Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine


 * 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. But editors note that NPOV/OR issues should be addressed through editing.  Sandstein  09:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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 (T) 05:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say in response to this. I guess this is proof that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)


 * 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)
 * @: 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 (talk • contribs) 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 wordsdeeds 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)
 * 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)
 * With regards to the content, I think your risk OR territory by throwing in whole paragraphs raw census data cited directly to the imperial census documents, which is use of a PRIMARY source. It would be better to have an accompanying secondary source somewhere which directly demonstrates the importance of historical population composition to the modern territorial questions. As for this deletion nomination, I was reacting to the notion expounded by some editors that it is unconscionable to nominate certain articles for deletion, particularly when they've been judged to be of a certain quality....I do not believe in untouchable articles, and I have encountered some in my time that are so hopelessly POV and SYNTHed that AfD seems an appropriate solution. That wasn't meant to be taken personally. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:08, 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 like that 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)
 * For example, it tells in the lead: The tensions between these two competing historical and cultural traditions erupted into political and social conflict during the Euromaidan and so on. No, this is highly misleading. The occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 was not a result of any internal "tensions" (Kremlin's propagandists used to say "a civil war in Ukraine"), but a decision by one man (or by a group) in Kremlin. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, basically, I think this page is one big WP:SYN. It describes a lot things/events in the past that did happen, but all these events have almost nothing to do with the actual "unrest" aka Russian occupation/annexation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the invasions of Crimea and Donbas were as you say, decisions made by Russia, but that doesn't change the fact that there was political and social conflict in Ukraine during the Euromaidan. That sentence is sourced to The New York Times, is the NYT not reliable? I don't see where in the article it is claimed that the invasions of Crimea or Donbas were caused by internal tensions in Ukraine...I see no such content in the article. This article is about the pro-Russian protests that emerged during and after the Euromaidan, it is not about the invasions. Russia of course fomented unrest within Ukraine and then took advantage of that unrest to launch an attack on the country, but that doesn't mean that the protests were not legitimate.


 * Reliable sources say that they were (cited in the article and elsewhere), for instance this report by the RAND Corporation, which I think you will agree has no reason to take Russia's side. So yes, there was unrest, and yes, it did involve domestic factors, but of course, that doesn't mean that Russia's subsequent invasion of Ukraine was at all justified or that people supported it (see the surveys of public opinion at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, conducted by the renowned Kyiv International Institute of Sociology), nor does the article say anything of that sort. Perhaps the problem is the name of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which is certainly not ideal.


 * And finally, again, nothing here is SYNTH as far as I can tell. SYNTH means using two or more sources to reach and independent conclusion not found in those sources. This article, on the contrary, is more or less a classic example of not WP:NOTSYNTH, because as you can see, it is reliable sources, cited in the article, that are saying that these historical and demographic factors do have something to do with the unrest. No one pulled them out of thin air, examined a bunch of random demographic and historical data and came up with an independent thesis of 'x y and z explain why there was unrest'. Instead, RS are cited as identifying certain particular events and demographic data as relevant factors, and then, historical books with more specific details about those factors are cited to describe them. Clearly, this is WP:NOTSYNTH. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have page 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (I would probably rename it), and what it say about this "unrest"? What did it actually was? First, beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces, subsequently confirmed to be Russian troops by Vladimir Putin, began to gradually take control of the Crimean Peninsula (the "pro-Russian forces" in this case were actually Russian GRU forces, as was admitted even by Putin). OK. Then it say: Pro-Russian protesters occupied the Donetsk regional state administration (RSA) building from 1 to 6 March and so on. However, these "pro-Russian' protesters" were also either GRU people or "separatists" led by the GRU or other Russian agents. Sure, these agents exploited some prejustices by people, as they always do. But saying on WP pages that it was essentially a genuine uprising by Ukrainian people (and trying to explain why this uprising had happen, as this page does) is the narrative of Russian state propaganda in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does this page say that there was a genuine uprising by Ukrainian people in support of a Russian invasion? I see no such statement in the article. And you're wrong about the events in Donetsk. Again, take a look at the RAND report. According to it, the occupation of the RSA in Donetsk in early March was actually conducted by locals ('Some Russian citizens were allegedly paid to cross the border and participate in these events (professional agitators), and some Russians likely came to help the cause of their own accord, but most protestors were local Ukrainians'), which is why it was so easy for the SBU to then remove them. The report goes on to say that, following the expulsion of the initial group of protesters from the RSA, 'Ukrainian authorities removed the local political figureheads of the protest movement but, as a consequence, they were replaced by individuals with ties to Russian security services, military experience, and associations with business interests in Russia', and it was these people who are the 'GRU people' you are talking about, but they didn't take over the RSA again until April. Let's get our facts straight, please! RGloucester  — ☎ 19:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to it, Some Russian citizens were allegedly paid to cross the border and participate in these events (professional agitators) [ones from Russian special forces or other Russian state-directed organizations] That is what I am talking about. Yes, they worked with local Ukrainian citizens, but it still was a special operation by Russian State. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what the source says, MYVB. It clearly distinguishes between a first phase of protests and the second phase of Girkin and company rolling in at Russia's behest. But that's fine, clearly what RS say is irrelevant in this discussion. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A possible future route, if others agree the current scope is inherently inappropriate, is merging chunks of this article's best-sourced content into the background section of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, possibly moving other content somewhere such as History of Ukraine, and deleting the rest by redirecting. However, AfD isn't the place for a merge discussion, deletion would get in the way of such merges/breaking up the content, and I don't see any grounds for outright deletion of the entirety of the content. Ultimately a collective editorial decision needs to be made on the best way to present the content here (and resolving any synth issues), but again that's not something for AfD to address. Jr8825  •  Talk  23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What does 'the current scope is inherently inappropriate' mean? No one has said any such thing thus far. Reliable sources clearly establish the article's scope and notability, and background articles are relatively common as content forks from articles that are getting too long. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not passing judgement on this myself (I'd need to research/consider further), but my interpretation of the nom and MVBW's concerns is that an article tying broader regional/demographic history directly into a specific event could inherently result in selection bias against the possibility that the event was largely caused by other factors (for example, modern politics, or economics, or media). That doesn't mean all of your contextual research isn't valuable, just that it may fit better into an article specifically about regional history (or moved to a different title) so that it isn't shoehorning the history towards an implied narrative, even if it does so unintentionally. To make a crude example, an article called Historical background of Brexit which looked at several centuries of British history and demographic shifts would be inappropriate, as it would inevitably fail to account for the argument/viewpoint that Brexit was predominantly contingent on a set of 20th-21st century factors. Jr8825  •  Talk  00:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This I can agree with, but I don't think it applies here. Unlike in the case of Brexit, we have reliable sources, cited in the article, that clearly state those demographic shifts and historical changes as important factors in the protests. In fact, such sources documenting a conflict go back to the 1990s, with books like Workers of the Donbass Speak: Survival and Identity in the New Ukraine, 1989-1992. There is a long tradition of research of these issues, and until this article, it had never been incorporated into Wikipedia. It was widely noted in 2014 that a long-running conflict had come to a head, not that it had suddenly appeared about of thin air.


 * I agree entirely, as do RS, that Russia launched a concerted military and information operation to destabilise Ukraine in 2014, as MWBW says. What I don't necessarily agree with is the idea that the Russian invasions, operations, &c., necessarily negate existing cleavages and unrest in Ukraine as documented by RS. Of course, the presence of those cleavages in no way legitimises Russia's actions. You can see this by looking at the opinion polling done by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, or the more recent polling done by Ukrainian sociological group Rating that I added to the Donbas article a few days ago.


 * The big issue seems to be separating domestic issues/protest in Ukraine from the subsequent Russian invasions and interference in those issues. At the time this article was written, such a separation the standard in RS, and as far as I can tell, RS still made such a separation as recently as last year. But, perhaps, with current events as they are, they have become inseparable, and therefore the whole premise behind 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (which was written live as the events were occurring) and this article have collapsed. Perhaps Russia's interference is too great to discuss these matters independently in the present, and in that case, the solution may well be WP:TNT and starting from scratch, or expanding the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't yet know what the best thing to do with the content is, there are a lot of possible options – perhaps an elegant page move ("demographic history of..."?), a rewrite of the lead and scope tweaks will be enough, or maybe something more radical will be needed. However, this is a discussion for the talk page. A large majority of the prose is a very well written, well sourced and valuable historical summary. The invasion will make it more valuable, not less – however/wherever it ends up being presented, future readers/scholars will seek to understand the situational context of a major geopolitical event, even if this is only one small aspect of it. It's nowhere near a TNT case. Jr8825  •  Talk  01:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regardless to everything above, I think we should not have any separate pages on "Background" of anything. The "background" should appear only as a section on the corresponding page about actual events. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree but a cursory search returned Background of the Russo-Georgian War, Background of the Winter War and Background of the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps these articles could be better as "prelude" instead of background in their titles, and I think the NPOV problem with this article and its title can be solved by rephrasing "unrest" to something more neutral. What phrase would you suggest? Pious Brother (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is exactly what Wikipedia is for. Describing background knowledge and the big picture. Instead of deleting this article, you should consider to delete all this unnecessary detailed description of recent events (news ticker) P.S There is enough scientific literature about the background of the Ukraine crisis that one could cite. SYNTH/OR needs to be fixed for sure, but this is a quality issue not an issue with notability. Use tags or the discussion page to address quality issues. --TheRandomIP (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I take this to be an article written from a Russian POV, which it is probably useful to have. However, I do not recall much discussion of unrest apart from in Crimea and in Donbas region, so that there may be a case for purging some of the rest as too much POV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a single Russian source is used in the article. The two other major contributors to this article, other than me, are actually Ukrainian. What on earth is going on here?? Is the RAND Corporation known to write from a 'Russian POV'? I guess you are not familiar, but please look at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. There was unrest in both Kharkiv and Odesa. You might remember, for instance, the 2014 Odesa clashes, which Putin often references in his propaganda... RGloucester  — ☎ 19:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, articles are not supposed to be written from a certain national POV. It's not "useful"; it's a policy violation. If you see an article with a national POV you should try to fix it—this is different than an article simply stating what a given national POV is about something. -Indy beetle (talk)
 * The article is not written from a Russian POV, nor does it state a national POV about something. Please, this is getting ridiculous. The only thing that this whole discussion makes me think is that this topic has become so politicised because of currents events, backed by a shortsighted view rooted in WP:RECENTISM, that it has become a proverbial hot potato. Comments like this, without any basis in reality, are flying around, and no one is doing anything about them.
 * I am not willing to be constantly submitted to these strange accusations about 'writing from a Russian POV', &c. I am honestly tired of it. Review my contributions over the years, please. Look at everything I've written and done. Please try and find where I have ever written from a Russian point of view. Some diffs, some comments. Look at some of the accolades I recieved. Where is the Russian point of view? Where? RGloucester  — ☎ 00:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The reason for proposed deletion is invalid. This article does not constitute original research, it clearly cites sources which identify the historical background of Russians in the region of Ukraine as something of relevance to pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. The history sections on the regions central to this unrest are written as a background and do not editorialise by trying to draw a direct connection to specific events today or advocate irredentist positions. Furthermore, it is neutral to describe current events as pro-Russian unrest: it is a description that all involved parties and academics agree on. There is clearly unrest. The root of it is clearly linked to Russian people, culture, language and history and the way this has interacted with the nation of Ukraine. This article does a good job of being an unbiased primer on the context of this event. SFB 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comfr (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Background is important. That is why I was reading the article.


 * 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.