Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)

Add links
Source: 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 delete. The core arguments for deletion are that these timelines are

biased unreliable sources
. Separately these would usually be seen as fixable problems that don't justify deletion, and the main arguments for keeping focus on that. However, the more common sentiment is that in this particular case it makes more sense to start from scratch, and looking at the content and sourcing, especially the sheer volume of problematic material, gives credence to that position.

Since all parties generally agree that it would be acceptable to have some type of timeline for this conflict, there is no prejudice against creating a new timeline article or series of articles that do not replicate the current problems. RL0919 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)

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

Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)

Also:

Content

This series of articles is unsalvageable. Start with the titles: it's not the "war in Donbass",. it's the Russian invasion of Donbass. The articles contain hundreds of references, almost all of which are to Russian-operated disinformation websites (e.g. news-front.info, topwar.ru, 112 (.ua/.international). It is effectively impossible to fix this as the sheer number of sources makes it virtually impossible to clean them up: I spent over an hour trying to remove the crap sources from one of these and only got about 15% of the way through before losing the will to live - I did not even save it because it left so much unsourced. Few statements have more than one source, most of the sources are garbage, and the garbage sources are often cited multiple times. If we do decide to have a timeline article on the Donbass invasion, this would not be it. It would not even be a valid starting point.

WP:COATRACK and it seems quite likely also WP:KREMLIN
. The articles I call out are the worst offenders, but all this timeline series are plagued by similar issues of terrible sourcing, excessive detail,
news-like coverage and the rest. Guy (help!) 22:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't see any delete/keep opinion of yours — is this intentional?
as for Kremlin, Yanukovich did not succeed (was evacuated by Russian military helicopters instead, some count this escape for the start of the war), “me and myself” have only referenced to official sources of a sovereign country, Ukraine (occasionally adding casualties officially not reported); if the articles under question here should be deleted, I'll copy/paste the deleted ones into another Wiki, building on the bases I started in the very beginning of the war (in March of 2014; cfr. 2014-1/2014-1, etc.).—Pietadè (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"excessive detail" would be to add into the timelines that 1 dead (on 1 Dec 2019) SBU colonel's body was handed over in a week; earlier declared prisoners swap is apparently stuck, etc.—Pietadè (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This series of articles is a total disaster. Even putting aside the source issue, they are filled with direct extracts of daily news reports (see
    WP:NOTNEWS), with no obvious encyclopaedic value. No attempt is made to provide a narrative of any kind, nor is there any indication of significance or context for the 'information' displayed. The actual sources themselves are horrible...we're basically presented with a mess of unreliable Russian propaganda and unreliable Ukrainian propaganda, none of which is picked up by reputable western outlets. Destroy this mess...it is unsalvageable. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
E.g., yesterday one Ukrainian serviceman was wounded and another suffered retinal injuries inflicted by a
Il Principe, but that's not the case here (though, have not read in English or Russian translations similar to each other, esp. in regard of populo/populo, etc....;-F)), people are different.—Pietadè (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are U fluent in Russian, Ukrainian?—Pietadè (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the nomination. These timelines can't be cleaned up, because virtually all the content is drawn from propaganda sites. Even if the level of detail were appropriate (spoiler: it's not), the articles need to be
completely restarted to comply with our policies around neutrality and sourcing. The first article listed has around 650 references of which 550 are definitely unacceptable, and the rest I haven't yet checked. That's not fixable by cleanup. Sources don't have to be Western to be reputable, but they do have to be, well, reputable. "News-front", for example, is a Russian sponsored fake news and disinformation site. That's nothing to do with whether it's Western or not, it's to do with the fact that the invading country has created it and funds it as part of their information warfare. State-controlled media outlets like RT are similarly not considered reliable. Guy (help!) 16:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand that the nomination is based upon mere essays, not established WP policies or guidelines. Obviously you didn't read
talk) 16:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Creating a balance between propaganda views is exactly what
WP:FALSEBALANCE. The fact you don't understand this is very worrying. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It's you that got it wrong,
talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
DagosNavy, no, it also deals with news, especially in politics. If I show you ten mainstream articles identifying that Donald Trump lied about a thing - say Sharpiegate - and ten conservative sources that swear blind he did not, we'd go with the mainstream sources. The truth is not halfway between facts and propaganda, or at any point between competing forms of propaganda. Guy (help!) 21:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
DagosNavy, verifiability requires a reliable source. These sources are fake. Guy (help!) 22:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This doesn't apply when the sources are not merely partisan, but literally fake news propaganda sites. I appreciate you've worked on these, but the articles are literally catalogues of propaganda that we literally can't trust - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS. Guy (help!) 18:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Weird...but if you read it carefully, most of the time the "fake news" coincided on both sides, may be they agree at least on that...--
talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:RSN is a good place to ask). Guy (help!) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 21:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
DagosNavy, you might be able to make that argument fly for TASS but not something like News Front, see [1]. That is a fake news website in the classical definition. Guy (help!) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point,
talk) 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia were replaced by Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today) in 2013 and are now broadcasting as Sputnik News. Sputnik and TASS are both rated as questionable sources because of extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or ... fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not clean-up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, very much the point of the deletion rationale. These articles are sourced from fake news and propaganda, and cannot be cleaned up because of 650 sources in one article, 550 are definite disinformation and the others have not yet been fully assessed. And the existence of 48 separate articles with daily blow by blow news-style coverage is also a problem. Guy (help!) 18:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the "cleanup" would involve removing almost all of the content. You're correct on the general principle, but this is the sort of case
      WP:TNT is talking about: "extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up." - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep —Pietadè (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) (including about 130 “politically motivated” articles on Ukrainian settlements, linked to these timelines—Pietadè (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
My account in Wikipedia dates back to 2011, have created 3K+ articles since (mainly «outside this topic»);
this is a war, and has casualties, since
GRU/CIA sources are not available, one has to stick to the sources available,...—Pietadè (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have removed an erroneous assertion. I put it to you that if an editor makes such an accusation without so much as looking at the earliest edits of the person they accuse, then action should be taken against them. I have listed Pietade's early edit history with hidden text (Edit to view). My apologies to Pietade if he was the one who added that tag, although I cannot imagine why he would have. Anarchangel (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is precisely that the sources are so bad that, if kept, almost all content will need to be removed. It is also accurate to note that almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do remember the times where one side counted every single bullet/shell/rocket for a single violation, and, the numbers, violations per day (minute/second) in total were, "vast"...
I haven't referenced the sources like the one below (by the way, both parties present weekly updates; perhaps, later, these articles can be reduced to some kind of 52 weekly "compounds" for 2014-2019; right now no one knows what shall the next day bring along (some call it history)):
3. As the result of the Russian armed aggression, 7 servicemen from the JFO were WIA. They were all transferred to the military medical facilities.
4. We want to inform with grief that over the past week, 1 serviceman was KIA.
Ministry of Defense expresses sincerest condolences to the families and loved ones of the deceased defender!
And, have to add, that my humble 3,000+ articles and 50,000+ edits in Wikipedia are not entirely circling 'round this war, au contraire... ;-)—Pietadè (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the sources are literally unusable, and almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine counts explosions (they hear) and reports them, with delay;
my contributions started in etwi and are not narrowed down to a single war; just as I can read and understand both Russian and Ukrainian, thought to make use of it.—Pietadè (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
International media ("reliable sources"), like RFE/FL, Reuters, BBC, has covered the topic provided that the number of casualties per day has reached some point;
besides that, the articles have had readers, how about their right to have information (and to consume it using the space between their ears to “digest” it)?—Pietadè (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" wasn't part of the nomination. I added it yesterday because it seemed to fit the pattern, and I have removed it now. Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted. I had no intention of "hiding it" right at the top, and I didn't know that it was improperly formed. Keep up the good work, lose the attitude. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, my earlier answer seems quite irrelevant, given the gravity of your misconduct. It is quite clearly not your AfD nomination to alter. It would behoove you to not only acknowledge that you have erred, but to demonstrate that you comprehend the nature of your error. Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sure I don't know what you could possibly mean about attitude that would make any sense for an editor assuming good faith to say. No need to explain, though, I am really not interested, just work harder on learning from your mistakes. Anarchangel (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor who was not the nominator added a Ballot tag, which was not necessary and poisons the well. Another editor who was not the nominator added an article to the nomination. They gave no notice to that effect. They deleted same article from the nomination as though it were itself a tag they can just slap on and take off again, let alone an open forum where anyone can change what everyone is voting on halfway through. Or is SpaceTime a sockpuppet of JzG? SpaceTime's comment, "Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted." is revealing. It is the opposite of a justification. Anyone who has voted would be understandably upset if someone changes their vote by changing what they were voting on. Likewise, I shall be very sad indeed if changing the target of a discussion after people have made up their mind is now considered standard practice. I have changed my vote to STRONG SPEEDY CLOSE.
The nominator tells us the opposite of the truth about the title of the article. The nominator has accused an editor of being SPA without even checking their edits. A brief list of Pietade's early edits follows, in hidden text (Edit to view): Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "None of this addresses the demonstrably problematic content of the articles in question.", I guess this would be a good time to opine on the content of the other articles. I have no problem with minute details, nor with the sources; perhaps my senses are dulled from all the crying wolf about primary sources, sources in general, and sources from other countries, but bearing in mind Operation Mockingbird and such, I find these to be better sources than are normally trusted by WP.
So what I've gleaned from this thread is that one editor improperly made changes to the nomination, and you were the only one who voted before they reverted their changes. You then moved onto an ad homenim attack against the nominator. None of this addresses the demonstrably problematic content of the articles in question. It is not commonplace for an editor to add articles to a different editor's deletion nomination after voting has commenced, but it is abundantly clear that this misdeed has not affected the outcome of any votes. Not sure what you're getting at, but I would seriously reconsider how you plan on getting there. WMSR (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A thief still stole something, even if they give it back later when someone points it out. Pointing out misdeeds, in that case, is really the opposite of what ad hominem means: calling someone a thief rather than produce evidence of it. Nom asserts, and has not corrected the assertion, that 'it's not the "war in Donbass", it's the Russian invasion of Donbass'. Nom added the SPA tag to Pietadè's comment, which tag is an untruth which is within the scope of due diligence to uncover. I repeat, since you have ignored it, someone attempted to change the votes of the people by changing what they were voting on, which is outrageous behaviour and a threat to not merely these proceedings but all AfDs if it allowed to go unchecked. Saying nothing happened not merely does not make it so, it makes you complicit in this misbehaviour. It seems you have a problem with MY behaviour, and advise me to change, but you have not pointed out anything that I did or what to change that is actually problematic, so I will assume you were referring to your charge of ad hominem, your use of which seems based on a misapprehension about its definition. Anarchangel (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'm not a fan of TNT by any stretch but it is far better to delete this than give our readers these articles sourced by 85%+ completely unreliable sources. And oh so many editorial hours would be wasted if we try to fix this that could be better spent elsewhere. J947 (c), at 07:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to take the job, no matter how many "editorial hours" should be spent. The solution (in accordance with
talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nothing prevents from fixing pages during an AfD. If you wish to fix them, you can copy content to your user space and work with it. However, (a) these timelines must be made much shorter and focus only on the most important events (we do not need that many sub-pages any way), and (b) do not use any sources from this discussion and "DNR", especially because these subjects indeed were covered in much better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
DagosNavy: If you are happy to take that up then sure. The best option in that case is to move the articles to your userspace and merge them into ~6 summaries of the invasion of Donbass. J947 (c), at 23:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I buy your idea, j947. i was already working (in my notebook), and a 2014 timeline is taking shape. I will need some time, but next Christmas weekend may be a good occasion to have the work done, to say, by the end of the next week or so.--
talk) 00:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, I'll change my !vote to userfy then redirect with merge when DagosNavy is finished. Best way of going on about it so that you still have access. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 10:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Darius covering mainly one side (GRU induced military-political groupings), me humbly counting killed, wounded, injured, etc. (the more casualties, the higher coverage by international media) reported by the other side of the «Game», that is currently knocking on doors of EU, NATO, etc., and having quite a success in doing so;
so, would U dare to say to parents of the dead/wounded, humiliated in other ways, that all this is fake, graveyards, cremated ashes, destroyed bodies treated by doctors in many, many other countries hospitals, are fake;
so, «fake» is a word, that seems to be in charge of this "forum", or, what's the correct word, yet, no single reference supporting the alleged "fake", thus, willy-nilly a question arises: does this "forum" represent views of Wikipedia, or a wide range of (paid?) political agenda outside?—Pietadè (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cfr. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish military interventions in Syria — does anyone besides me see some kind of similarity with the present URI?—Pietadè (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pietadè:, your presumed objection is almost completely unintelligible in English but I can assure you I have no paid political agenda. I have never and will never edit Wikipedia for pay and even this oblique suggestion I might be is extremely objectionable. Please don't do this again to anyone without crystal clear evidence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if offended You, or, if U feel so, indeed!—Pietadè (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion may yield a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 06:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Georgiamarlins: Which timeline did you look at? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Space4Time3Continuum2x : I checked the first 5 in detail and browsed almost all of them ,but i'm still yet to sit down and work on them.CheersGeorgiamarlins (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments below. The first one is very different from the later ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this is clearly not the case of WP:TNT. The
    WP:TNT essay rightly makes the points about copyright violations and "TNT tipping point argument" (if the article's content is useless including all the versions in history). None of that is the case here. These pages are not useless. One should simply remove clearly unreliable sources (I tried to to it on one of these pages, and this is clearlt doable). Also note that the first page in the list is already fixed in this regard. As about the day-by-day coverage, I think this is definitely excessive, but it does not make these pages unreadable, so this is not a reason for deletion. Hence my "keep" above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My very best wishes: No, it wasn't fixed, it started out that way. The first article (Apr-Jun 2014) used reliable secondary sources. The second one (Jul-Sep 2014) also started out that way, but by July Russian sources were being used. I clicked on three of them; only one of them was still online. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, we do agree that
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2014) is actually OK in terms of sourcing. That alone is an argument against mass deletion of all these pages. The second one, I am sure it can be improved, but after quickly looking at the actual content, I think it does not mislead a reader, but just provides an excessively detailed information. Not a valid reason for deletion, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree that it's OK. It contains a number of suspicious sources and a number known for publishing propaganda (e.g. Washington Times). 19:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You found a page with a reference to
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2014), includes close to 400 references and only a few of them maybe immediately problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • DagosNavy, Pietadè: After several editors have pointed out to you that you are adding content from extremely unreliable primary sources, you are continuing to do it. For example, on December 24, you analyzed the Twitter feed of https://t.me/s/online_dnr_sckk/6011 of the self-styled Donetsk People's Republic and extracted the following WP entry (although I can't figure out where you got the 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles): Pro-Russian sources told the press that Ukrainian forces had broken the ceasefire on a number of occasions by evening. Dokuchaievsk, Trudivske and Donetsk airport, in the surroundings of Donetsk city, and, in the area of Horlivka, Dolomitne and 6/7 mining complex, came under hostile fire. In the main incidents, Donetsk airport received fire from infantry weapons, automatic grenade launchers, 73 mm anti-tank recoiless rifles and anti-aircraft guns. Dolomitne was hit by an 82 mm mortar barrage. What "press"? If they did, no news outlet, let alone a reliable source, deemed it worth a mention. I put the Google translation of the Twitter feed in Talk. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Point one: nothing in WP prevent us from editing the pages until consensus is reached on the matter, and Point two: Just in case you did not read the recent posts, I am working on a new chronology, a year-by-year one instead of the current daily format, with more reliable sources and getting rid of any direct pro-Russian statement, exception made of scattered information taken from partisan but reliable sources (TASS, for example). I will upload the new timelines to my sandbox page the next weekend. Be patient.--
talk) 11:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I read your recent posts and was waiting for the 26/27 Dec upload to your sandbox. That doesn't explain why you keep adding material from unreliable primary sources. Couldn't you hold off on that for now? Should free up some time for working on the new timelines, if nothing else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK
talk) 13:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Subsection

• Explanatory note: up till the end on 2018 all the articles were born as timelines covering 3-months periods, since the beginning of 2019 they cover 2-months periods. At some point many of the 3-months articles were split into 1-month timelines, in doing so the history was mainly lost, no page views, edits, etc.—Pietadè (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The timelines not mentioned above are below:

-- —Pietadè (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did much of that splitting, and no history was lost. Every split I made is properly documented, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and you have shown no evidence to the contrary, for my or others' edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the multiple reasons given above. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2019 (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/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_(January–March_2016)&oldid=932973119"