Talk:Information war during the Russo-Georgian War

Russia Start‑class Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is absolutely nothing here which could be regarded as an "attack page". The entire content has been simply taken from an existing article 2008 South Ossetia war in order to make it more readable. Please see diacussion at talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first line, "Russian-Georgian war of 2008 included an extensive propaganda campaign conducted by the Russsian government." indicates that this is an attack page --- To call something a propaganda campaign is to state a POV --- Since the first line indicates the purpose of the article, the article's purpose is to make a POV claim.---Editor437 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? We have a lot of articles about propaganda - please see Category:Propaganda. Could you please use AfD instead if you have any concerns?Biophys (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an article "about" propaganda and an article claiming some entity's action was propaganda. For example, if I said that the U.S. government engaged in a propaganda campaign to initiate war against Iraq, and based an entire article on that claim, the article would clearly be POV. I'm happy to use AfD---Editor437 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the AfD matter solved? --Tananka (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed AfD --Tananka (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate information as to notices added should be made clearly so as to favour discussion. However, the following shall summarise the review

* Concerning content fork (moving a section of an article to a new article) WP:CFORK Avoiding unnecessary splits

¨Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and to the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
Creation of the new article should be agreed to by consensus of editors. A template (splitSection) can be used to direct their attention to the issue. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.¨

* Concerning POV fork WP:POVFORK notice:This section was moved from the main article, and the title changed to "Russia-Georgia" war. It was probably done in good faith, but it has created much confusion. This section relates specifically to one article, and hence should be moved back.

¨A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
Any improvements should be done on the main article page for now.Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨

* Concerning Attack page WP:ATP notice:

¨A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Non-administrative users who find such pages should add the tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by putting the tag on their talk page.
If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.¨

- This article/section talks about the information war (ie media coverage aspect of an information war), and therefore does not constitute a subject (person or entity) that could be subjected to personal attacks.
--Tananka (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Kostan1, please do not move this article without discussion and consensus.Biophys (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You use pretty words, but baseless. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war. Without discussion or concensus? Don't coin new words. The name of the war is the 2008 South Ossetian war, because the war wasn't in a simply Georgian place, but in South Ossetia, a de-facto independent place. Kostan1 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article during AfD discussion is inappropriate. Note that people suggested at least three different new names for this article during AfD, and you selected something that you like. Biophys (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Biophys, the controversial move of Konstan1 should be reverted ASAP. Hobartimus (talk)

Why did the title not fit the main article title "2008 South Ossetia War"? Surely this is an NPOV breach. Hence the initial move was a POV fork and Kostani was correcting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konstant1 acted against WP procedures, including moves during AfD discussion and WP:Consensus. The renaming should be discussed at the appropriate forum: this page or a "request to move". Two other already suggested titles were Media coverage of the Russian-Georgian war (more neutral) or Russian disinformation during 2008 Ossetian war (more specific). This should be debated and implemented per consensus.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acted against the concensus? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war. I actualy have done the concensus. And, not that it's important my nickname is Kostan and not Konstant, even though my name is Konstantin, but in the nickname I took the Russian slang for the name, which is Kostan. Hey, many didn't understand that and because of the ending of Kostan I already recived an Email to join WikiProject Armenia, which I would love to do if I would know more about those wonderful people. Kostan1 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People proposed three different titles, in addition to the existing one. You selected one of them and unilaterally moved this article twice, during a deletion discussion. This is called WP:DE.Biophys (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did what that majority decided. Becides, you can't just change the name of the war because you feel like it. Kostan1 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a forked section refer to the main article title as it stands. If South Ossetia is replaced with Georgian-Russian, surely it should be in the main article first. Otherwise it could lead to confusion, right? Russian disinformation seems a bit POV, IMHO--Tananka (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian disinformation during 2008 Ossetian war (more specific)?? Are you serious? It is clearly evident Biophys that you are intent on an anti-Russian POV in all articles regarding Russia which you edit with that title suggestion? For crying out loud, there is nothing in the article as it stands now that even suggests there was a deliberate and organised disinformation campaign on the part of the Russians, and your complete ignoring and white-washing of Georgian disinformation only shows your anti-Russian bias and intent to push your own POV in such articles. A renaming of the article to Media coverage of the 2008 South Ossetia war, as it not allows you to attempt your own POV in the article, but it also allows those of us (the majority I hope) to pursue a more neutral and all-encompassing angle on the actual media coverage. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it was not me who suggested this title. Sure, it is more specific because it focuses only on the Russian side, and specifically on "disinformation" rather than media coverage in general. Those are simply different subjects. Both the "media coverage" and the "russian disinformation" articles can be created and cover different subjects.Biophys (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article coveres a topic conected to a certain war, this war has a name, don't play with it. Kostan1 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving section back to main article after premature Content Fork

see WP:CFORK --Tananka (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (in response to removal of speedy note), the only appropriate deletion of this article would be to merge back to the main article in conformance with WP:POV
Therefore either AfD is removed, or POV fork is corrected which implies merging with main article.
Therefore the speedy notice must be restored, and if a different reason (apart from the ineligible attack) exists for AfD it must be stated.

Please, do not edit war, and if you want to place a notice then it must be stated why it was placed in the discussion page --Tananka (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note db:move was added by myself, and then removed by other editors. Since, what seemed a valid section fork to improve readability in the main article was first titled "Russian-Georgian war" instead of " 2008 South Ossetian war" which leads to obvious confusion. Also since a proper summary was then not made in the main article, and the section name was changed to "Media Coverage". Then the section was marked for deletion over attack policy, as if some editors wanted to remove the whole section from wikipedia as if it was irrelevant or some POV attack. Maybe my understanding is incorrect over policy? But this amounts to vandalism. --Tananka (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title has been corrected to reflect current main article title. While a summary is to be written in the main article. So I am no longer alarmed over possible deletion of a whole noteworthy, to say the least, section. So I simply agree to keep this as a separate section. Since the main article is long, and the section is an extensive subject, so a move back would not be helpful in achieving readability --Tananka (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"August 17 Through September"

Ok I have no clue what this section is talking about. I mean, every sentence seems gramatically correct, but I do not understand what is the story being told and what kind of disinformation is happening. Can someone rewrite all that stuff? Its very confusing imo.