Talk:Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

Merge?

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.

---

I'm surprised there isn't already discussion about merging this back into the parent article... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Must be deleted per 100% WP:PRIMARY . When secondary sources appear, which summarize the reaction, then the main article must be updated with these. Of course, each and every politician jumped an opportuning to grab a bit of PR by dancing on the grave. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Czechia FM says it's on the EU FMs agenda on 19 March and the EU Council on 22-23 May: I boldly removed the notability template. Wakari07 (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support a merge back into the parent article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That's three to one. What are you waiting for? Wakari07 (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree—shall I propose? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone may like to request assistance from WP:WikiProject Merge, given the volume of material (which will need to be cut down/have the WP:POVFORK removed). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No, don't merge, it would clutter the main article. Many editors insist on the notability of such ephemeral material (it is seldom, if ever, quoted later by RS), but it should at least be separate from the main article. Philip Cross (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Naturally, merging would involve cutting the "ephemeral material". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't support a merge, because it seems like that the international reactions to the poisoning are just as notable as the poisoning itself. I mean, when was the last time more than 22 countries expelled more than 100 diplomats from a certain country? This isn't just your run of the mill `sending thoughts and prayers to the victims`–type responses. ^Falling_Gravity 16:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose against merge. Hundreds of diplomats were expelled. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a major diplomatic incident escalating. So the article is notable and can stand alone. ~~ ∫_uℂρЭ ℝ0υĜe 12:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose These are events that now have their own momentum with far-reaching potential.Axxxion (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The article has relevance for geopolitical and historical academics and students in it's own right.DNA Cowboy (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Events have historical significance. The response has been an international one, with a number of countries expelling diplomats because of these events. Also I oppose on article length. This article is already 100K long, and at 75K the other was isn't far behind it. This is Paul (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppsoe - Too much content to merge. These diplomatic incidents are definitely notable. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2018 (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.

Usage of Russia Today and Sputnik?

Ther are a couple parts of the text in this article that are backed up by sourced of Russia Today and Sputnik media. Should these sources be allowed? Both are owned by the Russian government and since this is a very sensitive issue it is probably they are conveying an extreme pro-Russian agenda. Per WP:WEIGHT. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What is propaganda? There are two instances of Sputnik in the article: one where it is called disinformation and once to source the critical George Galloway when he indeed talks to Sputnik to say something significant. Russia Today is not found by me.Wakari07 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't notice a third instance; the local Scottish Evening Express using the RT TV network as a source in the sports section. There, RT is used as a substrate to enable an Welsh MP from Rhondda's complaint about blood money in FIFA soccer. Seriously. Did Putin take over FIFA? Wakari07 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As per this discussion on Portal talk:Current events some months ago, i added the Russian MoD's reaction, sourced to Sputnik because it's known to adequately present the Russian gov's view, which is notable anyway. Wakari07 (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That discussion is almost entirely your own personal monologue, and does not arrive at any consensus among editors. Philip Cross (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

At least i tried answering a question. There were no opposing voices, not even to ridicule, insult, threaten or silence as almost usual nowadays. The one supporting editor rightly claimed that "There's a LOT of government supported news sources on Wikipedia. C-SPAN, PBS, Voice of America, the British Broadcasting Corporation, or Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Deutsche Welle, Al-Jazeera, etc. The same policy should hold for those others too." Wakari07 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Now just so we're clear on something. PBS is an educational non-profit that gets about 15% of its funding from the federal government, with which it has an actively antagonistic relationship,[1] and furthermore, which releases independently audited financial statements.[2] Russia Today is a propaganda arm of the Kermlin.[3] These are not the same thing. For the purposes of this discussion, these are not remotely the same thing, and that much is not up for debate. GMG^talk 14:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

So PBS is good because Trump hates it and Russia is bad because you hate it? Where is the logic? Wakari07 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The logic is, one is an independently audited, mostly publicly funded, educational non-profit, and the other is a propaganda arm of the Kremlin. GMG^talk 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

First you say 15%; now, "mostly" US gov-funded. Mind the gap, or let's keep PBS out of the equation for clarity's (and Ford Foundation's) sake. A juxtaposition is not yet logics. Does Deutsche Welle try to paint a favourable picture of Germany? Does Al-Jazeera pay respect to the monarch of Qatar? Will the BBC ever say something really critical of the Queen? Arguably, RT has less systemic bias against Putin's Russia than many other media do. Wakari07 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

By "publicly funded" I mean "funded by the public", which means a mixture of private funding, grants, as well as funding from state, local, and the federal government, including the majority of the money coming from individual donations and grants[4].

Arguably, RT has less systemic bias against Putin's Russia than many other media do. That much is simply nonsense. RT is a propaganda arm of the Kremlin. Washington Post, Newsweek, Foreign Policy, Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian. That you say it isn't the case doesn't change the fact that there is consensus among reliable sources that it is. GMG^talk 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia is "also" a "free" country. Wakari07 (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC) To be more complete: Rossiya Segodnya, of which RT/Sputnik are subsidiaries, is a unitary enterprise. TASS news, the Information Telegraph Agency of Russia, also is such an unitary enterprise. Owners (100% state goverment) and operators are not responsible for each other (audit each other off). Wakari07 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC) On the cited remark (in green), i never said Sputnik is not used by Russia. Please see it also with a grain of salt, as a touch of humour. Like meaning to say that Sputnik/RT is more likely not to be biased against Putin than some US-UK media. Again, what is a valid criterion for (inadmissible) propaganda? Wakari07 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The valid criterion for inadmissible propaganda is right about the point where there is a general consensus in reliable sources that some other source is overtly working as a propaganda arm of a state government. As to whether Russia is free, that probably depends on who you ask. GMG^talk 12:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

So in your proposal Wikipedia should censor the state news agencies of countries that are non-free (meaning: red-flagged) according to the US tax-exempt foreign-operating charity Freedom House? You'll have a lot of work, since at least 12 other countries are even more non-free than Russia with its 20 points in the 2018 rankings, even discounting Tibet, Western Sahara, the Gaza Strip, Yemen, Congo Kinshasa, Vatican City and the like. Wakari07 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Oops, I forgot to include at least Chad, Ethiopia, Laos, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Iran and China. Wakari07 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC) And Cuba. Wakari07 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) For closure: Crimea, South Ossetia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Burundi and Swaziland — on top of the 12 Worst of the Worst. 13:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is that sources like RT and Sputnik shouldn't be used for anything other than what the Russian government says, because that's the only thing they're reliable for, and certainly on matters relating to Russian foreign policy. The same goes for something like Xinhua, although at least they are honest about their own relationship with their government. The same goes for any similar situation. The amount of work that entails is immaterial. The response to your "look at all these other countries" argument is simply "yes". If they fit the bill, we should treat them equally.

Beyond that, when we have any country with a history of not respecting a free press generally, and is specifically one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists, that is certainly something Wikipedia takes into account when judging whether sources from that country are being candid, acting independently, or liable to self censor their content, even when ostensibly independent. If Russia doesn't like it, then they can start by not killing people critical of the government,([5] [6] [7]) and we can certainly revisit the issue if and when the situation changes. GMG^talk 14:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice Switzerland's Federal Department of Foreign Affairs reaction? It comes published, pressed by the enquiry of a primary source, Blick, that could rightly be considered a scandalous tabloid only ten years ago, to admit they await "completed results" and therefore abstain from the "spontaneous political reaction" of expelling Russian diplomats. Thumbs up for Switzerland! First the facts, secondly the trial, and only thirdly the sentencing and execution. Wakari07 (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Relevance? GMG^talk 16:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I put in those Blick sources, and I am really sorry. Time is of the essence, this paper is a mixed tabloid, some stories are true and acceptable to an acceptable average, and not likely attacked by the right wing fringe. That's why I refer to them. I'd rather quote Die Zeit, NZZ or Süddeutsche Zeitung, but it takes me too long to read through their articles. In any case, many of my entries have been changed, and newer versions from government sources were put in their place. Osterluzei (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Admissible propaganda on Wikipedia. Wakari07 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm...looks a lot like a privately owned joint stock multinational media corporation.[8] Is false equivalence the only argument you have to offer? You're not even pretending to defend RT and Sputnick, your just dredging for something else that's equally garbage to make them look normal by comparison. GMG^talk 17:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It shows how much you care if you spell Kermlin and Sputnick. Over for me. Wakari07 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And it shows how weak your entire argument is when this is the only response you have when someone calls on the carpet the utter inanity of this entire line of debate. GMG^talk 18:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

---

RT and Sputnik should be treated as primary sources from the Russian government. They might be used to source reactions or statements from the Russian government, though secondary sources are preferred. ^Falling_Gravity 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Oliver Welke

I wonder if someone could further clarify the statement Oliver Welke, a famous German comedian said the EU was "hopeless" after he joked about the bloc and its bickering members on his Heute Show. At present it appears like an observation on the European Union rather than this particular subject (i.e., the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter). Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is unrelated to the subject and also removed the bit. This satirical juggling with a pre-supposed Russian war threat is not informative, in my opinion. Maybe usable for the Propaganda techniques article. Wakari07 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been deleted? An obvious attempt to get around ...

Wiki has been drastically cutting these "reaction" sections in articles. This looks like a case of "I don't like it, so I'll go around it and create a standalone article." Speedy delete. 50.111.3.17 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

See the section #Merge? above. ^Falling_Gravity 16:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Jump-in

I am using any news information that seems credible and jumped-in to document the reactions of smaller non-aligned states. It's not very logical to a priori refuse news from Sputnik or AlJazeera. If people are objective, it can be a rewarding information source concerning a very sad and unsettling event. Peace! Osterluzei (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

(UTC)

Russian diplomats expelled from US to be reportedly replaced?

Russian TV is saying that Russia can replace the 60 diplomats expelled from the United States. Here's video from a news programme in Russian. 60 минут. Доска позора: как Лондон накажет неприсоединившиеся к нему страны? От 29.03.18

This is also mentioned by Julia Davis from RussianMediaMonitor.com on Twitter. [9]

Is this true or not? Is this normal? FunksBrother (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Either you talk or you wage war. From the lead section of the article Reciprocity (social and political philosophy): "Reciprocity figures prominently in social exchange theory, evolutionary psychology, social psychology, cultural anthropology and rational choice theory." The number of representatives in each other's country is ruled set by the "head of mission", currently ambassador Antonov, according to specified agreement and ratified treaty. If you blow that up, you declare the nullity of trust and trade. Nobody wants to bear that cap in history, i guess, so, as long as there is some bilateral diplomatic contact/representation/relationship, Russia is always free to present new accreditation candidates for representatives in Washington, and vice versa. But i guess, grosso modo, your sources may be correct (for now), by declaring a "mind gap" between the diplomatic theory and its practice. See the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations for more details on diplomatic immunity, consular districts and reciprocity as a norm. The diplomatic expulsions are (seem to me) compliant with the persona non grata provision in article 9 of the 1961 Vienna convention. Nobody blew up those treaties (yet). Wakari07 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Also, the 60 Minut source contains an artful snippet: at 10:13, it manages to "suggest away" the Ukraine-Russia border. Wakari07 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Back on subject, article 11 of the 1961 Vienna convention says that "In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits (...)." Wakari07 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Quotefarm

We seem to have an article that is largely made up of quotes. What is the percentage? It's way too high. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource made up from references to secondary sources, not a dumping ground for primary material. --John (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to add/mention Cold War II ?

Do we have to add/mention Cold War II in the see also section? Many sources and prominent politicians mention the term Cold War II. What is your opinion. Iedylstudein (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious to call it something rather than nothing. Wakari07 (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC) But this "reactions" article and the main article are already in the Cold War 2 category. Do we need to add insult to injury? Wakari07 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Per WP:AfD I am leaving my deletion nominations below prior to asking at AfD for the nomination page to be created on my behalf.

---

I recently put this item at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and met with staunch opposition not only to this article's listing but to its very existence. One editor commented "These cruft filled 'reactions to' articles are a blight on Wikipedia. And there aren't significant updates meriting ongoing." A second opined "'Reaction' articles should be more than just quote farms which that one is. Reactions should only be included if there's actual 'actions' tied to it, just not strong words." I'm going to AfD to seek consensus to delete this article. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)