO, as cited above, is a policy. I adhered to the letter of WP:NOTBURO. Blatant disregard of rules is hardly an argument in this discussion. Per your reasoning I could just as well revert you and it would be ok.There is no need for debate. Wikipedia is based on debate and consensus, and disregarding this is not the way to go.We had the debate already We didn't as such debate wasn't started.you are trying to make PoV forksWhere? This article existed since months before you blanketed it. If there is a problem with the article, fix it So you are ok with me restoring the content of this article and asking you to request merge as per the procedure required?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about RGloucester, but I'm certainly not okay with you attempting to perpetuate this article as a POV fork. RGloucester is right -- it was a monthlong event and there is no need for two articles covering the exact same thing, just from different POVs. If you are really, really unhappy with the name of the article, propose a move request at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Going 'round and 'round on this on the Talk page for what is now a redirect is hardly constructive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the article called Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation but this one which had its content blanked. In any case I will leave for now, and see what other ways are there to peacefully discuss and restore the deleted content.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, if you have examples of content being deleted, bring it up on Talk and be specific. User:RGloucester has repeatedly said his intent was to merge all content not already duplicated elsewhere to other articles, per consensus above, and if he and other merging editors fell short in doing so, I'd like to know about it so it can be remedied. But the longer you go without providing any specific examples, the more your claims of "blanked" and "deleted" content seem baseless and hysterical. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is very complex merging. I would need a lot more time to look a this. My overall impression is that some content perhaps has been lost right now, but this can be fixed...My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If non-duplicated content is lost, please, tell me. I can retrieve it and put it in. All these problems can be remedied. RGloucester — ☎ 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to RGloucester's comment. If some content has been lost, identify it; it seems like all of the content has actually been moved into or was already in other articles. -sche (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MyMolo talk is correct and the proper procedures were not followed. The merger should be undone, there should be a discussion (not or ten minutes, but for a week or so) and a vote.Haberstr (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BREAKING: Water is wet, the Pope is Catholic, etc. I have yet to see a policy-based argument (beyond the tiresome bureaucratic semantics) as to why we need two articles to recap the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ridicule other editors. Always remember, we're trying to make Wikipedia a welcoming, supportive place, and to make editing as non-contentious and as enjoyable as possible. In any case, as I have said, the reason we should go through the Wikipedia merger process -- the usual time is a week to ten days -- is so that better, more NPOV ideas can emerge and possibly meet with consensus. In this case, we could've chosen to merge to 2014 Crimean Crisis, the more all-encompassing title and, also relevant, the title that eliminates the POV, contentious and technically false title, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. I think the concept behind the excellent Wikipedia policy of discussion and voting on mergers is that such discussion and voting sometimes results in even better ideas and compromises.Haberstr (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your quibbles, and Molobo's quibbles, with the title of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is best addressed at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and your suggestion of parking the page at a different title is best handled with a move request. Considering that avenue is open, it would be tendentious to resurrect a properly merged content fork just so we can continue arguing about it until ????? (not sure what your ideal endgame is, here). As I said on your Talk page, if you want a different title, request a move and make your case for it. That's the best way of doing it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about the article you mention but about this article, whose content was removed without prior proper discussion involving other editors as per merge procedure.The article existed for months, and naming it a content fork is incorrect.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles have been merged. Haberstr seems to be arguing the merged article should be under the title 2014 Crimean crisis instead of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. I think you are the only one arguing, at this point, that the fork should have remained in place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No proper merge discussion took place. For it to happen we need to restore the blanked content and people interested need to start merge procedure as explained above.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, RGloucester. That is the existing article, and that is where discussion should be taking place... not that any one of the dozens of editors other than MyMoloboaccount and Haberstr are of the opinion that there was no consensus for the move. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Crimean_crisis&oldid=1196660721"