Talk:Wagner Group rebellion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

We can't state interpretations, opinions and guesswork in WP:WIKIVOICE

I recently deleted the following statements from the Analysis section:

Putin's strongman image was left diminished while Prigozhin's move proved to be a desperate and ultimately unsuccessful last-ditch attempt in a losing power struggle with parts of the Russian establishment he despised. Nevertheless, the rebellion ended with relatively little immediate repercussions for the perpetrators that had been labelled as traitors by Putin, suggesting Putin's rule may be weak enough to challenge. The rebellion laid bare an inherent weakness of Putin's system of power built upon a ruling coalition of competing power centers and a structure of subordinate "nominal" institutions that was strained by the descent into a militarised state and society. The rebellion did not last long enough to show whether Prigozhin's radical populist rhetoric enjoys a genuine base of support among Russia's security services.

These sentences are full of guesswork and opinions:

• "image was left diminished" – If there were reliable opinion polls, we could mention them, but otherwise nobody can know whether Putin's image was diminished, improved, or otherwise affected. Such claims are guesswork, interpretations, opinions. (Sergei Markov claims Putin's support increased from 80% to 90%.[1] Of course, we wouldn't state that in WP:WIKIVOICE either.)
• Saying Prigozhin's move was "desperate" is not WP:NPOV.
• Saying it was a "last-ditch attempt" is not WP:NPOV.
• Was Prigozhin involved in a "losing power struggle"? Nobody knows. Neither Putin nor Prigozhin nor Western analysts. It's a possible interpretation, not a fact.
• "suggesting Putin's rule may be weak enough to challenge" - We have to ascribe this interpretation to someone, it's not a fact.
• That the rebellion "laid bare" anything is an interpretation, not a fact.

And so on. We have to qualify such statements. See e.g. WP:INTEXT, as Alalch mentioned.

— Chrisahn (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: The phrases are mostly lifted verbatim from the sources that are not opinion pieces. Please refer to my comment in Talk:Wagner_Group_rebellion#Lack_of_competing_viewpoints_(NPOV)_in_"Analysis"_section and review the previous state of the Analysis section for context.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If they are lifted verbatim, they should be ascribed to the sources and put into quotation marks. As in the ISW paragraph. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I now inserted some "according to ..." qualifiers. They are repetitive and vague, but at least the section doesn't violate basic rules of WP:NPOV anymore. Let's improve the wording. Preferably, we should ascribe all opinions and interpretations to specific authors or organizations, as in the ISW paragraph. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Repeating one or a couple of words does not require quotation marks.

If reliable secondary sources present conflicting interpretations, inline attributions would make sense - or better yet, such passages should just not be included.

Just to address a couple of specific objections: the uprising was clearly the culmination of a power struggle with the defense & political establishment - if not, we should also remove the /* Background */ section that details this power struggle leading up to the rebellion. It is also clear that Prigozhin lost this power struggle since none of his objectives have been accomplished. That the rebellion was a result of Putin's system that fostered competing power centres is also not really controversial.

If there's no way to make this work, we should just do away with this section altogether.

Jay Hodec (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I'm sorry, but at this point you're the one who's misattributing the information and doing WIKIVOICE. For example, if multiple reliable secondary sources plainly say that the Wagner uprising has been the greatest challenge to Putin's rule, it is just straight up incorrect and misleading to write "Some commentators say ..." - it's not even "commentators" saying it. WP:NPOV clearly states:

"Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion [...] Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

Jay Hodec (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't change the sentence about the "biggest challenge". It already said "has been described as the biggest challenge to Vladimir Putin's 23-year long rule", and the sentence has always been (more or less) like that. The "has been described" part means we don't make that claim in WIKIVOICE. As it should be. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Chrisahn, the bits of text copied verbatim and without attribution is very unconventional. Explanatory journalism definitely falls under WP:RSEDITORIAL. I really feel like the clunky old way of "x said [quote]" that was in the article was fine; an alternative is loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words, per WP:INTEXT (in-text attribution still needed).—Alalch E. 14:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Writing "some commentators" is weaselly. It's much too early to guess the degree to which the POVs are universal or not. Attribution to at least one source giving each POV would be better. The POVs should be grouped in the minimally reasonable logical groups in paragraphs, e.g.

• para 1 - POVs on consequences for Putin's reputation, governmental stability, chance of surviving future rebellions or the 2024 "election"
• para 2 - POVs on consequences for Prigozhin/Wagner (these POVs will quite likely become obsolete within a few days or weeks - all bets are off for whether Belarusians decide to switch from civil disobedience to armed rebellion before it's too late and they get sledgehammered)

@Jay Hodec: Repeating one or a couple of words does not require quotation marks If these are stylistic, arbitrary words that reflect something of a personal choice, then yes, they should be quoted (e.g. if a source wrote "the rebellion was a nail in Putin's coffin"). If they are the ordinary words with that meaning, then they don't need quoting. I haven't cross-checked the current text against the sources, but our current text does appear to be more or less ordinary English (which may happen to match some of the sources); a cross-check might show that a few words ("last-ditch"?) are a bit too much on the personalised, stylistic side.

Boud (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Sorry, I just picked an example at random without checking if it was the one amended. Nonetheless, my objections stands. Either we're presenting uncontested assessments from reliable sources or we're better off just removing the whole thing instead of letting it just devolve back into a quagmire of "Telegraph columnist Joe Schmoe called Putin's response a "" while Russia expert Y described it as "" ..." At that point, there's no way of evaluating notability and people are free to quote every schmuck with a newspaper column or thinktank gig.

@Alalch E: I think I ought to have called it analytic journalism instead. The pieces were not under the NYT opinion section but rather under NYT's regular Ukraine war coverage, with the caveat that The Interpreter section is described as "Original analysis on the week’s biggest global stories, from columnist Amanda Taub." (but does not clear if it is in fact a column) while the the Meduza Explainers piece says "Maxim Trudolyubov, editor of Meduza’s Ideas column, sums up a historic day."(again not clear if the piece itself is a column).

@Boud: I tried to retain key phrases more or less unchanged so as to not deviate from the original intended meaning.

Jay Hodec (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: I agree that attributing to cited source (e.g. "According to the New York Times [...]" or "According to analysts consulted by AFP [...]") is far preferable. But it might get messy when multiple sources are cited - especially when a passage combines info from multiple sources.

Also agree with seggregating content into subsections according to topic (if it's not getting deleted). May be wise to use bold text instead of subsections so that the index doesn't get clattered, though.

Jay Hodec (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me address a few details: I agree that the "power struggle" is uncontroversial. But "last-ditch attempt in a losing power struggle" implies that Prigozhin was already losing before the rebellion, and nobody knows if that's true. It's an interpretation. (I should have made clearer that the problematic word was "losing", not "power struggle".) In general, it's too early to tell whether Prigozhin was losing, is losing, or has lost. (He might still win, e.g. if the Russian troops suffer setbacks as in Kharkiv and Kherson last year and many soldiers take Prigozhin's side. Not likely, but nobody knows.) Similarly for Putin – it's too early to tell how the rebellion affected or will affect his position. (As a historical example, look at Operation Valkyrie – at the time, it may have looked like a huge blow to Hitler's authority, and I guess many observers hoped it would hasten his downfall, but in the end, it unfortunately hardly changed events during the rest of the war.) We should try to distinguish uncontroversial material from claims, opinions, interpretations and guesswork about stuff that nobody can know (yet). The former can be stated in wikivoice, the latter can't. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: "[...] nobody knows if that's true. It's an interpretation."

Well, it's what the /* Background */ section says. It's also what the referenced NYT piece says, and I'm pretty sure I can find other reliable sources that plainly state the same thing. The MoD clearly had the upper hand in its effort to reign in and subjugate Wagner, and the uprising was according to all accounts Prigozhin's hail Mary. There isn't really any other way to view this. I agree that Prigozhin may still wind up becoming President of the Russian Galactic Interplanetary Federation, but in the context of the topic at hand, he clearly hasn't accomplished any of his goals. Wagner is getting dismantled, the inept MoD leadership persists, and the decadent elites are continuing to smother themselves with expensive skin creams. How exactly is this up for dispute? Or do we need to rewrite the Beer Hall Putsch and February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt pages? If Prigozhin get's elected president in a decade, we can just mention it in the /* Aftermath */ section.

It's also not really up for dispute that Putin has sought to portray himself as a strong leader who restored stability after the chaos of the 90s and a Mad Max-style armed insurrection sort of chips away at that image.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here - that the sources are reliable but that you personally disagree with their assessments?

Jay Hodec (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, the argument is that we shouldn't state opinion as fact. I agree. We can state, as fact, that a widely-held opinion is widely-held, but we can't state that opinion as fact.

OK: "Michael Jordan is widely considered to be the best basketball player of all time."

Not OK: "Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time." Levivich (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Levivich Well, rather whether and when analysis from reliable sources can be presented as fact.

Jay Hodec (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Never. Never present analysis as fact. You can call it what you want to call it: "opinion", "analysis", "editorial," "interpretation", "insight", "commentary", it's still not fact. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Levivich In that case, let's just remove the /* Analysis */ section since there is no consistent way to assess the noteworthiness of individual "opinions". I would just like to reiterate that the sources for the /* Analysis */ section were published as straight news and not in the publications' opinion sections.

Let me also just cite Wiki's definition of a secondary source: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research."

Jay Hodec (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, we should just clearly identify analysis as analysis. See my example above about Jordan. We'd never not say in Jordan's article that he's considered the best of all time--we'd also never say that he is the best of all time. We just say that he "is considered" the best of all time, or words to that effect. This is (as I understand it) Chrisahn's point: we are stating analysis in Wikivoice rather than clearly identifying it as analysis.

The question isn't whether we should include analysis or not, or whether we should state it in wikivoice or not -- both of these questions are already answered by our existing policies (WP:NPOV, specifically the sections WP:VOICE and WP:DUE) -- the question (which Chrisahn is raising) is how, exactly, to identify the various opinions/analyses that are WP:DUE for inclusion. The answer, I think, is -- depending on the specific opinion/analysis -- to describe it as "widely-held" (if RSes say it is), or attribute it to groups ("Western countries", "Ukraine's government", "military experts", etc.), or individuals, as the case may be. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Levivich If a X is evaluated by reliable secondary sources to be the best in their field (presumably based on objective criteria) and there are no equally reliable sources that contradict the claim, we can safely state it in "wikivoice" as "fact".

Based on what you people are arguing, no wiki article could ever state that a coup failed or that a side was defeated in a war. That's just all the scholars'/historians' opinion, right? We can't know that it's actually true. Carthage may rise again, after all.

"widely-held" would constitute original research.

Look, I'm going to exit this discussion at this point, however, I do strongly recommend you guys just scotch the whole section if you can't come to an agreement on a consistent criterion about source selection and inclusion (which you can't if there are basically no reliable secondary sources in this case). Otherwise, it'll just get stuffed with quotes from opinion pieces and the like. There are a small number of facts but a near infinite number of opinions.

Jay Hodec (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nah, we have six million articles, and they're stuffed with analysis and opinion. There really is no basis for believing that we either state opinion as fact if it comes from an RS, or else we exclude all analysis altogether. We do not state a person's opinion as fact in wikivoice even if the person is universally-considered to be "the best in their field" (which, by the way, nobody is universally considered to be the best in their field, not even Michael Jordan).

To your earlier point, it's also not true that the sources cited in the section are published as straight news and not analysis. Let's look at the six sources cited in the OP above one by one, and you will see how all but one are clearly labelled analysis. The sources are linked in the reference box below:

1. NYT "His Glory Fading, a Russian Warlord Took One Last Stab at Power" - this is the one outlier. It's clearly explanatory journalism, but not labelled as such. What can I say, the NYT has been slipping in recent years.
2. AP "Russian mercenary group revolt against Moscow fizzles but exposes vulnerabilities" - This is a news article that reports on analysis by others, but doesn't contain it's own original analysis.
   • "Some observers said Putin’s strongman image has taken a hit."
   • "'Putin has been diminished for all time by this affair,' former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst said on CNN."
   • "'These events will have been of great comfort to the Ukrainian government and the military,' said Ben Barry, senior fellow for land warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He said that even with a deal, Putin’s position has probably been weakened."
   • "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said late Saturday, shortly before Prigozhin announced his retreat, that the march exposed weakness in the Kremlin and 'showed all Russian bandits, mercenaries, oligarchs' that it is easy to capture Russian cities 'and, probably, arsenals.'"

   All of this analysis is attributed by the AP to others. We can include this analysis in our article, and we can cite the AP for it, but we should attribute it just like the AP did (and attribute it to the person who AP attributes it to, not to the AP itself).

3. AFP (via Moscow Times) "Wagner Halts Revolt But Putin Seen as Weakened" - the key hint is in the headline, "seen as weakened", not "is weakened". Like the AP article above, AFP is reporting on news and it includes reports of analysis by others but not its own analysis:
   • "The agreement ended the immediate threat that Yevgeny Prigozhin's private army could storm Moscow, but analysts said Wagner's revolt had exposed Putin's rule as more fragile than had been thought." ("analysts said")
   • "Analysts also said the deal had exposed weakness in the Russian president's grip on power." ("analysts also said")
   • "Moscow thanked him, but observers noted that an intervention by Lukashenko, usually seen as Putin's junior partner, was itself an embarrassment." ("observers noted")
   • "In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky's senior aide Mykhailo Podolyak tweeted: 'Prigozhin humiliated Putin/the state and showed that there is no longer a monopoly on violence.'"
   • "Russia insisted the rebellion had no impact on its faltering Ukraine campaign and the day after the mutiny said it had repelled new offensive attacks by Ukrainian forces."

   As with AP, we can include these opinions/analysis, with attribution to whomever is giving the opinion. So, for example, and AP and the AFP article could both be cited for some of these opinions attributed to "observers" or "analysts" or whomever the RSes are attributing them to.

4. BBC "Russia: Wagner mutiny shows real cracks in Putin authority - US" - it's right in the headline, the "- US" part indicates the BBC is conveying the opinion of the US gov't. Subheadline: "An attempted armed mutiny in Russia shows "real cracks" in President Vladimir Putin's authority, America's top diplomat Antony Blinken has said.". Where it gives its own analysis, the BBC is clear, e.g. "The BBC's Russia editor in Moscow Steve Rosenberg says President Putin does not emerge from Saturday's events looking particularly strong."
5. NYT "A Mutiny That Showed the Stress on Putin’s System of Rule" - this one appears in a section called The Interpreter, which is, as the website says, "Original analysis on the week's biggest global stories." Unlike the first NYT article quoted above, this one is clearly identified as analysis.
6. Meduza "Prigozhin’s coup attempt exposes Putin’s vulnerability" - in a section called "Explainers," and so clearly marked as analysis.

So, with the exception of the first NYT articles, these are all either clearly marked as analysis, or they're straight news stories that are (clearly) conveying others' analysis with attribution. We should do the same: state facts in wikivoice, and include significant opinions/analysis with appropriate attribution. Levivich (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Levivich Just to reiterate one last time: I as far as I understand, analytical/explanatory journalism qualifies as a reliable secondary source rather than opinion in the context of wiki guidelines - I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise (refer to definition of secondary sources as inherently analytic). Think of it as scholarly historical works, but for current/recent events.

The AP, AFP and BBC sources were not added by me. I've already removed the BBC source for the reason you mention, and support removing AP & AFP as well if these contain no original analysis.

With this, I wash my hands of the section. Do with it what you will.

Kind regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

They do contain an original analysis / original analyses, just not originated by the outlet who physically published the piece, but by the makers of the statements which are, by their nature, analyses. We should do it like Levivich says. Jay, you did say P.S.: I agree that attributing to cited source (e.g. "According to the New York Times [...]" or "According to analysts consulted by AFP [...]") is far preferable. But it might get messy when multiple sources are cited - especially when a passage combines info from multiple sources., but, really, attribution should be made to the actual, named, authors.—Alalch E. 18:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E Reliable secondary sources are considered reliable exactly because claims in their original content go through some sort of evaluation and fact-checking process. Opinion is considered opinion because it does not.

Attributing to the author of a straight journalism piece is misleading since reporting from a reliable publication presumably goes through an editorial and fact-checking process. Writing "John Doe from The New York Times says that [...]" is therefore misleading. To quote the wikivoice guideline:

"Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, [...] Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

And the inlince citation guideline:

"It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. [...]"

Jay Hodec (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"uncontroversial factual assertions" – The word "factual" is important here. For example: Putin's image is a rather vague concept. What could a factual assertion about it even be? Results of opinion polls about Putin's image would be facts, but they are not available (yet), so none of the recent analyses are based on such facts. Whatever anyone wrote in the last few days about how the events have affected or will affect Putin's image is necessarily based on the author's intuitions and conjectures, not on facts. (Similarly for claims like "Prigozhin was desperate", "Putin is weak", etc.) I think the analysis section is useful for our readers, but we should be careful to distinguish factual assertions (which we can include without attribution) from interpretations and opinions (which need attribution). Many sentences in the section contain a mix of factual assertions and interpretation. I added the "according to" qualifiers to whole sentences, but that was just a crude stop-gap measure. It doesn't mean that everything in these sentences needs attribution. We should refine that... — Chrisahn (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Chrisahn I'd define "uncontroversial factual assertions" as assertions in reliable secondary souces that are not contradicted by any other assertions in other reliable secondary souces.

Jay Hodec (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would not define "fact" as "something that nobody disputes". Levivich (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Levivich *That no reliable source disputes. Consider this thought example: if you examine all available scientific literature about a particular topic and all scholarly sources describe it as X: could you not call X a fact since there's broad scientific consensus about it? And does it not mean that X could still be later proven to be wrong and a new consensus established?

To give a concrete example: is it wrong to call climate change a fact? Yet couldnt't it conceivably still be proven to be false?

But hey, I mean, you're free to take up the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view.

J Jay Hodec (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, we have different interpretations of the term "factual assertions" – maybe because the guideline is not a factual assertion, but to some extent open to interpretation? ;-) But to address your point – I did a quick search and found several notable and politically knowledgeable people who question or even deny the claim that Putin has been weakened:

• James Hughes: "The commentary from western governments and mass media on the consequences of the failed Wagner rebellion in Russia focuses on the weakening of Putin’s grip on power. This is a continuation of the wishful thinking that has characterised the analysis of the war in Ukraine itself. ... the rebellion did not weaken the regime as such but rather will have served more to exacerbate the fear within Putin’s circle of the potential for military failure in Ukraine to generate a wholescale regime crisis." [2]
• Viktor Orbán: "Vladimir Putin’s handling of a mercenary mutiny shows the Russian president remains firmly in control, Viktor Orbán said in an interview ... “When it is managed in 24 hours, it’s a signal of being strong,” Orbán [said]" [3]
• Heather Conley: "And although the rebellion shattered the illusion of Putin’s control, it changed very little. ... Russian elites and the broader public will rally around Putin, fearing 1990s-instability and economic chaos more than they desire regime change" [4]
• Steven Heydemann: "Commentary on the dramatic events of the past week suggests that while Putin may have dodged Wagner’s bullet, perhaps literally, the failed insurrection reveals fundamental weaknesses in his regime and left him weakened and vulnerable. Maybe. But maybe not." [5]
• Michael E. O'Hanlon: "Putin — having appealed to Russian patriotism in the minds of his citizens, having again invoked his concept of holy war against the West, having previously suppressed internal political critics and dissidents — has now controlled the narrative and the outcome of this melodrama. Unfortunately, I doubt it will weaken him, or Russian military positions in Ukraine, very much anytime soon — though admittedly, that remains to be seen." [6]

I'm pretty confident I could find reliable sources voicing dissent regarding all other assertions we're discussing here, e.g. "Prigozhin was desperate", "Prigozhin was losing", "Putin's image has been diminished" etc. According to your criteria, that would require us to attribute these claims.

P.S.: I'm not saying any of the people I quote above are right. They may well be completely wrong. That's not the point.

— Chrisahn (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A few more general (and a bit off-topic) thoughts: Natural sciences (like climate science) deal with things that can be measured and predicted based on relatively simple, well-known, exact and reproducible fundamental rules. The predictions of climate science are based on centuries of exact theories, precise measurements and experiments, as well as trillions of data points. In social sciences (like political science) very little pertinent information is measurable, and there are no rules that would allow us to reliably predict anything. (That's by no means the fault of social scientists. They are simply dealing with an extremely complex and unpredictable entity – the human brain. Even a single human brain is in many ways much more complex than the climate or any other system studied by physicists, chemists, etc.) The analyses of political scientists are to a large extent based on heuristics, intuition, personal experiences, personal opinions, etc. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me just make a concluding summary for this discussion: I believed that analyses from secondary sources can be regarded as reliable sources and used for matter-of-fact statements without inline attribution. I believed that by limiting ourselves to such reliable secondary sources, we can obviate the issue of source selection by avoiding opinions of undeterminable noteworthiness. Clearly, everyone thinks otherwise and this approach seems to create more challenges than it solves.

To address Chrisahn's comment (though we're sort of drifting into off-topic discussiosn of epistemiology): I believe the "factual assertion" is that the uprising shattered Putin's image of stability and authority on which he builds the legitimacy of his rule - whether or not it will have any impact on regime stability in the long run is a different matter and of course not only open to dispute but unknowable. Of course, you can find plenty of people that contradict the aforementioned "factual assertion", too (e.g. Orban's remark above or obviously whatever Russian propagandists are currently saying, but that's exactly the issue that I attempted to resolve by limiting assessments in the /* Analysis */ section to reliable secondary sources and banishing opinion/comment/columns/discussions/..).

I take your point that the natural sciences comparison wasn't 1:1, but the point I was making was how we commonly use the word "fact" and "factual" - i.e. an assertion that is supported by a broad consensus of authoritative sources (but still not undisputable or undisprovable). Nonetheless, interpretation of findings in secondary and even primary sources is an issue even in the natural sciences - maybe even more so than with human events (e.g. X wanted to achieve something because Y, he tried, he didn't succeed, therefore his attempt failed). Whether "eternal truths" are a thing is meanwhile a different question probably best left to philosophers and theologians.

Jay Hodec (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe the core point is this: It's unknowable whether the uprising shattered Putin's image. (See my explanation above.) You seem to believe otherwise. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :-) (But it's an interesting discussion, and if you'd like to dig deeper, feel free to post on your or my user page and ping me! Or maybe there's a project page where this may be on-topic?) — Chrisahn (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Chrisahn As I've been saying, I think this assertion (as well as other ones) could have been logically assessed by reliable sources: if Putin has built his political legitimacy on maintaining order and stability and himself as inevitable (which a source can verify by analysing past reporting and scholarly literature), an armed insurrection by his underling objectively runs directly counter to that. If we can't present such a claim as objectively true, this could have wider implications for how we describe e.g. legitimising narratives of non-democratic regimes, or even when assessing ideologies of parties in democracies.

I try to avoid "forum-style opinion discussions". Even drawn-out talkpage discussions about facts and figures make me nauseous. :)

Kind regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Just came across this Guardian analysis which perfectly illustrates what I've been saying:

"Even for Putin’s usually nimble propagandists, painting the shocking events of the weekend as a win for the Kremlin is proving a hard sell. At the same time as claiming the country was on the brink of civil war, Putin and the state television networks have insisted that the uprising enjoyed no real support and was always doomed to failure.

[...]

Even harder to explain away is how a regime that prides itself on predictability could have allowed this to happen. State television has trumpeted political stability as a key achievement of the Putin system for two decades. That stability has been severely eroded since last February’s decision to launch a full-scale assault on Ukraine, but the ease with which a former minion could turn on Putin and order his troops to march on Moscow is an extremely awkward fact."[7]

If Putin's government prides itself on maintaining stability, than major instability of it's own creation clearly cuts against that. If A and B then C. Even propagandists can't square a circle. This is in the realm of fact, not opinion.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are some other "logical deductions": "The rebellion was squashed quickly, which made Putin look strong and decisive." "The rebellion scared Russians, and they demanded a strengthening of the security apparatus, which strengthened Putin's position." And so on. Anyone can come up with such "logical deductions". The point is: We're talking about extremely complex systems (millions of human brains). Simple logical deductions don't apply. Politics isn't mathematics. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Chrisahn I hear what you're saying. But I do believe you can analyse a set of well-established truths about social systems and then rather objectively evaluate postulates. At the end of the day, it's not all just competing narratives. This is sort of inherently built into wiki guidelines: presenting assertions of reliable secondary sources according to due weight. I mean, I'm sure there are people saying this is all a lizard people conspiracy, but this is irrelevant for our purposes. If there's a battle and both sides declare victory despite one side clearly trouncing the other, wiki won't say the outcome is disputed in the /* Analysis */ section if all military historians say otherwise.

BTW the rebellion clearly wasn't quashed - a negotiated settlement (negotiated by third parties) was reached with "traitors" outside of Moscow with whom Putin had promised to deal with ruthlessly just hours earlier, then ended up granting them amnesty. Maybe a more consistent counter-narrative here would be that Putin was "topping from the bottom". And this is aside from even letting a rebellion take place and the being caught blindsided by it. In this example, any fair and reasonable observer could conclude that this narrative isn't consistent with the most basic facts of the matter without having consult reliable sources for analysis.

But this is all besides the point. The core of the disagreement is whether analyses in otherwise reliable secondary sources may be treated as ordinary reliable secondary sources (and what we personally think about the consensus position in such sources is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of wiki anyway). But alas, the majority clearly thinks that they mayn't.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI

template:outdent is useful for readability per WP:OUTDENT. (Hohum ^@) 17:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to read all 36 long messages here. Is there still a disagreement here? If so, can one of the sides summarize the arguments here? Seems like things are spiraling in an unproductive way.

I'll say preliminarily that I agree we should not present the opinions of lots of analysts as objective fact in wikivoice, but again, the discussion is so long that I'm not 100% sure I understand what the dispute is. HappyWith (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

HappyWith Yeah, I already wrote my summary somewhere in there. Do a Ctrl+F for "concluding summary" to find the relevant reply.

Anyway, I'm totally open to the possibility that analyses from otherwise reliable secondary sources (not individual analysts!) can't be treated the same as their "straight facts" reporting even when clearly not marked as opinion/commentary. I haven't seen any wiki guidelines that would suggest this, however, ignorance on my part (of either guidelines or fairly common knowledge) may be to blame here. So I guess the dispute is resolved in this sense and I don't intend to contest it further.

But just to underscore my conundrum with one final example: I recently added a sentence mentioning that Putin went on a tour of public post-rebellion meet-and-greets which is a bit out of character for him. Now, the claims are a summary of a straight news piece, however (quoting from source): "It was an unusual move for a secretive president", "a rare meeting with public", "[it] appeared to be an attempt to repair the damage done to his image wreaked by the weekend’s mutiny, as he tries to portray himself as retaining popular support" are all basically analysis. This sort of "context analysis" is extremely common even in "straight reporting" pieces. We assume that the journalist & editors are competent in evaluating the veracity of these claims so there's no need for a "The Guardian claimed" preface here, you could conceivably claim all these claims are opinion and should be presented as such. So, if we take the "analysis ban" to its logical extreme, should only bare "where, when, and what" facts be unattributed? I mean, you can't indisputably prove that the appearances are definitively out of the ordinary or have anything to do with the rebellion, or that he's definitively "secretive", or that the intent is a "show of public support". ... Sorry for adding another brick to the wall of text.

Jay Hodec (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: A great consensus position I'd be totally content with is: universal inline attribution, but limiting ourselves to analyses from reliable secondary or otherwise clearly noteworthy sources (e.g. NYT, Foreign Policy, ISW, RUSI, institutes/think tanks, intelligence findings,..). But no hot takes (not even summaries, god forbid quotes) from primary sources - be it columnists, "experts", or even scholars!

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think yeah, for anything that’s not an obvious fact that sources unanimously agree on, we should universally attribute statements with “some western analysts said” or “experts said”. I tentatively also agree with the exclusion of “hot takes”, though I think takes from genuine established experts like Tim Snyder deserve a place, as long as they’re reasonable. HappyWith (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

HappyWith Yes, obviously when there's disagreement in secondary sources you attribute and present both perspectives. And obviously it's a different matter with assessments from experts/analysts as individuals as they are primary sources, even if mentioned in secondary ones.

My quandary is - if the more rigid standard is applied consistently, could we ever make any unqualified statements about historical events without preemptive throat-clearing. Even if all scholarly sources (and can you ever really check them all?) agree about the "analysis".

Yeah, Snyder would be a good counter-point to my consensus proposal. Still, there are plenty of other scholars of Russian history/society/politics - Snyder is a very publicly prominent one (hence noteworthy per WP:DUEWEIGHT), yet probably not the most relevant one (since he's not an expert specialising in contemporary Russian politics/history specifically as far as I'm aware - Stephen Kotkin or Fiona Hill would perhaps be better examples). If included at all, maybe they'd best be put in the /* Responses */ section in a /* Scholars */ subsection, while the /* Analysis */ section remains reserved for summary of secondary sources. Takes from scholars are still takes from primary sources.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

---

References

Wagner support?

Back in this article's primordial early history, we attempted to include a "supported by" section in the belligerents under the Wagner group, noting the units that pledged support to them, or refused to act against them. However, due to the lack of clarity in the Russian information space as to what was happening, and a couple of news sources simply citing unverified tweets, this was removed.

I am proposing revisiting this now that there is concrete information on which units supported and opposed the aborted rebellion. Namely some Storm-Z units in belligerents, and Sergey Surovikin in leaders. Scu ba (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The infobox is subordinated to the body of the article, and in the body there is not a single mention of Storm-Z, and as far as I can tell, it does not state in wikivoice that Surovikin was one of the leaders of the rebellion.—Alalch E. 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Storm-Z and/or Rusich is/are listed as co-belligerents on the UA/RU/ESP/POR articles, however, both claims are apparently invariably ultimately sourced to Telegram posts.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources about the wagner group's support from Storm-Z:

[8] [9]

Scu ba (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

These articles only say that they "had expressed support for [Prigozhin]", and that they "[were] ready to go to bat for [Prigozhin]" during the events, not that they actually did anything. Expressing verbal support and making promises isn't the same thing as military support. HappyWith (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Lukashenko says he and Putin were "[sleeping] through this situation"

What does this statement even mean? He can't mean the rebellion itself, right? My best guess is that he's saying something along the lines of 'We were caught really off-guard by it'. I feel like we should explain in the text what Lukashenko is exactly saying, otherwise it's not very useful to include the quote at all. HappyWith (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HappyWith Yes, Lukashenko basically seemed to confirm that they were caught with their pants down by the armed uprising just like Meduza's sources and divulged intelligence findings had asserted before this. The sentence should be read in the context of the preceeding paragraph.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Location of the camp coinciding with previous video of Alex Simonov

The article notes that according to Bellingcat, "the location of the [supposed bombing] video in the PMC camp coincides with the previously shot video of war correspondent Alexander Simonov". I don't understand what the Bellingcat statement is supposed to imply or suggest, or why it matters. Am I missing something? HappyWith (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I copied that over from the other article, when I combined the information about the alleged strike in both articles here, expecting that I or someone else will figure out what exactly is being meant soon afterwards, but I didn't make any progress, so I will remove that.—Alalch E. 21:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It suggests that the video - staged or not - was in fact recorded in the Wagner camp, right? I guess this is somewhat relevant information, though certainly not essential to include.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian air losses

Oryx is generally a good source, but we shouldn't be blindly repeating what they, along with random Russian milbloggers, say about the losses. This is especially because sources like the BBC [10] are now explicitly saying the "six helicopters" figure is unconfirmed. I think we should probably report the wider range of figures between what is totally confirmed and what the unconfirmed OSINT reports say.

Also, the massive citebundle used for the air losses is really unnecessarily huge. Some of those sources don't even unambiguously support the whole figure. HappyWith (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that's oversimplifying. First, it isn't just Oryx which sources information from milblogger space, it's various outlets doing it independently of one another, and they generally agree. It doesn't simply boil down to the reliability of Oryx. Second, BBC Verify's claim of being able to confirm one thing should be weighed against other reliable sources that also claim to be able to confirm something, which does not always have to be literally stated in the form of "we were able to confirm". But it's fine to say 1–6 helicopters. However, I've edited your changes to the infobox note to add more nuance.—Alalch E. 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, the current version of the article still essentially has the changes I wanted. HappyWith (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Utkin in infobox, again

Havsjö In your edit summary adding Utkin to the infobox, you claim the article already says he led the Moscow column, but that’s not true. It says, and I quote, "According to a source close to the leadership of the Donetsk People's Republic, the convoy bound for Moscow comprised approximately 5,000 combatants, under the leadership of the senior Wagner commander Dmitry Utkin."

The DPR is not a reliable source. The infobox is only a place for uncontroversial, confirmed info. HappyWith (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How Far???

Many editors have contributed many details about this event. But it would be a great kindness to general readers everywhere to say simply and clearly how much distance this group covered in what space of time. The map is great - but unhelpful if the distance is not shown. Yes, far down in the article some numbers are mentioned - but this simple fact should be stated in the lede. Our job is to enlighten the reader, not mystify him. Textorus (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if we could cite specific times and distances, but we can't:

• We don't know exactly where the Wagner troops came from. Probably somewhere in the occupied parts of Ukraine, but we don't know the details.
• We don't know exactly when they started. Probably in the early hours of June 24, but we don't know the details.
• We don't know exactly which routes they took to Rostov and Moscow.
• Maybe some vehicles went first to Rostov and then towards Moscow. Or maybe the ones traveling towards Moscow went there directly from their starting point in Ukraine. We don't know.
• We don't know how many Wagner convoys were traveling towards Moscow. Some sources say there may have been two that later joined. Others say there was a convoy that split into three.
• We don't know exactly how close the convoy(s) got to Moscow. Some sources say 200 km, others say 400 km.
• We don't know exactly when the convoy(s) stopped. Probably some time between 16:00 and 19:00.
• We don't know exactly when the convoy(s) turned around and went back to Ukraine. Probably some time after 19:00.

When I say "we don't know", I mean that we don't have WP:RS which provide this information. Maybe some day there will be scholarly works, or at least detailed and well-researched news media items. But as far as I know, such sources are not available yet. That's why we can't provide that information either. If you find WP:RS that can answer some of these open questions, that could be a great addition! — Chrisahn (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

@Karma1998: Can you elaborate on this revert? You didn’t leave an edit summary. I removed the specific military flags originally because they’re obscure and unfamiliar to the average reader and less useful than just making it clear "they’re with the Russian government" with a Russian flag. Like, what does the emblem of the President of Russia exactly add to the article when it’s put next to Putin’s name? HappyWith (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:FLAGCRUFT, military articles should include flags and/or insignia of units as an exemption from the normal policy in order to identify each unit.

"Like, what does the emblem of the President of Russia exactly add to the article when it’s put next to Putin’s name?" The fact that he is the President of Russia

Scu ba (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So the emblem of the President of Russia next to Putin's name tells the reader that Putin is the president of Russia? Quite the opposite, Putin's very recognizable name, next to an unrecognizable flag tells the reader that that flag could have something to do with Putin's office as president. And that is not useful, and not topical in this article.—Alalch E. 08:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on this?

The Wagner 'Coup' Was Staged by Putin—and the West Fell for It | Opinion (msn.com) 2603:6011:9600:52C0:59F5:B690:921C:BAAF (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinion - it even says so in the URL. Acroterion (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Such theories have been put forward since 24 June. Few sources discuss these speculations, and most who do think they are unlikely to be true: [11] "probably mistaken", [12] "It’s not likely". Seems pretty WP:FRINGEy. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Clickbaity title, WP:NEWSWEEK.—Alalch E. 19:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Syria

Made a new section on events in Syria during the time. In light of this, does Assad’s regime qualify in the infobox? Borgenland (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the actions of Assad's government had a negligible effect on the events. Also, there were only a few hundred Wagner troops in Syria, far away from Russia, so they wouldn't have mattered to the rebellion anyway. Doesn't seem relevant enough to list any of it in the infobox. (Thanks for your contributions! Good stuff.) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Shoigu and Gerasimov

What are "Shoigu and Gerasimov", cities? people? groups? Please clarify. Thank you. Misty MH (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to clarify that. The preceding sentences in the same paragraph provide everything that is needed to understand what "Shoigu and Gerasimov" refer to. ("While Prigozhin was supportive of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he had previously publicly criticized Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, ...") —Alalch E. 10:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

English Subtitles

Can someone please add English subtitles on Putin's address about the rebellion? Thanks. Faith15 17:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

See commons:File talk:Putin addresses the military mutiny of the Wagner Group.webm#English transcription request — Chrisahn (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done—Alalch E. 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Alalch E.. I owe you one. Faith15 14:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

Proposed add of a new section in Aftermath. I have given sources as well.

Withdrawal of Wagner Group from Russia

After a Rebellion led by Yevgeny Prigozhin failed, the Wagner Group began withdrawing its forces from Russia and began moving them to Belarus as part of a deal signed with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko that ended the Rebellion. References: DitorWiki (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This is already covered in the Aftermath section. Please stop wasting everyone's time with frivolous and duplicate requests. Kathleen's bike (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Prigozhin's private army

the article mentions "Wagner began to be perceived as Prigozhin's private army". I believe it should be "Putin's private army". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oexel (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Belarussian president

it should be note that lukashenko is not recognized as the president of belarus by the UK, US, or EU. It should be amended in the article that he is the "disputed" president of belarus. 2605:A601:AD51:2200:750A:9C77:DA15:479 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

He is the president Napalm Guy (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2023

The following discussion 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.

---

Wagner Group rebellion → Second Russian Civil War – It was a civil war. 89.122.39.11 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It wasn't. Station1 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reliable sources after the end of the rebellion are calling it the second Russian civil war. Zowayix001 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: a mutiny or a coup attempt that quickly fizzles out is the exact antithesis of a civil war. 2604:3D09:E27F:DDD0:486D:F200:3329:4736 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Same reasons as above. SusImposter49 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Unless this plane crash from August 23 sparks something nothing close to a Civil War. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not large scale enough, no large active public backing or participation. No reliable sources assess this.

Zerbrxsler (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Same reasons as above. Parham wiki (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. No sources call this a civil war Cosmiaou (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, snow close and trout the editor proposing it. Killuminator (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This "civil war" was waged by soldiers from a private group with little public backing. Said soldiers marched along a highway for 24 hours before they struck a sudden deal with the government and stopped. Glades12 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a total overblowing of the events of June 24th and August 23rd. Nothing even close to the events of a civil war occurred or will occur. Winn24 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2023 (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.