Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  Sandstein  19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The purpose of this article appears to be to push a certain point of view -- that Russia engaged in a propaganda campaign against Georgia. While the first line has been changed to a more neutral claim, the entire body of the article solely portrays Russian propaganda. Perhaps this should be returned to 2008 South Ossetia war, where it would have more context. Editor437 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. That was a hotly disputed subject in article 2008 South Ossetian war. It was deleted and restored several times. I thought that having this subject as a separate sub-article and removing it from main article was a good compromise solution. Besides, main article 2008 South Ossetian war was too large. Thus removing this segment would facilitate reading in accordance to WP:MOS. There is no question that an extensive propaganda campaign takes place during this war - per sources.Biophys (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename. 2008 South Ossetian iWar as per 2008 South Ossetian war and iwar adding the info on cyber attacks and media freedom issues. ( Hypnosadist )  00:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename--a clearly notable and well-sourced concept. Article is currently in atrocious shape, however. JJL (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war like already offered here before me, and offcaurse Keep. Nice idea Biophys! I 100% Agree that this article is needed. At least for now he presents both sides, all clames. Kostan1 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge as POV fork of 2008 South Ossetia War. There would need to be widespread agreement that there was a disinformation campaign, which I don't see from the references. Wikipedia can't draw its own conclusions that 'News reports were unbalanced, therefore there must have been a disinformation campaign.' We can only report reliable sources that specifically comment on the fact of disinformation or improper coverage. It is conceivable there might be enough sources for an article on 'Press coverage of the 2008 South Ossetia War', but it would need to be carefully sourced to coverage of the coverage, not the original reports themselves. The final paragraph of this article, about the Reuters coverage, looks to be pure WP:Synthesis. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There were accusations. The Russian minister haven't blamed US in that? Wasn't that clame referenced? There is alot of material here and that's why don't you think that should be a seperate article? I think that was a really nice idea from Biophys. Kostan1 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this specific paragraph should be deleted, if it has not been already deleted. Yes, this should be coverage about coverage. Yes, this article should be improved a lot.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge back to 2008 South Ossetia War as per EdJohnston, or Delete. A major problem with this article, along with the section in the main article is the naming. Mass media disinformation on the part of Russia is presented as fact. Propaganda on the part of Russia is presented as fact. Bias against Russia in the western media is presented as alleged. It is vehemently anti-Russian in nature, and needs to be deleted as NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator rationale was the following: "the entire body of the article solely portrays Russian propaganda". Even if it was only about Russian propaganda, that would be a perfectly legitimate subject, as we have Soviet propaganda and many other similar articles. But it also includes other sides. In addition, this is not an appropriate forum to discuss renaming. If it was, one could argue that all "Ossetian war" articles must be renamed as "Russian-Georgian war" articles, because the military actions took place outside the South Ossetia and because a vast majority of sources call this conflict "Russian-Georgina war".Biophys (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course it would be entirely appropriate if one wanted to push their anti-Russian opinions, however, WP:NPOV dictates this is not allowable. Funnily enough the article as it stands completely omits or white-washes disinformation on the part of Georgia (the Russians have bombed and destroyed Tbilisi Airport for example) and the Western media (the fact that western media have for all intents and purposes omitted the part about Georgia launching their raids on S. Ossetia which launched the conflict -- something that wasn't lost on the Russian media (and again omitted from this anti-Russian diatribe). --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that we have article Anti-Russian sentiment and other similar articles. Anti-national opinions/sentiment is a perfectly legitimate subject.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course we have Anti-Russian sentiment, but editors can't allow their own Anti-Russian sentiment to poison WP with their own propaganda and their own POV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep the main article is too long for all this. Ostap 05:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There was no consensus to split this out from the main article in the first place, and the main article needs a major cleanup. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge back, or rename to  Media coverage of the Russian-Georgian war perhaps. The current title is too narrow and non-neutral.  Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a similar solution to a similar problem.John Z (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV-fork.DonaldDuck (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The main article on the war is too long; the topic is notable. If necessary, re-name to something like "Russian disinformation during the 2008 South Ossetia War" RayAYang (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to an even more NPOV title? Like Georgia didn't present major disinformation and propaganda during the conflict? If we were to believe the western media, overnight Putin (who is now known as Hitler) decided for no reason and without provocation to invade Georgia and pound the living shit out of the Georgian people. Talk about disinformation. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"¨Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and to the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article. Creation of the new article should be agreed to by consensus of editors. A template (splitSection) can be used to direct their attention to the issue. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.¨" "¨A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. Any improvements should be done on the main article page for now.Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨" If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.¨" - This article/section talks about the information war (ie media coverage aspect of an information war), and therefore does not constitute a subject (person or entity) that could be subjected to personal attacks.
 * Keep Agreed with RayAYang's comment to possibly re-name if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyHunter2008 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge back, or Keep
 * * Concerning content fork (moving a section of an article to a new article) WP:CFORK Avoiding unnecessary splits
 * * Concerning POV fork WP:POVFORK notice:This section was moved from the main article, and the title changed to "Russia-Georgia" war. It was probably done in good faith, but it has created much confusion. This section relates specifically to one article, and hence should be moved back.
 * * Concerning Attack page WP:ATP notice: "¨A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Non-administrative users who find such pages should add the tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by putting the tag on their talk page.

the only appropriate deletion of this article would be to merge back to the main article in conformance with WP:POVFORK Therefore either AfD is removed, or POV fork is corrected which implies merging with main article. Therefore the speedy notice must be restored, and if a different reason (apart from the already rejected db:attack) exists for AfD it must be stated. --Tananka (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." - WP:POVFORK
 * Speedy keep Merging would make the main article too long and the suitability of the information was already accepted and established as part of the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection:

"Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨" - WP:POVFORK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm cconfused now, because after adding db:move it was pointed out that the notice said it was an uncontroversial move, and yet the matter is controversial. So that was not appropriate. As long as this article remains and is summarized then I agree with keep.   My reactions were mainly based on seeing the db:attack and thinking that the whole section would be removed entirely as if there had been no information war and that there were no grave inconsistencies between different media outlets. So, after reviewing readability standards I also support:


 * Keep: Under the condition that a proper summary is added in the main article later, and that it is linked reflecting current main article title and future changes to it.--Tananka (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: An article describing media portrayal of the conflict from all the sides is needed, and the text has some starting points. More work is clearly needed to present all POV. --Yurik (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a notable topic in its own right. — Nightstallion 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Yurik. And the main article is getting very long so I wouldn't merge, but a summary is needed in the main article. Jason3777 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but neutralize the article to include the Georgian POV. --Dial (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above arguments.Freepsbane (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable. --Avala (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge into main article. Needs concise, neutral, better writing and organization. iWar and Media Coverage should be two different sections. Cyber attacks and propaganda are not the same phenomena. The latter is a critical factor in understanding the ability of governments to harness public opinion in support of their actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayneg1776 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this is an important point--that cyberattacks and propaganda are not the same thing. To my mind what's most notable here, and deserving of a separate article, is the information warfare in the sense of and . Waging the popularity war in the media can be handled at the main article. JJL (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wayneg1776 iWar covers both the Cyber attacks and propaganda/media issues, it just happens that most of the combatants are non-state actors and have often agendas not in sync with either side fully. ( Hypnosadist )  15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The disinformation campaign was a notable aspect of the war in South Ossetia. Mjbjosh (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In regards to the keeps which in most cases is summed up with opinions that this is a notable topic, it should be pointed out that these opinions are opinions of editors, and even the article as it stands now does not even confirm that there was a disinformation campaign, which means that there was an organised and concerted effort to mislead the world community in relation to the goings on in the conflict. The naming structure was obviously chosen to portray a negative anti-Russian POV and this obviously should be looked at in the overall Afd nomination. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; intentional information bias played a distinct role in this conflict; as time passes the article will become more balanced and neutral. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keepboth pro georgia/nato and pro SO/russia sources have made whackload of accusations against eachother. while this page may not be clean at this moment, there are relevant contoversies to be covered. although we may even have to rename the title since "misinformation" is a loaded term. in any case, this article has a purpose worthy of an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: as Ed's concerns have been addressed. Ottre (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.