Talk:Kremlin papers

Requested move 24 September 2024

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: moved to Kremlin papers. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

No 32–04 \ vd → Kremlin report "No 32–04 \ vd" – The current name is too anonymous a combination of letters and numbers to be a title people would remember. A title should give some sort of clue about the topic. The new title gives those numbers some context. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote marks are not an absolute necessity. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. That title isn’t used anywhere. The only source that comes close to using it is a personal blog that refers to it as a Kremlin report. I honestly have no idea why you think this is a good idea. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's also described as the Kremlin papers. Feel free to suggest other titles. This one is absurdly short and nondescriptive.

It is often described as a "report", sometimes "Russian report" or Kremlin report". We need something like that. We wouldn't make the part number of a car ("No. 55589298") the title of an article. We would at least mention "Chevrolet Malibu part No. 55589298." That provides the meaning of those numbers. (That's the Engine Oil Level Indicator Tube Seal.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to keep titles historically accurate, not to artificially force them to conform to some kind of structure based on reader suggestions. I don't see what is stopping you from using a redirect to this page. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The number would still be part of the title. Our rules for titles do not require exact wording, but descriptive wording. My suggested title includes the number, and identifies its context. People need to be able to relate to the title. A few numbers and letters for a very obscure and barely known report don't serve well when standing alone as the only thing in the title. Some number combinations are famous and serve fine, but this doesn't work that way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not an approach I take to Wikipedia. I believe titles should be preserved not changed. I'm sure you'll get other opinions, so maybe get the title people involved. Lord knows I've had some wild disagreements with them, so that should be fun. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Does the title really use a backslash (\) instead of a slash (/)? JIP | Talk 13:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That's the number of the report. I don't speak Russian, and don't know their common conventions for numbering reports. Maybe this is normal in Russian? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Question: Why add quote marks? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • That's not an absolute necessity. I'll clarify that above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose implausible search term. How the heck one would google the term? Why not to rename the article to Kremlin Papers? --Altenmann >talk 20:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, as that is a common term for it, so I could also support that. When I search for it, I often find it described as a "report" with that number. I believe we should keep the number, but just add a description for context. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, support move to Kremlin papers (or Kremlin Papers). The current (and proposed) titles are inscrutable to the general public. Natg 19 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2024 (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.

Short description

My short description ("Putin's leaked plan to elect Trump and destabilise America.") was deleted with this edit summary: "Absolutely not a neutral or standard description."

That short description is how multiple RS describe the main points of the plan, which were to (1) elect Trump and thus (2) destabilize America. It was also Putin's plan that was leaked so that is also in harmony with what RS say. When we write in harmony with what RS say, we are being "neutral" in the NPOV sense. When we neuter what they say, we are introducing our editorial POV, a clear NPOV violation. I am not wedded to that description as if it's the only correct way to word it, but in light of the inaccuracy of that "not a neutral" edit summary, you should reconsider how you deal with this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a funny discussion. You neglected to note that you wrote both short descriptions.[1] I supported your former description ("Leaked Russian report describing Putin plot to support Trump's candidacy"),[2] because your latter description[3] was far less accurate and neutral ("Putin's leaked plan to elect Trump and destabilise America")[4], even though I agree with the intent of both. The former is almost perfect in its neutral distancing ("Leaked report" instead of "Putin's leaked plan", which we don't really know), while your latter description goes a bit beyond the support of Trump into "destabalizing" America, which while I agree is the case, isn't a good, neutral description. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL! You're right that I did write the first one. I improved it by then mentioning the actual major aims described in the Kremlin report. That was better than the first version which was too vague. At Wikipedia we use "neutral" in the NPOV sense, and when we are aligning with what RS, then we are being "neutral". Neutering what RS say is a violation of NPOV. For example, if RS say "liar" and we then write "was less than truthful", we are neutering/watering down/whitewashing what RS said. We should say what they said.

In this case, "destabilising" America is very neutral and the exact words used by many RS. I don't understand how that can be seen as anything less than neutral in any sense of the word. If that was Putin's goal, then that was his goal, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, all for the cost of some flattery and a carrot dangled just out of reach for years. The alleged blackmail isn't even necessary. It's just a sort of "guarantee" and reminder of who is really the boss. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, but feel free to get more input from others. We obviously have very different ways of seeing this, so I don't think it will do any of us any good to argue about it. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to argue. I'd really like to understand your meaning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I've said everything there is to be said. I have other things to do now, so feel free to wait for more input. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"Short description" is supposed to be short. --Altenmann >talk 18:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Short description#Formatting Feel free to weigh in on the content of the short description. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Original research

Il looks like the article suffers from WP:SYNTH. It must be about the document, not the whole Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. --Altenmann >talk 18:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to revert back to my last good version. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care about this subject, which for me seems rather speculative, on par with The Will of Peter the Great. I highly doubt such things are put into free-floating papers. And our arctice actually lists "further reading" sources which cast doubts. But somehow they didn't find their way into artcile body, --Altenmann >talk 21:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann: have you found content that is not mentioned in connection with this report? What is it? I note that the Prigozhin mention comes from a source that doesn't mention this report. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That's why I removed Prigozhin. --Altenmann >talk 21:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Have you found anything else, or was that what you were thinking of? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In popular culture

It’s 2024, not 2004. I thought we stopped doing "in popular culture" sections a long time ago? Recommend deletion. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No we didn stop it. I specificaaly added the in-text comment:

<-- just in case, so that the people would not take the novel for its face value-->

Because the book is called "Kremlin Papers" and its text so much resembles the subject of this article, so it is helpful for people to know that the book is fiction, not a documentary about the real deal. --Altenmann >talk 02:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s not how we edit Wikipedia. You need a secondary source making that claim. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No. We need a reliable source to make the claim. Publisher's book cover summarizing book content is a reliable source; cf. WP:SELFSOURCE. --Altenmann >talk 02:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, no? You need a reliable secondary source drawing the relationship between this article and the book. We never link to Amazon, so your edits here are bizarre. And you’ve been here since 2003? Wild. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have a RS, it’s OR and should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have the RS, cited. --Altenmann >talk 05:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you do not. You have a link to Amazon (which we never do). You need a reliable secondary source indicating the relationship and importance. Otherwise you are engaging in original research. You’ve been here long enough to know this, so I’m really confused by your bizarre edits. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing bizarre. I explained my reasoning above. You may find in non-convincing, but far from bizarre. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Altenmann, I am a lifelong inclusionist, which means I default to keeping content in an article, not deleting it. The fact that I had to remove this material should tell you something is seriously wrong. I can't find a single book review or secondary source about this subject and the book. You can't assert importance or significance, we have to let the sources do that for us. This is really simple. Find me a good source, any source about the book. Start there. Then, find me a source that connects this book and this topic. That's how we do things. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a self-published Amazon Kindle-only book. There are no secondary sources covering it. How can we use this on Wikipedia, Altenmann? Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas is right. We need secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Amazon.com, like IMDB, is not a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to quarrel about such a trifle, however the source is not a Amazon, but the blurb on the book cover. A book is reliable source about its contents, right?. Otherwise we should have been deleting the "Plot" sections from 95% of articles. However the argument that it is self-published did convince me: we don't have to deliver a free advert to the writer. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, I admit there’s a lot of things I don’t know, but you touched on things in your reply that I do know simply because I’ve spent a lot of time doing them. The part you are missing is that the book has to be notable before we can even write a plot section or use it as a source. So, all you have to do is show that the book was published and there’s at least one good review that mentions aspects of this subject in relation to the book. That’s a very low bar to meet, and I couldn’t do it. As I said, I’m an inclusionist. I would keep this book and material in the article if I could. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)