Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine, and United States of America. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added quotes from Timothy Snyder and Serhii Plokhy. Regarding Andreas Kappeler. Not sure why not all his books have been translated into English if this researcher is so important. Any other questions regarding the sources used in the article? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Snyder quote you added[1] clearly shows the insignificance of American involvement. Did you read the context[2] ? Did you really understand the meaning of the expression "That was the best bit they [the Russians] could come up with." ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm talking about. Taking sources and composing an article presenting a view opposite to what's in those sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content taken haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this clear pov fork. Listing a bunch of comments from officials tied together with fringe writers and a huge over emphasis on stuff tangentially related to the protests with the clear aim of pushing a fringe theory is beyond wp:undue—blindlynx 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly do you mean by "fringe writers"? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know which of the authors used in the article are as insane and out of touch with reality as the people who believe in the Flat Earth. Authors cited include university professors and other academics, mainstream Western press, etc. Please identify at the article talk page, so we can delete any authors that are that crazy. I opened a section on the talk page here for this purpose: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?--David Tornheim (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I see with the article is Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the fringe is contained to the conclusions the article draws from the cherry picked stuff—blindlynx 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at Timothy Snyder and it's clear he is dismissive of the importance of Nuland's behavior in giving food to protesters and of the leaked phone call. He sees the coup as driven by a popular mass movement ("the work of more than a million people presenting their bodies to the cold stone") and hence any behavior by the U.S. as inconsequential. In a case like this, the Wiki article can be corrected by accurately including Snyder's opinion.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You calling it a 'coup' does not inspire confidence given that academic consensus is that it was not a coup and that that language is used by russian propaganda—blindlynx 17:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got the term from John Mearsheimer--who Britannica identifies as "a prominent American scholar of international relations"--who published this piece link in Foreign Affairs calling it a coup. You're not suggesting he is a Russian troll and Russian propagandist are you? Why do I have the feeling a bunch of editors will now jump on Mearsheimer's article, find everything possible to discredit him, and try to make him out to be a "fringe" figure for using the term "coup"?

I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."

Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.

I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.

Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in his article if it would not get removed [3] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.

It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.

For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.

([4], [5], and even [6]) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To Improve the Article: Please help identify any WP:OR/WP:SYN here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN. Please identify any claims of "Fringe authors" here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]