Jump to content

Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Needs to be added to zelenskyy section

in the initial weeks of the war, it was also used to urge the implementation of a no-fly zone over Ukrainian territory Elinruby (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Make sure this was added to zelenskyy: since the parent article on the 2022 invasion is high traffic, I am going to prioritize smoothing the edges on that Elinruby (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Several academics, including Professors Rob Danish and Timothy Naftali, have highlighted Zelenskyy's speaking ability and use of social media to spread information and draw upon feelings of shame and concern while building kinship with viewers.[1]

References

  1. ^ Vermes, James (20 March 2022). "Zelensky's speeches use shame effectively in plea for support against Russia, expert says". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 22 March 2022.

Displaced text

It has "a broad political objective — to distract, divide, and demoralize — but otherwise it is largely opportunistic, fragmented, even sometimes contradictory", carried out by an assortment of "political entrepreneurs" seeking Kremlin approval, wrote Mark Galeotti in Foreign Policy.[1]

Russian President Vladimir Putin cares most about his domestic audience, so the Russian Federation focuses its propaganda there.[2][citation needed]

The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in March 2022 that Russia's justification for the invasion was unfounded and it must halt military operations in Ukraine.[3] The Kremlin denies waging war in Ukraine, and claims to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine against Ukrainian Nazis[4] in a “special peacekeeping operation”.[5] A Russian law signed March 4, 2022 provides drastic penalties for spreading "false information" or protesting the war or "discrediting" Russia's actions in Ukraine.[6] Russian schools also must follow the official narrative.[5] March 4, 2022</ref> Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine': I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist, Mark Galeotti. Foreign Policy, March 5, 2018
  2. ^ Putin No Longer Seems Like a Master of Disinformation, Farhad Manjoo. New York Times Opinion, March 2, 2022
  3. ^ ICJ Orders Russia to Immediately Suspend Military Operations in Ukraine, Reuters. Council on Foreign Relations, March 17, 2022
  4. ^ Putin says he will 'denazify' Ukraine. Here's the history behind that claim, Miriam Berger. Washington Post, February 24, 2022
  5. ^ a b Do not call Ukraine invasion a ‘war’, Russia tells media, schools: Instead, ‘special military operation’ should be used to describe Moscow’s assault on Ukraine, according to officials, Al-Jazeera, March 2, 2022
  6. ^ Russia Takes Censorship to New Extremes, Stifling War Coverage, Anton Troianovski. New York Times, March 4, 2022

Sources

NATO information war

Information war has been described by the American military as "the use of information to achieve our national objectives."[1] According to NATO, "Information war is an operation conducted in order to gain an information advantage over the opponent."[2] The contest widely described as an information war between Russia and Ukraine is not symmetric, except as each side tries to gain "information advantage."[3][4][5] Elinruby (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stein, George J. "Information warfare". Air University (U.S.). Press. Retrieved March 26, 2022.
  2. ^ "Information warfare" (PDF). NATO. Retrieved March 26, 2022.
  3. ^ "The Information War Isn't Over Yet". The Atlantic. March 8, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2022. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not yet two weeks old and yet a dozen headlines from major media outlets now suggest that Ukraine is 'winning the information war' across much of the world (Russia and China may be notable exceptions).
  4. ^ "Outmatched in military might, Ukraine has excelled in the information war". Washington Post. March 16, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2022. By playing up Russian brutality and military stumbles, deftly using social media, and appealing to foreign leaders' emotions while challenging their policies, Zelensky has steered an information offensive that has yielded greater Western arms donations and wider backing for unprecedented economic sanctions against Russia.
  5. ^ War of the Cyber World: The Law of Cyber Warfare, Phillip Pool, The International Lawyer. Vol. 47, No. 2 (FALL 2013), pp. 299-323 (25 pages). Published By: American Bar Association, via JStor

Requested move 23 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The discussion has largely moved on to proposals to restructure or split the article. This close doesn't stop anyone from making another move request soon, but I'd suggest trying to reach a consensus on these issues of scope and balance first. – Joe (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian information war against Ukraine → Russian–Ukrainian information war – As stated in the following sources, both Russia and Ukraine are engaging in information warfare, which has been ongoing for years. The attempt to present Ukraine as a helpless victim of Russian propaganda that does not respond in kind fails our readers and our obligation to NPOV.

After the discussion immediately above, Elinruby chose to violate move request procedure with an undiscussed move that they knew was controversial. I'm starting this move request to gain a clear consensus. Ping to HouseOfChange who weighed in above. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

strikeout personal attack and misrepresentation of both Wikipedia policy and my own behavior. I have been trying to promote some input into the article for weeks. The policy you are citing assumes there is more than one person working on the article, eyeroll. Mathglot has been aware of the article because I asked them for help, but was doing other things until about a week ago, and you were nowhere in sight until you got into am argument with me a few hours ago and apparently decided to waste some of my time. I know i said you were welcome to discuss the article here, but my bad for not specifying that you should be constructive. Please read the article if you want to discuss it. Elinruby (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • follow up on sources: Your characterization of your sources is also wrong, but ok, they look reliable, superficially. But based on the titles, they are probably search results for “Ukraine + information war”. I am willing to bet that when someone actually reads them, they only say that there is a war, not that Ukraine is waging it. (I know you haven’t, because you haven’t had time since the last time I asked you to educate yourself about trying to prove something with this kind of superficial and uncurated Google search an hour ago). Pretty sure the article already uses the NYT article, and offhand I have no objection to the others. If they support something that isn’t in the article then go for it, I say. But there are already 299 individual sources and I am pretty here sure they are all either reliable or an example of why a particular source is not reliable. TASS is there a couple of times as an example of why it isn’t a reliable source, for example. I caution you against deleting anything you don’t understand without a talk page discussion, though. No more vandalism. Elinruby (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Yes, sure, propaganda is from both sides, and should not have been moved in the first instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – given the understanding that the situation based on reliable sources is asymmetric with respect to each side of that en dash, with a *lot* more discussion about Russian disinformation than Ukrainian. But that does not negate the proposal in favor of Russian–Ukrainian information war, which I support. The size of the sections covering each side of that, and the number of sources, will amply demonstrate the asymmetric nature of it. See #Discussion below (and #Section organization ) for more on this. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment - sigh Another canvass of people who haven’t read the article they are commenting on. That said, I have already said that I while I don’t think what Mathglot is tslking about will work out, I trust them to do it without messing anything up. They have already been working on the article, for one thing, whereas the nom apparently still hasn’t read it, and Mathglot does actually realize what the topic of this article is not. And has worked with me before on this type of big sprawling article, so. I think all of you will change your minds if you are still paying attention after this vote, but if it’s part of the reorganization we were already talking about I am not voting yes, because it’s silly, but if Mathglot wants to take the time to demonstrate that, very fine, I am not voting no.
(See lengthy discussion below at “Russian information war, Ukrainian information war” for all the reasons I think this will result in a bunch of empty sections)
@Mathglot:, I will be afk all day tomorrow (today March 23) if you want to avoid edit conflicts. I am still in your time zone. If that isn’t good for you, LMK and we’ll work something out. Bonus points if you can get Ymblanter to help with the title translations. Elinruby (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the original title "Russian–Ukrainian information war." Recall the article lede on March 2, before Elinruby began work on it: "The Russian–Ukrainian information war is a campaign by governmental and non-governmental organizations of Russia and Ukraine to demoralize or mislead. This information war began during the collapse of the USSR and continues as an essential part of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict."[1] Wikipedia has had a useful article since 2020 on the topic "Russian–Ukrainian information war." Elinruby's rewrite of the article and its lede do not give him OWNership of the page or its title. Instead, restore this page's title and wider focus, then create a separate article with the title "Russian information war against Ukraine" and link to that article from this one. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby:, I understand your frustration, especially given the lopsided nature of sources on this topic. I also understand why editors want a neutral article at the top level (or a new top-level article). See my comments addressing WP:FALSEBALANCE at the #Discussion, which I hope will assuage your concerns. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I answered you there. I think that if people want a top-level article they should write one. It’s not you that is blowing my mind, it’s the people telling me to use sources as if the article doesn’t have 299 independent references. One of the sources she is saying I should use is is fact used. Maybe some others, but definitely one of them. And then her friend quotes something at me to show me what I am missing, and THAT EXACT PASSAGE is already quoted in the article. I mean. If you can take it from here, I would be grateful. I just can’t with all this pointless drama.Elinruby (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true and doesn’t reflect the article. I am in a car in a wilderness area and not in a position to verify your statements so I will get back to you. Offhand I suspect you are talking about this one though, which had been languishing at WP:PNT for about that long. It was machiine translation if so, and definitely not useful. Feel free to investigate the article history. Please also feel free to investigate the many requests for collaboration that went unanswered by most people and specifically by you.
So who is owning the article? Your lede did not at all reflect the contents on the article. On the other hand, having just re-organized it, I am pretty sure I know what it currently says based on its 299 references. Never fear though, Mathglot is willing to both-sides the article for you and I am willing to let them do it, as long as you guys go look for sources about the stuff that you think is happening. Because I have already done that for hundreds of hours and you two are choosing not to believe me, shrug. Elinruby (talk)
Wikipedia has had an article on the topic of "Russian-Ukraine Information war" since 2020. Buidhe and others say that Wikipedia should have an article where we discuss information warfare tactics of both Russia and Ukraine. Elinruby has been writing here at length about Russian disinformation tactics, and wants to change the title to match the article that he has been writing. This is like asking that the article "Dogs" be renamed "Terriers" because somebody has written a boatload in there about terriers. The title and interesting topic of "Russian-Ukraine Information war" should not be disappeared and replaced with a different topic. Elinruby is free to create, from parts of this article, a new article devoted entirely to the Russian information war against Ukraine. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Welp I start from sources. This may be a new concept to you, but this is what we do. It is good to know that you now agree that the current article does not support the title you are advocating. It is also good to know that you wrote the ungrammatical lede I found on this one when I got here. It did not at all reflect the article’s content. Usually a lede does do that on Wikipedia.

I suppose it is possible that the Ukrainians are in fact blowing themselves up to make Putin look bad.

So here is my suggestion. Go to the version that you think was so useful and start another article based on it. Name it whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t destroy the work here. I even will refrain from starting a million RfCs and AfDs and inviting all my friends to come comment on how obviously a brainwashed Nazi you are. I will check in with you in a few weeks to see how you are doing ;) Take yes for an answer. But do your own work if you think your version of reality can be documented and stop cracking your whip at me. Elinruby (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I did not write this article's previous lede, nor is the idea of using sources a novelty. So far zero people agree with your desire to re-name this page. Wikipedia is a group project. Please stop bludgeoning this discussion and the people who disagree with you. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: If you feel I am bludgeoning you or this discussion then I am sincerely sorry about that. But you keep mistating the facts and misleading other Wikipedia editors, so I feel a need to keep correcting your apparently sincere misconceptions, but that you don’t seem to be reading the posts you are replying to either. Just above I tell you that I start from what the sources say and you replying that I should use sources. Ok? So why are we here, is the question. Have you registered yet that the article has 299 independent references?
If you did not write the previous lede then I will apologize, pending verification of that statement. I got that impression based on how proud you seemed of its very awkward construction, which strikes me, frankly, as something that only a mother could love.
By the way I see that you did in fact correct two typos in one section of the article on March 21, and while this would be the “only” time you have edited the article, not the “last” time you edited the article, it was in fact constructive, so thank you for that. I have not had a chance to verify whether it was before or after I asked you why you were trying to rename an article you had never edited. Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose the move and keep current title, Russian information war against Ukraine. The Ukrainian effort is a response/countermeasure against the Russian information war against Ukraine. A bothsidesing presentation to describe asymmetric events, has a higher chance of having poorly flowing or empty subsections. Elinruby has also made good points about scope of article. Rauisuchian (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Both sides indulge in "information war", it doesn't matter what triggers a "countermeasure" information war, if you're involved, you're involved. From what I gather,it appears that this article is significantly edited by the mover in order to justify their unilateral move. + Default to previous title: (per WP:TITLECHANGES) Mover shouldn't have unilaterally moved this page at the first place, because it's potentially controversial. Even after being reverted by another editor, indicative of its potentially controversial nature, they did not start a RM, instead they involved in a move war. When consensus is not against the status quo, or when consensus is split, the title should default to the status quo, which in this case is the title we're proposing the move to. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 10:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@CX Zoom: the lede of the article in question discusses the difference between the Russian concept of information war and the usual meaning of information war in the English language. The rewritten article was originally an angry diatribe by a Ukrainian independence fighter in the middle of seceding from Soviet Russia. Some English speaker had slapped on a both-sides lede, apparently without reading the text. At the time I verified the sourcing (which was quite good, if entirely in Russian and Ukrainian) and rewrote it to deal with the understandly heated language, it had been languishing at WP:PNT for months if not years and had not been substantially edited for years. I didn’t seek consensus except on the talk page because this is not what we do with such ancient machine translation problems, or we would never finish them. It is tragi-comic to be lectured on Wikipedia procedures by people who refuse to actually read the article or its talk page or its history and assume I am some overly emotional neophyte with a Ukrainian agenda. For the record I have been fishing articles out of the translation-problem queue for sixteen years, on a huge variety of topics, none of them until now dealing with Ukraine. It is astonishing that I have to point this out to editors who are voting on what I should have done rather than build the references up to 299 and remove a whole lot of understandable but unencyclopedic language. Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Nobody is criticizing your years of service to Wikipedia. This discussion concerns only the title of one article, and people's desire to have an article that discusses the information war in a two-sided context. To quote one expert, "If Ukraine had no messages of the righteousness of its cause, the popularity of its cause, the valor of its heroes, the suffering of its populace, then it would lose...Not just the information war, but it would lose the overall war."[1] See also other RS.[2][3][4][5] The phrase "Russian-Ukrainian information war" should not be a re-direct to the one-sided labor of love Elinruby has built. It should be a much-shorter article, with a nice wikilink for people who want more detail about Russian infowar. I have no problem sticking the label "Russian information war against Ukraine" on this text, I just don't want it to "vanish" the original title and topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and keep the current title. Simply looking at the page (it is a very long one), this is all indeed about Russian information war against Ukraine (not about Russo-Ukrainian information war). Numerous RS currently used on the page are about Russian information war against Ukraine. Do we really have a lot of RS on the "Russo-Ukrainian information war"? That would be very few, and one must check these sources. For example, that one (linked at the top of the thread) say about "President Zelensky, speaking to U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, aired a video documenting the human toll of Russia’s assault on Ukraine...". Is that "an information war", i.e. something typically associated with disinformation? No. Not at all, that was merely an effective presentation of facts, something opposite to wartime misiniformation. On the Russian side, however, that was pure propaganda and disinformation, which definitely falls under the definition of the "information war". My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support  Yes, the Kremlin has been in the role of “helpless victim” in the information space for the last month since it openly invaded (although it’s light years from NPOV to claim that Ukraine “responds in kind”). —Michael Z. 21:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh no, the Kremlin has not been in the role of “helpless victim” in the information space. The majority of population in Russia believes that all numerous videos about Russian tanks and artillery shooting residential buildings are fakes. Moreover, I know people here, in US, who think the same after watching production by Russian propaganda, and I was unable to convince them. They truly believe that Ukrainian nationalists are killing thousands civilians in Mariupol right now. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War". The New York Times. March 3, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2022. The claims by Ukraine do not compare to the falsehoods being spread by Russia...Instead, Ukraine's online propaganda is largely focused on its heroes and martyrs, characters who help dramatize tales of Ukrainian fortitude and Russian aggression.
  2. ^ "Brave new war: The information war between Russia and Ukraine". Index on Censorship. December 15, 2014. Retrieved March 24, 2022. Ukrainian bloggers, social media activists and journalists are educating their audiences on how to identify fakes. You can google pictures. You can find sources. You can pay attention to dates of publication of videos on YouTube. Attentive viewers revealed another technique used by Russian TV channels: 'travelling actors' who feature in interviews in different roles in different places.
  3. ^ "Nothing Is True? The Credibility of News and Conflicting Narratives during "Information War" in Ukraine". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 2017. Retrieved March 24, 2022. The closeup study of news consumption in Ukraine at a time of 'information war' shows that individuals judge the credibility of narratives based on whether issues that matter to them are addressed, not only on whether particular 'facts' are likely to be genuine. Personal experiences, values, and social connections, therefore, play a crucial role in strategic narrative reception.
  4. ^ "Outmatched in military might, Ukraine has excelled in the information war". Washington Post. March 16, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2022. By playing up Russian brutality and military stumbles, deftly using social media, and appealing to foreign leaders' emotions while challenging their policies, Zelensky has steered an information offensive that has yielded greater Western arms donations and wider backing for unprecedented economic sanctions against Russia.
  5. ^ "The Information War Isn't Over Yet". The Atlantic. March 8, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2022. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not yet two weeks old and yet a dozen headlines from major media outlets now suggest that Ukraine is "winning the information war" across much of the world (Russia and China may be notable exceptions). A primary reason for Ukraine's success, they argue, is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a former actor whose leadership style, media savvy, and earnest, emotional appeals have helped channel sympathy and aid for his country.

Comments moved from elsewhere

(moved from above) (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(to avoid confusion, striking out timestamp of improper and reverted refactoring of another editor’s comments Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Elinruby, you've tried multiple times to strike out my comments above, even though no other editor has supported your claims that they must be struck. As I pointed out earlier, editing other users' comments is not allowed per WP:TPG. This is becoming a behavioral issue and I really hope admin attention is not needed to ensure the proper use of talk page. (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I keep striking your remarks out because they are defamatory and untrue, and most importantly, they misrepresent the article and the facts. People are voting based on your ridiculous assertion that I have violated NPOV. Have you even read the article yet? Your buddy definitely hasn’t. I actually think an administrator perhaps should discuss talk page etiquette with you. For example, it is usual to place new comments at the END of a discussion section. Also for example, refactoring other editors’ comments is frowned upon, which is why I struck yours out instead, libelous as they are. Nobody has supported my claim that they must be struck because I haven’t made one, and I don’t have to. Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Although I voted "support" above, I wanted to clarify a point about WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is not currently an issue as long as the article is entitled "Russian information war against Ukraine", but imho immediately becomes a serious issue the moment the article is renamed to "Russian–Ukrainian information war". If the proportion of coverage of the topic by reliable sources is lopsided and significantly more about, say, "Russian information war" than it is about "Ukrainian information war", then to avoid the problems of false balance (which is a violation of WP:NPOV), we need to ensure that the article under a new title clearly reflects that lopsided coverage. There is more than one way to do that. Here are a couple of ideas:

  1. a section reorganization that makes the lopsided nature of the coverage evident. (See #Section organization for more.)
  2. cut most of the article content, leaving a parent article with a shorter overview of the topic in Summary style, and moving the detailed content into two new child articles, one for the part concerning Russian disinformation, and one for Ukrainian disinformation. The lengths of the two child articles might be very different, but NPOV would thus be maintained in all of them.

A very similar problem of false balance was previously the case at Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. In this case, the problem has been addressed using a section reorganization that clearly indicates the disproportionate amount of disinformation coming from the Russian side (11 to 1, at this writing), as reported in reliable sources, and is also visible at the level of the ToC. (See the discussion "#Correcting false balance" at its TP for details.)

It's too early to be sure of the outcome, but if this move discussion is successful, as appears likely, the current content of the article would be non-neutral for the new title under its current presentation, and something would have to be done. I think we could go with any of the approaches sketched above, and there may be others. At the moment, I believe that #2 is most likely to preserve neutrality in (all three) article(s) about this topic. Because of the more complex organization and subsectioning of this article, I don't think approach #1 would work as well here, as it did in the other article. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You beat me to the outdent, lol, so I am separating yours from mine and also chiming in to repeat that based on our previous collaboration at Operation Car Wash and Liberation of France, both of them also obviously big messy articles, I am happy for you to restructure the article and trust you to do it well. As I mentioned in the section titled “Russian information war, Ukrainian information war”, the current structure was inherited and may not be optimal. What does not seem to be coming across in the current structure, since so many people are missing it, is that Ukrainian participation in the information war seems to amount to Zelenskyy making speeches, which, um, is pretty much what war leaders do. There is also some stuff I have had to dig deeper to find, about the use of telephony to kill generals, which as a professional I think is brilliant and should be expanded if only we can fight our way through all the wiki drama. Bottom line, any move should take place AFTER the reorganization. I have urgent RL matters and am sure you will do what is best. Elinruby (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am still talking to this wall and yes I realize it is making me look crazy @HouseOfChange: Egad. You are berating me for not using sources when in fact THE ARTICLE QUOTES THE EXACT PASSAGE YOU ARE TELLING ME IT OMITS. I am begging you to please please please please please read the article you want to rename. One of the other references your buddy wants me to use in the article is also in fact used in the article, or at least profoundly informed my thinking on the topic, since I know I have read it carefully several times. The others I am less certain about, and I haven’t had time to look. But I have already said that I would love for you to do any editing you care to on the article including adding all of these sources and any other sources you care to add. And please stop telling to me quote people that I am in fact quoting. It would be cool if you could read the article before you berate me for not saying things I do in fact say, and also before attempting to summarize the article in a title. There is a proposal to reorganize the article. Why not join in, once you read the article!?!? Elinruby (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I did not accuse you of omitting anything. After saying This discussion concerns only the title of one article, I cited some sources key to my argument. It would be great if you could stop berating me and stick to talking about the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: it would be great if you would read it so we can talk about how to summarize the article in a title, because the move you support is not it. I would like to refer you to Mathglot’s comments and inform you that I am no longer available to debate the nature of reality with you, fun as it has been ;)

Before I do however: I had a small epiphany on your subject. At one point in the above madness you say that this article should not be s redirect from the former title of the article. That redirect is an artifact of the renaming process and I don’t care if it is there. It can be changed, I know. Although I personally do not know how, I believe that there is a redirects for discussion queue. It is also entirely possible that Mathglot knows how. So why not, as previously suggested, write an article saying whatever you think needs saying and get the redirect moved there? Because I agree with you that this article is not really about that. That is why I renamed it. Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible win-win solution, split the article

"Russian-Ukrainian information war" and "Russian information war against Ukraine" are topics that overlap but don't coincide, as debate above makes clear. By splitting this article into two articles with two names (and then quickly pruning each to the right focus), we preserve edit history. The article on the two-sided war would be much shorter. I volunteer to work on that article's pruning and re-focus but of course collaboration would make that work even better. Buidhe, Elinruby, Mathglot or anybody else, would this work? HouseOfChange (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I think both sides' information war should be covered in 1 article, with due prominence to each side according to RS coverage.
I'm worried that splitting it might lead to POV issues in how the topic is covered. It might lead the Russia–Ukraine article to focus too much on Ukraine, while the Russia article wouldn't provide the context about Ukrainian response. I'd rather see splits along specific topics rather than by each side. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
While I tend to agree with HouseOfChange, at least as far as I understand what he is proposing (which sounds similar to something I said somewhere), I also think if there are objections, such as Buidhe's we can go slow and not split for now. If we keep it in one article, Buidhe, how do you feel about the idea of a thematic section reorg along the lines of what you see in the ToC at Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis?
Also, can you elaborate a bit on your worries about possible POV issues following a split? Maybe they can be assuaged, if we know what your concerns are. Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I like the Thematic approach. I'm not dogmatically opposed to a split, I'm just skeptical that it would be helpful as a way to present the information or manage to avoid the pitfalls I mentioned in my earlier comment. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Such articles use Russo-Ukrainian.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academic source describes Russian society

Firewall, I have not read it. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2022.2074020 Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

German TV ZDF

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/propaganda-falschinformationen-ukraine-krieg-russland-100.html
Russian tactics:
  1. Confusion
  2. False 'evidences'
  3. Mixing of true and false statements.
  4. "Whataboutism"

Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was don't merge with no clear arguments presented in support of a merge. --N8wilson 04:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Should https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis be merged into this article? Freedumbz (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not until that page is extremely vetted. I just added two failed verification tags and that’s two too many. I am doing my best to dial down the emotional language over here but what it says appears to be mostly citable Elinruby (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per WP:NOTMERGE "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines." Also "The resulting article would be too long." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment As a matter of the practicalities, if we are limiting this article to 2014 then Wikipedia needs to recruit some Russian and Ukrainian speakers, because I am not doing it, and as a close observer of translation efforts on Wikipedia I say ROFL good luck with that. Been there, tried that. Already contacted all the people on the list of available translators. Crickets. Almost all of the original sources have issues of tone and keep talking about Goebbels. In Russian. Instead of looking at this as:
  1. War in Georgia
    1. disinformation
  2. War in Crimea
    1. disinformation
  3. War in Donbas
    1. disinformation
  4. 2022
    1. disinformation
  • I suggest that this is a process. I am not an expert on Ukraine btw and am very open to input, but Putin has been saying it isn’t a country since at least 2008, he is trying to restore the Soviet Union (1991?), and the roots of the Nazi allegation are probably in World War II.
  • The point about length is well-taken but the structure of the article will need to be reworked anyway and the only way *I* know to approach this is by getting a coherent narrative together then deciding what to spin off/summarize here.
  • 0n a more abstract level, This is a really important topic that has been ignored because somebody made it about 2014, which is incomprehensible to most English speakers. I definitely didn’t consider it important and let it languish on a to-do list until there was Zelensky’s masterful takeover of the news cycle, myself. And yet here we are and still nobody has worked on the article, so.
  • To be clear, my objection to the merge is not so much about content as about the apparent trollification I saw over there. Somebody is messing with the article imho. Over here the Ukrainians were mad, and who can blame them, and their idea of a reference is haha but I am not up for arguing with the GRU this week. I suggest we continue to expand, maybe bring some stuff over bit by bit, while we leave that one there as a honeypot so we can get some work done. I am not actually kidding. Or paranoid, probably.
  • As for length, I am open to suggestions. That incident with the buses in Crimea wants to be a separate spinoff article and perhaps we could do one on broadcast media and another on social media? Summarized here of course. LMK Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: @Freedumbz: I have made significant changes to the article structure and would welcome your input. In particular, I have been editing on a phone where the menu does not display, and would appreciate it if you would check the header hierarchy. There are also a number of questions on this talk page, and I am considering a move to “Russian information war in Ukraine”, as Ukraine’s participation appears to be defensive, and would welcome a discussion on that Elinruby (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Happy with it as its own page. But, do a section summarizing it and add the "Main page see here" thing that's common on wikipedia Jikybebna (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "R-U...information war" is too general. The other article name is too general too. That one should be "Disinformation in the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" ONLY. I encourage someone to get a fix for that rolling soon. Cheers! Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting closure

@Elinruby and Freedumbz: Not sure how long a merge discussion stays open, but it seems like this discussion has quiesced, there being no comments in the last two weeks (other than mine just now). So can this be closed, now? Also, there's still a {{Merge to}} template at the top of Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis which has been there since 28 Feb. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

Shouldn't the page be integrated here?Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I think rather some of the 2022-specific information from here should be shifted there, leaving brief summaries and cross-links here. The two articles are complementary. This one is mainly about Russian disinformation starting in 2013; the other is about disinformation by all parties during the current 2022 invasion. Boud (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
One page is about the broader topic that has been on going for many many years, while the other page is hyper focused on the current crisis which has been going on for the last few months. Quite different, could be unwieldly to merge the two pages together. Mathmo Talk 05:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_information_war_against_Ukraine/Archive_2&oldid=1209199428"