Talk:2014 Simferopol incident

Merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

• Support for now. The incident isn't big enough to warrant own page. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Edit my post again and i'll report you for vandalism. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Be careful with accusations. Your original post said and I quote verbatim: "The incident is big enough to warrant own page." which didn't make sense according to the vote you cast. You then modified it to say: "The incident isn't big enough to warrant own page." This caused some confusion because @EK728 agreed with your argument that the event "is big enough" to warrant a standalone article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Then tell me I made a grammatical error. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT MY POST ESPECIALLY THE BOLD ONES Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
        • • Please do not yell. Stay polite. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Simple enough, don't edit others posts!! EK728 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. (non-admin fix on vote) The incident is big enough to warrant own page. EK728 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, because information is still coming in about this. B14709 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely ridiculous to give a battle with two casualties its own page. This can be adequately covered at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine‎. Tomh903 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete article According to BBC, no accounts of the events could be confirmed independently. [1] Perhaps it is premature to have an article about events that were not yet confirmed by reliable sources. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is a POV fork of a minor event based entirely on hearsay. LokiiT (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – 1st event with casualties; remember how the WWI started; truthful (and objective) coverage of the event may become possible after disclosure of related documents (in case of official secrets this may take decades); yet in case of current history some events may speak for themselves; therefore, oppose this incident to be included into the vast amount of ongoing and augmenting data. --Pietadè (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - The event is still not notable enough and the casualties are so minimal. We should however wait and see if future trials and investigations will take place. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – agree with Pietadè 1st event with casualties; RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the incident should be taken under a closer look. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support it's all part of the same invasion. There is nothing extraordinarily notable about this incident. JOJ ^Hutton 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Notable event with casualities. NickSt (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the first events with casualties.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Some may not be impressed by "only" two people dead, several wounded, but notability is established by influence, not numbers.--Martin Berka (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - The merge discussion has been going for over 10 days, can we take the merge flag off now. The delete flag has been taken off. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The length of the article speaks for itself. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Casualties don't matter its the significance. This is a big event involving two major powers for the first time. Its also more revenant considering its taking place in Ukraine, I mean when was the last time a Ukrainian soldier was killed in the line of duty on Ukrainian soil??? WW2??? Its a long article compared to most unfit to add in the main Russian military intervention article.

Issues with editing posts due to POV

Recheck your posts every time you visit. there are individuals who shamelessly edit your posts to support their POVs Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Is the picture taken from this specific military base, or is it just a random picture of a random soldier in front of a random military base? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Downloaded image from actual base.EK728 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This incident was the first shooting between rival forces in the Crimean Peninsula, effectively the first shots of the crisis. Should this crisis become an armed conflict this incident will be remembered in history as the first battle where both sides resorted to weapons. I'm actually surprised this article is even being considered for deletion. --GlobalWikiActivist88 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --24.59.181.47 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC) There are many notable sources to this story not the BBC only ,>(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/ukraine-soldier-killed-another-wounded-attack-base/) as I have posted one more. I would also like to note that there is continuing follow up to this story as if it were to be a fallacy then in the coming days and weeks we would see a change in the story-line and edits as in some I have found it is now being told that a 17 yr-old has been arrested in connection to these killings? Now is this 17 yr old one of the "pro-Russian" soldiers, a civilian who somehow had great access to this area, doubtful and very likely at the same time. To simply erase this post as baseless or incorrect I feel is wrong as this would be as pointless as the use of better citation is needed as this crisis continues and the facts develop.

Contested deletion

Sunday 16 March 2014 22.36:
"Mr Tenyukh later said that the defence ministries in Kiev and Moscow had declared a truce until 21 March during which Russian forces, who have been arriving by boat and helicopter, would leave Ukrainian military facilities untouched." (RTÉ)

Vote

Please vote for "support" or "oppose for the deletion of this article. Some people think this is made up of rumors but their hard facts. In every single military confrontation both sides have DIFFERENT perceptions of what happened. This can be casualties, how the incident started but it a fact that the base was stormed and a fact that two soldiers, who were named by both sides died. {{EK728}}

• Keep – I oppose the deletion, and the discussion on merger confirms it is a valid article I agree with Pietadè 1st event with casualties; RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

AFD

As it is written in the notice at the top of the page "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Please discuss in the article entry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simferopol incident Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... There is a first report from the Crimean Prosecutor General, and it is clear that there is a substantial difference with the Ukrainian version of events. This page will demonstrate in a concrete incident where both sides agree people were killed the different ways that Western, Ukrainian, Crimean, and Russian propaganda reported the same incident.84.93.191.230 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Prosecutor General investigation into incident

There is an official investigation into the incident, and the article should have the information from this investigation. If there is an investigation from Kiev as well as Crimea this should also be included, probably as a separate section.

There is a video of the statement by the Crimean Prosecutor General, and I am going to add back on the summary of the statement along with the reference to the statement.

Please do not delete this section, with out a proper reasoned debate as to why you wish to delete the section. RonaldDuncan (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverse to Military Conflict-Delete Sniper Section

I personally don't believe one thing the Russian/Crimean press said relating to the incident as a "criminal act" blamed on some small Right Sector organization in Western Ukraine. The facts don't make any sense. Why would, if a Ukrainian Right Sector sniper was the cause, why would he shoot at a Ukrainian military base and kill a soldier. It would make better sense if his target was a Russian soldier since the Right Sector is in favor of the new government in Kiev. This is not my solely based on my point of view I just believe we should trust the Ukrainian/Civilian story of a storming of the base, plus journalists who were their saw Russian soldiers detaining Ukrainian soldiers raiding the barracks. Its like trusting an unreliable source, who are you going to believe the pro-west Ukrainians or the Russians. Thousands of articles about this event conclude to a Russian storming, nothing to do with a sniper… bbc, fox etc. you name it. Wikipedia shouldn't accept both sources its one or the other. With terrorists attacks we trust what the government says not what the terrorists say. BadBoyz1|talk (Bad Boyz) 4 April, 4:23 (UTC)

Personnaly I do not believe the Ukrainian sources that said it was a full scale military conflict. There would have been much more than 2 casualties if it was the case. The neutral articles about this (bbc, fox, etc. you name it) said that the events could not be independently verified. Let's wait until the criminal investigations are done before pushing a POV. In the meantime, the current infobox is more neutral. Also I do not agree that the Russians are "Terrorists". Please stop your name calling.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree to keep the current neutral infobox, instead of the military one, as this would be POV pushing. The military conflict story is disputed. Canadianking123 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure believe what u want i can care less. Just look up Russian propaganda (its everywhere). Their are plenty of Russian wikipedia editors who are byist towards the Russians. And when i said terrorist i did mean the Russians but also meant to put it at Taliban vs. U.S---who are u gonna believe the terrorists or the U.S government,,,,same situation ----- Ukraine or Russia???