Talk:What Russia Should Do with Ukraine

Title

The title should arguably be corrected to a more gramatical "What should Russia do with Ukraine?". --Mindaur (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, the English language media translate the same as the current name of the article. IgorTurzh (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yahoo News: "What Should Russia Do With Ukraine?"
• The Times: "What should Russia do with Ukraine?"
• The Week: "What should Russia do with Ukraine?"
• CBC: "What Russia should do with Ukraine"
• the Guardian (on its Ukraine live info stream, not in a prepared article): "What Russia should do with Ukraine"
• The independent: "What Russia should do with Ukraine"
• Interfax: "What Russia should do with Ukraine"

So it is not a really clear-cut. The title is more literally translated as "What Russia should do with Ukraine", I think. Veverve (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The article in Russian did not use an interrogation mark, so we shouldn't either, and this is the grammatically correct form if we remove it. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability

@Slywriter: What's the problem with notability? How often does an article published in a state-owned Russian media produces an international outrage and so much comments? And could you, please, explain how does WP:ADVOCACY apply to this article? --Amakuha (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

How often does a 3 day old news article merit a Wikipedia article? And "international outrage" against Russia is the norm right now, it is not extraordinary. This should be part of a larger article, not a stand-alone article. If nothing else WP:TOOSOON applies. And Advocacy applies to using Wikipedia to advance the interests of one side in any situation, no matter how worthy their cause is. Creation of this article seems pretty close to the line. Being truthful does not mean that this article wasn't created with intent to further coverage of a particular incident and amplify people seeing the reactions to said article. Other editors are welcome to disagree.Slywriter (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that it's at least notable, because (in addition to deep coverage in multiple reliable independent sources): 1) state-owned media rarely call for a genocide and dismantling of entire neighbouring country (this has already led to an international reaction to the article); 2) historian Timothy Snyder, who is an expert in Eastern European history, singled out this one article and said that he will write about it at a later time; 3) the article was still not recalled by the news agency.

So, I would disagree that there is no notability. And I'm pretty sure that even more notability (i.e., more sources) will follow.

As for WP:ADVOCACY, I disagree. Because the article is not advocating "for a particular point of view". It simply delivers the facts on this topic from multiple sources.

As for WP:TOOSOON, I don't think it applies here at all. TOOSOON is about topics that lack sources. Quote: "...topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that". I think, it's pretty clear, that there is enough coverage here. --Amakuha (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuha:

1) state-owned media rarely call for a genocide and dismantling of entire neighbouring country (this has already led to an international reaction to the article): how is this criteria part of the WP:GNG?

2) historian Timothy Snyder, who is an expert in Eastern European history, singled out this one article and said that he will write about it at a later time: again, one historian making a tweet does not meet GNG

3) the article was still not recalled by the news agency: what is your point here??

And I'm pretty sure that even more notability (i.e., more sources) will follow: WP:CRYSTAL.

I am 100% supporting @Slywriter:'s observations: Wikipedia's standards are getting very lenient when it comes to content implicitly aimed at 'fighting the good fight against Russia', which is unacceptable. Veverve (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Slywriter didn't refer to WP:GNG directly. He erroneously, in my opinion, referred to "too soon" and "advocacy". His argument was not strictly based on Wikipedia rules, so I rendered a response which is not strictly based on the rules.

As for WP:GNG, I already mentioned that I think the article meets the main GNG criteria: "deep coverage in multiple reliable independent sources". --Amakuha (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The subject of the article is notable, as per WP:GNG: there is a significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, including CBC, Newsweek, The Independent, Meduza, The Jerusalem Post, Der Tagesspiegel -- Thereisnous (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

And I still believe advocacy and toosoon apply. They are not misapplication, they are both subject to interpretation and considering much of the sourcing used is other newspapers editorial and opinion columns, factual reporting on the article fallout is still lacking.Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The president of Ukraine and a representative of Ukraine at Russian-Ukrainian peace negotiations said that the article will be attached as an evidence of a genocide / war crimes for international crime courts. I would say that's a pretty huge fallout. If I'm not mistaken, the last time a literary work got this kind of legacy was during Nuremberg trials - Thereisnous (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Link into other articles

Currently article doesn't link from other related articles like Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Author’s name

Does the author’s native name have to appear? If so, the Ukrainian spelling Тімофєй Сєргєйцев (Timofiei Siergieitsev) is not native but a transcription from Russian Тимофей Сергейцев (Timofei Sergeitsev), so doesn’t it make sense to show the original Russian? The equivalent Ukrainian given name is Тимофій (Tymofii), and surname’s root Сергій (Serhii), not Siergiei. —Michael Z. 13:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I wouldn't mind it if all the three variations are used. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Slavoj Žižek

The length of quotes of Slavoj Žižek seems somewhat excessive. Is there a reason fo it? HLHJ (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)