Talk:Gromyko Commission

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crimea Task Force.

Soviet Union Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tag makes no sense

Friendly reminder that book titles like "Émigré, Exile, Diaspora, and Transnational Movements of the Crimean Tatars: Preserving the Eternal Flame of Crimea" "The Geography of Nationalism in Russia and the USSR." " Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State." "Tatars of the Crimea: their struggle for survival" and "The Crimean Tatars: The Diaspora Experience and the Forging of a Nation" are English language. 72.49.53.74 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have changed the tag to note that it is merely many of the references, not all of them, that are in Russian. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But verification is not difficult! Snippets of almost all the books are available for free on google books and using google translate is easy. What parts of the article are questionable? Just copy paste the text into google translate or install the google translate extention on your browser and read for free. There is no prohibition on using Russian language sources, and the Russian language sources in the article are by dissidents, many with Ukrainian citizenship, not Russian government propagandists.--72.49.53.74 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A maintenance tag is not an assertion that the article is wrong or bad, or that someone involved was up to no good; it is just noting when something could be better. In this case, it would be good to have a fluent speaker of Russian look over this at some point. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But most fluent Russian speakers on Wikipedia here are Russians who are biased against Crimean Tatars being spoonfed Kremlin propaganda telling them that Crimean Tatars aren't real, Crimean Tatar sources are biologically unreliable, Crimean Tatars this, Crimean Tatars that, so-called Crimean Tatars, blah, blah, blah. We shouldn't give the kremlinists content control on Crimea. What's next, we give the Nazis the Jewish articles? Should we ask that all Ukraine articles get checked by Russians too?--72.49.53.74 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is, frankly, a ridiculous assertion. There are many Russian-speaking editors who are from countries other than Russia, or who are from Russia but not ethnic Russian, or who are ethnic Russian but live abroad and are unsympathetic to the Russian government. It is straightforwardly false to say that "most fluent Russian speakers on Wikipedia here are Russians who are biased against Crimean Tatars being spoonfed Kremlin propaganda telling them that Crimean Tatars aren't real", and it is putting the cart several light-years before the horse; if someone interacts with the article and appears in so doing to be biased, that can be addressed then. But you don't get to assume ahead of time that any possible Russian speaker would be biased. Please re-read the policy on Assuming Good Faith. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this

I make huge changes to the article to add lots more citations like the tags at the top suggested, totalling over 20,000 bytes, and you revert everything I added, just because you think the article needs even MORE citations? What more could you want? Do you want the article to have less citations? 72.49.53.74 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time now, your edit was not reverted. The material you added remains there. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the "citations needed" edit template, because more have been added. I re-added the "help needed" and "citation style" templates because those remain an issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it remains issue? I fixed the citation style to be standard! It doesn't need anymore help, I gave it all the help it needed, I even added lots of quote so the doubters can triple-check! What more could you possible want? There's no point in using tags after the problems are fixed and it's just trolling at this point. Do you just want anyone to doubt the article because you don't like what it says? Tell me, what specific paragraphs do you think need to be checked even more? What citations aren't to your style? Should I have only used English books because the Cyrillic text looks funny to you? What the hell is the problem now! Do you realize just how rude it is to spray the tags back after I spent hours working on the article to address the problems the tags were about? You think I'm not good enough?--72.49.53.74 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some minor issues with the precise ways in which citations are placed; it's better than it was, but there are places where there are long blocks of text with a few citations grouped at the end, rather than closely assigned on a sentence-by-sentence basis.

The other tag is there because it remains true that the article relies a lot on Russian-language sources. You are right to note this is by no means banned on English Wikipedia, but the barriers it presents to verifiability are acknowledged. Thus it would be good to have more pairs of (comprehending) eyes on it.

Like I said already, these tags don't indicate the article is "problematic" or constitute a negative value judgement on it, they are just flagging things that could be done to make it better. No one is saying or even implying that anyone is "not good enough"; but, again, those tags are a mechanism by which we can communicate among the community how we can do further work to make things better.

I would encourage you, once again, to read the WP:AGF policy, because you're coming into all of these discussions on the assumption it is an argument or otherwise adversarial, rather than a discussion and collaboration. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest example of the citation issue is in the section Gromyko_Commission#Initial_Red_Square_protest_and_delegations. It's present to a lesser extent elsewhere. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no barriers to verifiablility when I convieniently provide Russian quotes with English translations. Because google translate for Russian is so good these days, sources being in gaslighting of the Crimean Tatar experience.--72.49.53.74 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]