Talk:No 32–04 \ vd - Wikipedia


4 people in discussion

Article Images

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)Reply

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

  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply