Talk:Yulia Tolopa

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Yulia Tolopa, a single mother from Russia, has fought for Ukraine in the War in Donbas since she was 18 years old? Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/08/1079112845/ukrainian-women-prepare-to-mobilize-in-case-russia-invades "Tolopa was born and raised in Russia ... when Tolopa was 18, she ... joined volunteers fighting on the front line ... She's also a single mother to a 6-year-old daughter."
  • ALT1: ... that Russian military volunteer for Ukraine Yulia Tolopa threw tomato juice on a Ukrainian politician? Source: https://112.international/society/a-russian-woman-spilled-tomato-juice-over-leader-of-radical-party-lyashko-11866.html "Julia Tolopa, former fighter woman from the Aidar battalion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who is the citizen of Russia, spilled tomato juice over the leader of the radical party Oleh Lyashko on the sidelines of Ukrainian parliament. "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/between-frontline-and-parliament-ukrainian-political-parties-and-irregular-armed-groups-in-20142019/90BAFE7AA179511DA2B58240D943D8C4 "On December 8, 2016, Yuliia Tolopa, a former Russian citizen and female Aidar battalion fighter who had fled to Ukraine from Russia, attacked Liashko in the building of the Ukrainian parliament and spilt tomato juice over him."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bianca Baptiste.
  • Comment: Hook ALT1 is weaker IMHO, but more quirky. Reviewer's call. Note that given the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, her status may change drastically at any day, so I'd appreciate a timely review and DYK post.

Moved to mainspace by GRuban (talk) and SusunW (talk). Nominated by GRuban (talk) at 19:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

• Comment: Quick comment here, but that fact that her Russian passport being blown up by a mine and thus making her ineligible to apply for Ukrainian citizenship is such a wacky and interesting fact which would also be perfect for DYK. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No, sorry. The tomato juice, yes, wacky. The mine, not so much. It didn't just blow up the passport, it blew up the car she was in, injured her, and killed the three other people in it, who were presumably her friends and certainly her comrades, two immediately and one dying from his wounds in hospital. I'd rather not use it for "wacky". --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • That's totally fair, I should have phrased it better and I apologize for that. I understand the severity of the situation in context and was not aware of that prior, and I understand your rationale for its exclusion. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:RSP lists 112 Ukraine as unreliable and previously deprecated, but I see that is the source for the second hook here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Meh. WP:IAR. It's the television channel that actually televised the event, so I won't remove it from the article, but I'll add a Cambridge University Press source which should be bulletproof enough. (It's wrong, of course, she never "fled to the Ukraine from Russia", she never entered Russia again after doing anything that might cause her problems there, which merely points out our problem with dividing sources into reliable and unreliable.) I prefer the first hook anyway. --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• @GRuban: Article is new enough (moved to mainspace on 2022 February 19), long enough (11 682 prose bytes), sourced (quality of foreign-language sources accepted in good faith, and I'm fine with the way 112 Ukraine is used), neutral, and plagiarism-free (Earwig—AGF on foreign-language sources). Hook is interesting and the citation checks out, but the fact that she was 18 needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article, it only mentions the years. QPQ has been done—almost there! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron: Added a mention right to the section about when she started fighting. --GRuban (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @GRuban: Nice work! This meets DYK criteria now, but this is still gonna be on hold for a while given ongoing DYK discussions... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah . I understand the point, but I would not be surprised to be able to add a death date pretty much any moment. I went to the forlorn court of last resort to appeal; don't know if it will help. --GRuban (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I've been back and forth on this myself, to be honest... I'm not sure we should be waiting until the crisis is resolved to start running topical hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
          • @Theleekycauldron: Considering the closure of Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Request_for_comment_on_Ukraine_and_Russia_hooks can you change the yellow question mark to a green checkmark? --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
            • • indeed I can :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The article has a maintenance tag on it. SL93 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

[[:File:Yulia Tolopa with medals and daughter.jpg|right|thumb|130px|Yulia Tolopa with uniform and daughter]]

@Theleekycauldron and SL93: Please hang tight SL, hoping to get tag removed with Susun's help; User:Ffranc who placed the tag hasn't edited in a week, hopefully he'll come back and agree the issue is resolved? Also, found free images! How about this one for a (pictured), illustrates the hook nicely IMHO - Leeky, would you approve it? --GRuban (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

the image is... a little rough. could work with some cropping/retouching, but not as is, no. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

All right, will live without an image. The tag has been removed, though! Thank you User:Ffranc!--GRuban (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-adding approval. SL93 (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Assuming good faith on foreign sources I cannot confirm/access reliability. Promoting the main hook to Prep 4 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

What is she notable for?

There are many sources in the article but no explanation of what makes Tolopa notable. I assume it's for appearing in the media, but the article only briefly mentions one TV appearance. The rest of the article tells the story of her life with an emphasis on character-building details, like an adventure story rather than an encyclopedia entry. Ffranc (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

She's notable per our definition, Wikipedia:Notability, "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", which, while not completely, for living persons to a great part does, in fact, boil down to "appearing in the media". The TV "appearance" I think you mean is with Liashko, before the tomato juice? That's not a big deal, she's not famous for appearing on television - the media writes stories about her because of her being a Russian woman who fought for Ukraine, that's a rather big deal, there aren't a lot of those. That's the big deal, and the article spells that out in the very first sentence "is a Russian-born female volunteer who fought for Ukraine in the War in Donbas" - which, depending on whom you believe, is/was either a war against at least Russian-speaking and Russian-supported or just straight-out explicitly Russian forces. She's not a "famous for being famous" media celebrity as such. The article does mention a photo project and a book chapter; but it doesn't have to mention media appearances, it lists them explicitly, given most of the 48 references are media articles about her! They're dozens of extensive, non-trivial articles, specifically about her, from unrelated sources, basically continuously over the last eight years. That's explicitly our definition of Notability. I'm sorry, but I am going to remove the notability tag, you're either misunderstanding Wikipedia:Notability, or not editing in good faith, this is not a borderline notability case. --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ffranc: Now the "story" tag, I'm willing to discuss specific suggestions. I admit I'm not the world's greatest writer of prose, so if you can be specific about which parts you are objecting to, and how you think they should be changed, we can probably meet halfway. Or you can make the changes yourself, rather than just suggesting, and I'll edit them directly, that also works. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"[T]he media writes stories about her because of her being a Russian woman who fought for Ukraine". This isn't mentioned in the article. It mentions that she is a Russian woman who fought for Ukraine, but almost nothing about how, where and when the media have made news stories of it. This is what makes her relevant, not minute details in the stories themselves, details about her personal life, who she fought with as a kid etc. There does seem to be multiple news stories from different years, focusing on different angles and developments, so I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies and the article should be deleted. But in its current shape, this is never made clear: the sources are there but the info that makes her notable is largely missing. Ffranc (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, still not sure I understand what you want added, though I think I probably will if you are a bit more specific. The one sentence "the media wrote stories about her"? Something else? --GRuban (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten in general so it focuses on the media attention that makes Tolopa notable, not the details from the news stories themselves. Being a Russian who fights for Ukraine is not in itself notable, but the article is written as if it is. The problem is not some specific detail that is missing but the overall focus of the current article. Ffranc (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, while I'm perfectly willing to meet you halfway, if you can't give any specific suggestions, your complaint isn't actionable. Even though our Notability guideline is mostly based on media attention, it is absolutely not true that we need to write our biographies to focus on that media attention. There are a few "famous for being famous" people, but this is not one of them. This is not a "notable because of media attention" biography, any more than a biography of a politician or a football player or a scientist or a king is. I'm sorry that you think "being a Russian [woman] who fights for Ukraine is not in itself notable", but clearly the world disagrees with you. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you direct quotes from an English language story from a highly respected source that specifically says that, yes, being a Russian woman that fights for Ukraine is, in fact, notable. It's the last reference. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1083003315/reservist-in-ukraine-with-a-surprising-past-must-decide-whether-to-stay-fight

• Title: Reservist in Ukraine, with a surprising past, had to decide whether to stay and fight
• First sentence: Yuliya Tolopa grew up in southern Russia but is now a reservist in the Ukrainian army and a hero in her adopted country.
• More quotes: JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: Yuliya Tolopa is a war hero. She's got an entire box of medals for bravery. ... That this baby-faced 26-year-old became a defender of Ukraine is surprising when you consider she's a Russian. Tolopa grew up in Russia's southwest, mentored by local Cossacks, a community of hardcore Russian nationalists with a paramilitary ethos.

This is exactly why Tolopa is notable. Because of who she is and what she did. Because of her story. Not because of Joanna Kakissis and her ilk covering the story. Our article does not and should not be about the media, it should be, and is, about Tolopa.

Here, I see on your user page that you've written articles - here's the first one that isn't a red link, The Marble Statue, about a book. That article is about the book, who wrote it, the book's content. One little section, three sentences, is about the book's reception. And that's how it should be. We should not rewrite this article about the "war hero" to focus on the media attention she got any more than we need to rewrite the article about that book to focus on the media attention the book got, with who wrote it, and how, and when, and what it's about as an afterthought. --GRuban (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No, she is notable because NPR and others write about her. Just like The Marble Statue is notable because there is a significant reception history to it; it's not notable because of its storyline. The actionable, specific problem with Tolopa's article is that it has almost nothing about the publicity that makes her notable. When did the media start to write about her? What parts of her story and life were stressed at the various points she received publicity? Who were the media that wrote about her - was it initially only Ukrainian media, and later foreign media like NPR also wrote about her? All of this is unclear and the article never explains why Tolopa should have an article more than anyone else who fought in the same war. Ffranc (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah - specifics! I still won't rewrite the article to focus on that (just like the Marble Statue is not focused on the reception history), but I will make sure all of that can be found in the article. --GRuban (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been just as specific all along. It's not OR to write when the sources you find were published; the dates are in the articles, and if she received a wave of publicity with a particular focus during a certain period you just write that. If The Marble Statue was written like this article, it would be tagged with {{Long plot}} and for not explaining the notability. Ffranc (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• When did the media start to write about her? There isn't any source that comprehensively covers all the media coverage about her, so I can't answer that question without Wikipedia: Original research She did get noticeable (and hostile!) media attention in Russia in August 2014, after Liashko appeared with her on Ukrainian TV, which was then re-aired on NTV, I think I cover that in a non-trivial paragraph. But it possibly wasn't the first media attention she got, since the separatists were putting her up on posters in June.
• What parts of her story and life were stressed at the various points she received publicity? OK, I can probably add more there. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Did that. [1]
• Who were the media that wrote about her - was it initially only Ukrainian media, and later foreign media like NPR also wrote about her? Again, there isn't a source that comprehensively covers her media coverage, but in the above change I specify, initially Russian then Ukrainian media. As I write in the comment, there was and is extensive hostile Russian media coverage, but I can't cite them since they're either unreliable as tabloids, so unsuitable for a biography, or outright blacklisted. There isn't "coverage of the coverage".

Anything else I can specifically address? --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the info about regular media coverage etc explains the notability. It still goes into more detail that can be justified, but that's not a notability issue. Sorry for being grumpy, the whole story and media treatment just come off a unethical, and the article repeats war-time storytelling with little attribution and information about the sources. Ffranc (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I did say I would try to meet you halfway, so you removed one of the two tags. I guess I deserve that. Thank you for that. What do you mean by "unethical"? I promise I'm not getting anything out of this except personal satisfaction - I've never met her, or even heard of her until hearing an NPR story on the radio a few weeks ago, and thought it was a really interesting story that could qualify for a Wikipedia article. Anything specific I can do to address the other tag as well? --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It's about how the article is written in general. For example, if there was a number of articles that wrote about her youth and personal life at a certain point, it's better to write that and put whatever details might be relevant within that context. Right now the article goes through a lot of details without explaining why they concern the general public. Obviously, the context of all the publicity here is the war which makes all reporting about her at least somewhat untrustworthy; everything needs some sort of contextual info in order to retain some aloofness in the Wikipedia article. It's not OR to write what the media that report about her are, as long as there is no original analys of them, no unnecessary epithets etc. But overall, the personal info about her needs to be trimmed, written in a less adventurous way, and as often as possible placed in the context in which it was reported. Ffranc (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ffranc: I found images for the article, and was so happy! But now I see that the "overly detailed" tag that you placed is stopping the article from being displayed in WP:DYK. Can I plead that you remove it? --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ffranc and GRuban: I have copyedited the article and rearranged some of the text for better flow, IMO. I removed some details such as the political controversy about the election and her being cheated of rent money, as they skewed the neutrality of the article, being one time events that did not speak to her overall notability. I believe that the tag can be removed, but would appreciate dialog with Ffranc to confirm that their concerns have been addressed. Great job getting photos G. SusunW (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Susun. Every excision was painful, but I guess it's for the best. So this is what they mean by "Kill Your Darlings". --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

De nada. I am hoping it will be able to move forward finally. SusunW (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag, sorry for delaying your DYK and for not responding. There is still a lot of info I don't see the encyclopedic relevance of; the entire section about Maternal leave for example should really just be one line that explains how it affected her military activities, not go into her private life, her relationship with her mother etc. It's info that is useful when writing a story, to create a complex character, but not in an encyclopedia entry. Ffranc (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! With respect, see, oh, John Adams, a Wikipedia:Featured article, that goes into far greater detail about his relationship with his father and wife, his religious views, etc. It's not alone. If reliable sources cover an important aspect of a person, we should too. --GRuban (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)