Talk:Russian web brigades

Conspiracy theory

Per this edit, please bring a reliable source which says that the web brigade theory is a conspiracy theory. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you even try to read past the second phrase of this article?Anonimu (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that one source is not enough to dismiss the theory as conspiracy. That is an opinion piece, and Gleb Pavlovsky is not a neutral source as he is adviser of a head of the president's administration [1]. If there are other third party neutral reliable sources dismiss this theory, then it will be ok, but a partisan source like Pavlovsky is not enough. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

that's the old version, and it quotes a lot of sources, only one of which claims this to be a "conspiracy theory".Biophys (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Operation earnest voice

Why is this here and not under its own article? The WL currently redirects to a company page with less information than is here. Will fork. a13ean (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this thing well deserves an article. I added it here, because it's a web-brigade, but please feel free to start a new one. 89.178.119.71 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Other examples

What happened to the Chinese web brigades that used to be mentioned in this article? This used to be an article about the phenomenon of state-sponsored internet astroturfing as a whole, but now there seems to be no article about this topic on Wikipedia. Why not? There's a huge difference between a sockpuppet made by someone just to troll and organized operations for propaganda purposes. The astroturfing article is pretty short and mostly talks about corporate examples.

Here's a recent article that purports to be someone who worked on a pro-Israel astroturfing campaign, by the way: [2] Is that something that can be included somewhere on Wikipedia? Esn (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think this article is in a poor condition and needs a lot of improvements. But I am a little afraid that if I resume editing here, this might start a battleground or something. But I can try and see what happens... My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are now mentioned at State-sponsored Internet sockpuppetry, while this article is about its Russian variant, which is dubbed "web brigades"--Elysans (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Astroturfing, web brigades, Operation Earnest Voice, 50 Cent Party, Internet Water Army, etc.

This section is meant to be a continuation of the last two sections, which were related topics. I did a quick search of the web and our astroturfing article (and a more thorough reading of this article) and could not find any evidence that "web brigades" is used outside Wikipedia as a generic term for state-sponsored internet astroturfing; it appears to be used only to describe Russian state-sponsored astroturfing. So I decided to be bold and split the content on Operation Earnest Voice to a new article.

In doing so, I also reorganized the Operation Earnest Voice article without adding or removing content with the following exceptions (I hope): I added links to the See also section, and added content to the leads of both articles identifying them as examples of astroturfing (they still need cleanup and work).

IMO, until "web brigades" (or Internet Water Armies, etc.) become accepted as the generic term for state-sponsored astroturfing, all these examples (including the Israeli example mentioned above) should be separate articles. Also, each of these articles should mention astroturfing prominently in the lead, and mention the other examples in the See also section (or perhaps as a sentence in the article?).

This seemed the obvious thing to do to me. I realize that these are controversial topics, so if consensus goes against me, I'm happy do undue my edits as necessary.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your edit and your comment above in general. "Operation Earnest Voice" obviously does not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so since the main point of contention was about the name, I've created an article with a neutral, descriptive name about all of these programs: State-sponsored internet sockpuppetry. Esn (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Polish Newsweek article

• Wynajęci Rosjanie cyber-bombardują polski internet? (04-03-2014) - Hired Russians cyber-bombing Polish internet? - don't know where to add it. pwjb (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• [3] another Polish article has an interview with Jadwiga Rogoża, a Polish academic and expert on modern Russia, who clearly confirms the existence of web brigades. PS. This also comes to mind (removed, see archives for past discussions) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality, weasel words, words to avoid

This article is a mess, with alleged, purported and other words that try to frame the existence of the web brigades as a non-proved concent, where numerous reliable sources confirm their existence.

Sources:

• 2013 [4] Freedom on the Net Freedom House 2013 report: p.4 "Paid progovernment commentators manipulate online discussions:... The purpose of these commentators — covertly hired by government officials, often by using public funds — is to manipulate online discussions by trying to smear the reputation of government opponents , spread propaganda, and defend government policies when the discourse becomes critical . China, Bahrain, and Russia have been at the forefront of this practice for several years,"
• Also from Freedom House: [5]: "Kremlin allies have purchased several independent online newspapers or created their own progovernment news websites, and they are reportedly cultivating a network of bloggers and computer hackers who are paid to produce pro-Kremlin propaganda and disable independent news and blogging sites."
• [6], 2013, The Lithuania Tribune, "Have they already tried to recruit you into a 30-rouble army?"
• [7], 2013 The Week, " Russian youths are being paid to shill for the government all over the Internet. "
• Russia's Online-Comment Propaganda Army, 2013, The Atlantic
• Internet Troll Operation Uncovered in St. Petersburg, 2013, The St. Petersburg Times
• Swedish Defence Research Agency December 2012 report on Russia ([8]) uses the term (p.62), through notes that "their existence and extent are unclear"
• Hackers expose Putin's army of internet trolls, 2012, Avaaz (mostly based on a more reliable source, [9] in The Guardian)
• 2012 Russia creates social media propaganda systems, "A second system called "Monitor-3" sets up "methods of organising and managing virtual Internet communities of experts" and creates tasks with workflow and reporting. Based on the outcomes from the above two, the "Storm-12" software will automatically disseminate information in large social networks, being a "virtual army" that influences public opinion. Storm-12 will also collect statistics and analyse the efficiency of information sharing. "
• [10] Freedom on the Net Freedom House 2011 report, p.9-10: "In March 2011, blogger s reportedly uncovered evidence that Russian officials were hiring users to post comments that would shape a “positive image” of the ruling United Russia party and “form a negative attitude” toward the author of a targeted blog"
• Alexander Astrov (2011). The Great Power (mis)management: The Russian-Georgian War and Its Implications for Global Political Order. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-4094-2468-0.: "Russia has also used the internet for more nefarious purposes, including so-called 'web-brigades' and organized cyber-attacks"
• [11], 2010, a brief note in European Council on Foreign Relations which notes existence of web brigades as fact
• [12], 2010, brief note in a Hoover Institute publication which notes existence of web brigades as fact
• [13], kyivpost 2010, discusses the existence of web brigades on the Ukrainian Internet
• [14], CNN 2009, useful source but uses alleged-type language

It is also worth noting that the article on the Chinese 50 Cent Party is written as a matter-of-fact, with no attempts by anyone to argue their existence is alleged.

Overall, I think it's high time to rewrite this article from "it's a conspiracy theory" to "it's a verified fact" POV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe this should be included here as well:

US journalist Pete Earley described his interviews with former senior Russian intelligence officer Sergei Tretyakov who defected in the United States in 2000. According to him,

Sergei would send an officer to a branch of New York Public Library where he could get access to the Internet without anyone knowing his identity. The officer would post the propaganda on various websites and send it in emails to US publications and broadcasters. Some propaganda would be disguised as educational or scientific reports. ... The studies had been generated at the Center by Russian experts. The reports would be 99% accurate but would always contain a kernel of disinformation that favored Russian foreign policy. ... "Our goal was to cause dissension and unrest inside the US and anti-American feelings abroad"

Tretyakov did not specify the targeted web sites, but made clear they selected the sites which are most convenient for distributing the specific disinformation. During his work in New York in the end of the 1990s, one of the most frequent disinformation subjects was War in Chechnya.

--Elysans (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

unreferenced 'tit for tat' rationalization removed

i have removed the utterly unreferenced counter accusation against the us, uk, and china. 10 minutes of internet searching produced not a single even vaguely credible source that suggests that such brigades exist in the usa or the uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative name?

According to [15] page 24.

"web brigades”, or as they are known to some, the 30-Ruble Army

And here is an early article from 2011, using that name 30 ruble army. Are those one and the same? --Elysans (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Holy Hell, entire article is a who's who of US propagandists

How is this article even allowed to eve exist other than some stub on conspiracy theories, or US cyber warfare tactics? This article itself is part of propaganda.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.204.153 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm dismantling this garbage and removing things that are only cited by advocacy groups. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX. This is ridiculous tabloid journalism and political slander. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed tag

There was a tag at the top warning readers that this article is biased because it uses only examples from Russia. It seems pretty silly to me, since this is an article about a Russian institution. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with that tag. Why the hell is it only about Russia? Is it implied that only Russia does this? Please read Operation Earnest Voice. America has a far more elaborate sockpuppet operation going on but let's all focus on the Russian "troll army" boogeyman. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources say. As you yourself point out, there are other articles for other instances of similar phenomenon. Your edit summary when you reinstated the tag is also strange - The Guardian, Atlantic, Moscow Times - are these suppose to be "tabloids" and "obscure sources"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure documents leaked by Guardian about NSA and GCHQ activities had panels about organizing edits and comments online to steer them into right direction:

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/gchq-tools-manipulate-online-information-leak The documents – which were published on First Look Media with accompanying analysis from Glenn Greenwald – disclose a range of GCHQ "effects" programs aimed at tracking targets, spreading information, and manipulating online debates and statistics.

Among the programs revealed in the document are: • GATEWAY: the "ability to artificially increase traffic to a website".

• CLEAN SWEEP which "masquerade[s] Facebook wall posts for individuals or entire countries".

• SCRAPHEAP CHALLENGE for "perfect spoofing of emails from BlackBerry targets".

• UNDERPASS to "change outcome of online polls".

• SPRING BISHOP to find "private photos of targets on Facebook".

The document also details a range of programs designed to collect and store public postings from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+, and to make automated postings on several of the social networks.

Capabilities to boost views of YouTube videos, or to boost the circulation of particular messages are also detailed]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And more here, with direct photos of panels discussing manipulating online forums by western agents[16]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

None of these sources discuss "web brigades". They may be useful in some other article but not this one. And at best this is just typical whataboutism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Basically you would need a source which explicitly states that the activities of British intelligence are "similar" to the topic of this article. You can't draw that conclusion yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No, not really I don't. You just need to find similar activities. Such actions are carried out by several countries. Do you for example deny that USA and UK intelligence operations manipulate online forums and opinions as above sources reveal? Describing Russian actions in limbo is absolutely wrong, as it gives impression that only Russia does it. A brief background should be enough. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you actually do. Please read WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would welcome if you would present a reasonable argument, instead of throwing acronyms and wikilinks around and pretending they support your position, which they do not.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, it is your responsibility to become familiar with Wikipedia policies, especially when you are cordially directed towards those policies which are most relevant. So, please read WP:SYNTH. The "SYNTH" is short for "synthesis". The sources you added do not discuss the topic of this article so including them creates false equivalence, a potentially misleading context created not by sources but by Wikipedia editors (you) and a POV problem. "POV" is short for "point of view".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, you really should make sure that the sources even support the text being added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

These guys/"brigades" and the subject have nothing to do with any "intelligence operations", even though some of them could be guided by the FSB. Some of them were dispatched by Surkov; right now they are known as Trolls from Olgino. This is Russian version of 50 Cent Party. Not sure they should be described primarily as "sockpuppets", even though they use multiple accounts. I would be happy to contribute here, but (un)fortunately, my time is up. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to keep this article on Russia. However, it is also reasonable to mention that similar activities are carried in other countries. Chinese 50 Cent Party for example deserves at the very least a see also, and preferably a sentence. [17] is a reliable source for saying that similar activities are carried out by UK services (" “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums"). I am not sure what would be a relevant link here, but part of the sentence removed here seem fine for inclusion (through we would need sources for US, Israel, and Ukraine). [18] does not clearly suggest that this is a government-organized initiative, and we need to clearly distinguish between officially-endorsed online discourse manipulation, and unofficial, nationalistic POV pushing (like, for example, the ones we are all familiar happens on Wikipedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not look at this page for a long time. Yes, I think this change by M. (your diff) is actually highly problematic and should be reverted as WP:SYN. Internet sockpuppetry is a very different, although related subject. This page is about anonymous political internet trolls for hire. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

At least one of the sources to this article mentions the context that many other nations also pay brigades of trolls to manipulate online discussions, very similar to Russia: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432/

Quote:

Paid, pro-government commenters aren't a new phenomenon in Russia, and similar practices are widespread in countless countries. In their Freedom on the Net report released last week, the NGO Freedom House said the strategy has been on the rise over the past two years, and is now rampant in 22 of the 60 countries the group examined. China, Bahrain, and Russia are at the forefront of this practice, Freedom House wrote.

@My very best wishes: @Smallbones: @Volunteer Marek: -- does this help with the SYNTH problem?

@Prinsgezinde: @Tobby72: @MyMoloboaccount: @Piotrus: -- have been advocates for including this material in the past. Of course such matters are not decided by vote totals, but by weight of policy-based arguments. I believe it's implicit, but hasn't been specifically mentioned above, that WP:NPOV requires mentioning this material, especially considering it's also mentioned in the sources in the same context. Otherwise, readers might falsely conclude that only Russia is uniquely guilty of such offenses. Does anyone else agree that by WP:NPOV the material must be included? JerryRussell (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I occasionally see articles with titles like "Skyscrapers in New York" that have a tag saying that the article needs more international coverage. I just don't understand that type of reasoning. The cure of the problem is to write new articles, e.g. "Skyscrapers in Brussels." This is an article about the Web Brigades that have been identified in Russia. As far as I know there are no organizations outside of Russia called "web brigades". So please write your articles about these other organization in another article or articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this interpretation of NPOV. There are plenty of links in the "See Also" if people want to see what other countries have done in this regard. In fact I checked out some of these for comparison. Our article on Operation Earnest Voice doesn't say "But Russia and China do it too!" Our article on Internet Water Army doesn't say "But Russia and America do it too!" Each article treats each country's programs on their own. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Smallbones: and @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:, thank you for sharing your views. Boris, I confess I hadn't noticed the links to Operation Earnest Voice and Internet Water Army, those are very informative articles. It's correct that the article on Earnest Voice does not mention any other countries. But, the article on the Chinese water army does include an extensive section on this issue, stating that "Governmental programs of social media manipulation are found worldwide." Apparently that section was controversial in that article also, it's been tagged since 2012, and I tend to agree it's undue weight in the context -- almost TL;DR.

The example "Skyscrapers in New York" is also instructive. Wiki doesn't have an article by that exact title, but it does have List of tallest buildings in New York City. This article states, right in the lede, that the tallest building in New York is also "the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, and the sixth-tallest building in the world." So the editors of that article did indeed feel that it was important to provide this context, prominently displayed. This is in addition to the list of links in the "See Also" section. Most visitors to a page will read the lede, some will read more deeply in the text, and only a few will go exploring "See Also". And no one is going to think that skyscrapers only exist in New York, but some of our readers might not understand the extent to which governments try to influence online discussions. JerryRussell (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not meaning to presume a consensus here, but I've made a tiny little change in the wording of the sentence in the article that already describes the Freedom House report, to include the information in the quote from above. Hopefully this overcomes the objections based on wp:synth, and is consistent with the "skyscrapers in New York" example. JerryRussell (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That edit was fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Volunteer Marek:, it's a good feeling to find something that seems to work. JerryRussell (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

American web brigades

About them...Nothing?--DieselEngineRO (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC) They take down my edits!! Crazy people! @ User:DieselEngineRO

• Boldly moved page to "Russian" web brigades; although a couple of bows are made to other brigades, article is almost entirely focused on Russian activity. We could use a good article on the general topic of web brigades, whether state- political- or commercially-sponsored.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

What US web brigades? Web is owned basically by US. Anything you have, from Google to Facebook, it's all controlled by them. No counting of course, US media and CIA props other western media:Fox,CNN, ABC, and many other. Look to their attitude when it's time to talk about Venezuela, as example. So if Russia got web brigades, then what about the 77th british Brigade? While US has divisions and even armies to its services, but the problem is so missrepresented that Russia is to blame. Here in english wikipedia the US point od view is simply over any other, but this is not seen as problem, of course.62.11.3.98 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Examples

Have started an examples section, as a useful subhead, and as a redirect target for articles such as Walkaway (political movement).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Web brigades on Wikipedia?

Hi - I'm curious; does anybody have evidence supporting the theory that Russian web brigades are active in editing Wikipedia entries (especially the English-language versions) in an effort to nullify criticism of Russia or indeed divert it towards rival states? I've heard from some (non-official) sources this is a problem, but wondered if there's citeable evidence to support it? 148.64.28.93 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Periodically there are spikes of coordinated edits in articles on Russia, World War 2, annexation of Crimea, war in Donbass, MH17 etc where you can see the official Kremling propaganda bits being pushed. They aren't really persistent as existing Wikipedia review mechanisms effectively prevent such campaigns but I'm not aware of any quantitative analyses of this phenomenon. Cloud200 (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to investigate. I wouldn't be surprised. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I personally feel like parttaking in "hot" articles like Borscht or Gam-COVID-Vac, while procrastinating@work. On "coordinated" edits idea --- I read news on my homepage (Yandex's "Zen" browser has it); some news catch my attention ---> I hurry up to add some info... Uchyot (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this indeed a conspiracy theory

Why is this listed as a conspiracy theory when multiple US intelligence agencies have confirmed it's veracity? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/us-cyber-command-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/science/putin-russia-disinformation-health-coronavirus.htmlhttps://www.theverge.com/2019/2/26/18241600/us-cyber-command-russian-troll-farm-attack-election-day-2018

Seems there is bias in claiming something that the FBI and CIA say is real is a conspiracy theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by House Tules (talk • contribs)

Because it has not been admitted by Russia. Here you see the importance of official statements in international law. A country can do whatever it pleases, but as long as officially it denies doing it, it will never be an official, recognized fact, and the country can not be hold to account for it. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hnnm, I don't think being admitted or not is a definition of a conspiracy theory. That a Katyn massacre was committed by the USSR was not a conspiracy theory before USSR admitted it ~1990. Likewise, I don't see the conspiracy theory category at Chinese cyberwarfare, List of CIA controversies or such. Ps. Anyway, this unreferenced claim was added by IP: [19]. Edit by web brigades, lol. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Its a conspiracy theory because it singles out an entire country of people as being evil. Attacks on African Americans or jews people who suffered opression, genocide, and slavery is not ok this shouldn't be either.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the attack? Miezemaya (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

WalkAway

Question. Why does the WalkAway campaign not redirect here? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it is likely notable enough to deserve a stand alone article. If you think it is not, propose it for deletion (WP:AFD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"50 Kopecks Army" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 50 Kopecks Army and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § 50 Kopecks Army until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 03:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?

Compare the tone of this article to that of Blackwater (company). TBH, the problem isn't so much this article as it is Wikipedia's overall heavily slanted pro-America tone (despite our—and our mercs'—many war crimes in the last 2 decades). 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:44A0:9A27:561A:4B46 (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting.. You have posted 2 comments anonymously and without meaning Miezemaya (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Washington web brigades

Washington Web Brigades

Are there no online US trolls, bots or Whitehouse-bots putting out Govt sponsored Internet propaganda in Washington?

Since there are no logical reasons to believe that Russia is the only nation carrying out Internet trolling, might not this article include something like the above section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.103 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Make a Wikipedia page with your heading etc with evidence you have gathered with links and verifyable source's etc MrHugepiles (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You may want to read other sections of Wikipedia first if you are interested in US American war crimes. Greetings to Russia from Europe :) Miezemaya (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Update of relationship to reflect recent events

While “Kremlin trolls are closely tied to the Internet Research Agency, a Saint Petersburg-based company run by Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is a close ally to Vladimir Putin and head of the mercenary Wagner Group, known for committing war crimes.” Was certainly true in the recent past the relations described between Putin and Prigozhin have changed significantly. Given the degradation in relations between the two would it be appropriate to change the “is” in this the sentence above to a “was”? FlamingCat (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)