User talk:Elinruby/Archives/2022/March

Artistic and cultural impact of the Liberation of France

Hi Elinruby, thanks for your help with the expansion of Liberation of France. Can you have a look at this edit from the "Social and cultural" impact section near the bottom which talks about returning writers and artists after the war and see if you can find some references for it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Alright, I will come back to that. As I recall however that is a complicated story that should really be its own article — only some of them came back and the School of Paris, as a school, did not. I may need help with focus. I may need to approach it by writing the article then condensing for the section. I assume you are still following that page?

I will have to give priority to the above problem, improving my attempt to mitigate a rights issue. This brings be back to an old rant. Is there any way that we could screen PNT articles for copyvio and notability *before* somebody spends time pointing out that donjon is a keep not a dungeon? Gah. At least this one can be remedied, so I will do it, but it really isn’t a translation problem actually, mumble. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As for scanning PNT articles for WP:COPYVIO, I recently had a look at the guidelines for the New page patrol reviewers, and they have some clues there. Assume you know about the Earwig copyvio detector tool already. Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually Hemingway and Picasso! Found some sources that are global too not just artist by artist. Busy today but can start this soon. Assume you still watch the page. Elinruby (talk) 15

57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

But yeah, since so many of the School of Paris artists were Jewish and/or from Belarus it was no longer the same, but this was, as somebody pointed out, a consequence of the war not the end of the war. Chaim Soutine died while dodging Nazis and the better-known Chagall made it to New York. He came back to France but not to Paris and not until much later. I have seen the term used post-war, but for a different group of artists with a completely different artistic style. But Hemingway came back and Picasso never left and was no longer in danger, so.... this is a note to myself as much as to you, btw. Forgot I have a medical appointment but this is at the the top of a short list of things I want to take care of before I go on wiki break. Promise to build it out to something good.

Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Are you the one who put in that stuff about Monnet? There’s an uncited quote there and if you ask me that topic belongs in the economics section. I suppose I can find a source for it but if if was you perhaps you remember where you got it. Agrarian=>industrial is indeed on topic but... well, let me know. If somebody else gifted us with it I will just approach the topic without the mystery quote I don’t quite agree with. LMK Elinruby (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in this edit of 4 Feb. 2021. The quote was cited to Chapman-2018 at the end of the paragraph; but it lacked a page number, so I've added it. I also took the opportunity to add the text of the quotation to the citation, as it's a bit hard to find in the snippet preview in G-books, and also re-used the same source in a few places in the paragraph, as it wasn't clear that it was all totally sourced. Thanks for the heads-up on this.

By the way, for finding who wrote what when, are you familiar with the Wikipedia-made browser extension called "Who Wrote That?" You'll love it, and it's available on Chrome, Firefox, or Vivaldi. Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have expanded/referenced the section somewhat but am not finished. At a minimum Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir still need to be mentioned by name, and I should explain how the art was different. Soon. RL calls. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't hurry, take care of RL; that comes first. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

K thanks. I’ll get back to question about whether it should be under economics Elinruby (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to move it to #Economic section, I've no objection. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Deeper than I have time to get right now, but that is good to know. Possibly “Social and cultural” is too broad a category for four paragraphs. The allusion I just made to industrialization is citable, btw, but I am currently not sure where I saw it. Need to close some tabs and do RL stuff. Got distracted by another cn tag in a section I wrote. Incidentally I am pretty sure I added language policy to the to-do list but don’t remember what that was about — will figure that out. Can you do something about GI brides? I have no clue about that. If you do leave it there for now, we can reorganize a bit later. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you mean, GI Brides the book, do you? It helps if you link what you're talking about, because I'm drawing a blank on this one. Mathglot (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

At the top of the section somebody has put an expand tag saying it should include GI brides among other things. I am as confused as you are. Since they didn’t explain this on the talk page (I don’t think) maybe we just delete that item if it wasn’t you and you don’t know what they are talking about either? As I recall some of the other topic in that tag arguably might have some basis, though, so maybe not the whole tag. Feeling slightly overwhelmed with Ukraine right now, can’t look at this right now. But that’s what I am talking about, the expand tag at the top of the section.

Ways to improve Strana.ua

Hello, Elinruby,

Thank you for creating Strana.ua.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

References 66,67,68 are numbered but not included

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Atlantic306}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Atlantic306 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Signature

Wow, I came to this page expecting to find a new editor, not someone with your experience. I was going to place a template notice, but I'm pretty sure you know the rules. Then again, you placed a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment without a signature, the bot added one for you, then you returned to add more to the orignal !vote, and a reply as well, and in the process removed the signature the bot added and again left your !vote unsigned! Not sure what that's all about, but please sign your talk posts. Thank you - wolf 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: thank you for your courtesy. I realized, when I was most of the way through a long post about exactly why something was ridiculous, that the phone battery was at zero, so I hit send. I’ve since gone back to finish and claim the post. I am normally annoyed by reminders to do something I am doing or have done, but yours was refreshing in its courtesy so thank you for that Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you could copy this content to your sandbox and fix it to make sure that the text is good and well referenced. Then you can try to include it to Azov Battalion where such info is missing. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: if in fact it were a duplicate article of a normal article that might be the thing to do. However my sandbox in already full of notes for Russian information war against Ukraine. And figure the odds. The editors at the page on the Russian bogeyman apparently adamantly refuse to read the reliable sources policy. I think it would be better to either split the articles or maybe merge the other way around, But llisten, i am just going to go finish bringing in the references; i’ve spent the entire day telling people I would love to do that if they would quit trying to delete the page because I fell asleep while trying to do that :) But yeah, once a little more information comes to light I would be happy to discuss this with you. I don’t suppose you read Ukrainian? Or Russian?

PS - just looked you up to get the ping right. Your input would be very welcome at the page I mentioned if you are so moved. In particular, the trans-title in the references is machine translated and almost certainly can be improved; that one might be much easier for you than for me. I am also trying to clarify and expand based on the sources, which is mighty tedious using machine translation. I am pretty sure the section on Russian identity could be improved also, and a critical read of the American military sources would be wonderful if you are familiar with the culture as well as the language. Meanwhile I have a date with some references in Ukrainian. Thank you for any of that that you may take on. There are also a LOT of questions on the talk page Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC

I see that you know how to use subpages in your user space. Yes, I know Russian, but very little Ukrainian. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

hehehe. ok, that’s true. But I am doing this article exactly the same way I have done dozens of other translations about military units. Given the number of times and ways I’ve been accused of bad faith today I feel it is important that I hold to that. This is an article about the military unit, which is not covered in the battalion article. My current opinion is that the battalion, the movement and regiment are different things. Somebody is working on an article about the movement, I see. And I applaud that. If the membership turns out to significantly overlap, we can revisit. Meanwhile, it is urgent to get the military history of a military unit that is in the news this much into SOME article, and the Ukrainian Wikipedia offhand is probably a pretty good source on Ukrainian military history. I will be happy to discuss any specific issues that you see with it going forward. I hope to finish the translation phase tonight and move into looking for English sources and fixing any POV from there. And now I am really going to quit responding to edits and tags and go do references Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Last two journalists out of Mariupol

Pretty amazing read (with pictures and video) by two AP journalists who managed to be evacuated from Mariupol, the last two journalists in the city. Not sure if it fits in one of the articles you're working on, but it's an amazing story: 20 days in Mariupol: The team that documented city’s agony. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Almost certainly. Thanks. Those AP journalists are why we know about the hospital bombing Elinruby (talk)

Stop

Do not post DS warnings on the page of everyone editing at Azov Battalion. The majority of the people you are "warning" are experienced editors in the area of EE Sanctions, and I guarantee you will only piss them off. BSMRD (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You have misrepresented facts and you have been warned. Get off my talk page. Unfortunately I have to give them to them sane people too and yeah I am sure they will find it annoying but the proper way to do it is to warn everybody because it isn’t supposed to be punitive. You have been warned. Seek accuracy in future, because you are the reason I am doing this. And for god’s sake read the reliable source policy. Elinruby (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

They previously received one on 22 Jan. 2022 (diff), and since that's within the 12-month expiration, in theory you're not allowed to give them another one until Jan 2023, per WP:AC/DS#alert.dup. Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

ah. I knew about the one-year period but didn’t see that. So I always could have asked for sanctions, damn. Alright, I guess the thing to do is go take it off? Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In that case, what I would do, is go to their talk page, and say something like, "Hey, sorry for placing that D/s Alert, I missed the fact that you had already received one in January. I'm happy to self-revert, or you can just delete it if you wish. Let me know which you prefer. Thanks, ~~~~" and then see how they respond. If they don't respond at all, which is at least as likely as the other alternatives, then you're good. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

What about people that I am pretty sure know that? Ymblanter for example? Elinruby (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I wouldn't bother. Plus, he's a native Russian speaker, and I think really knows this stuff. But if you do decide to place one, whether at his page or anyone else's, just make sure they haven't gotten one *for that alert type* since 26 March 2021; if they have, then don't place it. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Elinruby (talk)

Strikeout type

You're letting your frustration at the RIwaU Talk page get the better of you, and if I were you, I'd not respond to provocations there, but just keep your counsel, and either improve the article or switch to something else for a bit. In particular, you should seriously consider self-reverting this edit, as it's only going to cause you trouble if it remains. You actually can't do that, it's contrary to WP:TPO. There are some cases spelled out when you can refactor someone else's comments at a TP (one is comments by a block-evading sock), but they are quite limited in number. Best thing to do if you feel there's a serious violation that needs to be removed from the TP, would be to go to an admin's TP and request them to do it. Actually, before trying that, you could also just ask the person concerned if they would strike or remove the offending material; depending on who it is and the situation, you might get what you want, and it's much better if they do it, and not you. If that fails, go to an admin.

One other thing to keep in mind, that took me a while before I realized, is that the requirements for the header section of an Rfc, and for a RM are *completely different*. As you know, the Rfc starts off with a completely neutral statement (WP:RFCNEUTRAL) that ideally doesn't betray the opinion of the OP at all, and then the OP gets to vote, lower down in the voting/survey section, making as partisan an argument as they like; but NOT in the top section. But, an RM is completely different: the OP is *supposed to* make as partisan an argument in favor of their move request as they can, right in the top section; after that, they are *not allowed* to cast a separate vote; their intro argument, *is* their vote. (See the bold Note a few paragraphs down, at WP:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move, starting, "Unlike other request processes...") That is, the OP's top statement is *always* an automatic vote to support whatever the RM move is proposing, even if they don't put the word support there in bold, and they get to make a strong argument right at the top. If you were not aware of this, it might explain why you reacted strongly to the OP statement at the 3/23 RM: it probably sounded totally non-neutral to you, but in fact, that's how an RM is supposed to go; the OP has to take their best shot at the top. If you don't agree with what they lay out, just give it your best shot in the Discussion section or in the comments, explaining with your argumentation why they're all wrong; but don't strike it. If it goes way beyond the threshold of partisan argumentation, and into the territory of offensive comments, personal attacks, or other P&G violations, still don't strike it, but ask an admin for assistance. Also, I can see this is all getting to you; even the reply to Ymblanter above sounds a bit testy; please try and relax, my friend—have a glass of wine, and watch The Four Yorkshiremen, or whatever will make you smile. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have already put the reorganization of Russian information page in your hands. For the moment they have effectively stopped me with their weird demands to rewrite the article based on sources that as far as I can tell don’t exist. I’ve had a bellyful of being called brainwashed and a Nazi sympathizer and am currently occupied in giving everyone DS alerts so they can’t say they didn’t know. You may if you think best revert me with an edit summary saying you advised me to talk to an administrator instead and I told you I would do that. I don’t want to lose my place in what I am doing to do that this instant, but I will. Thanks for the back, no I didn’t know that. Elinruby (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Strikeouts undone (diff). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There is btw perhaps a gleam of light in the HouseOfChange saga over there. If she doesn’t deny it later she seems to actually be upset about the redirect, which I don’t care about. She can just write about whatever she wants to write about in her own article under the redirect. I think she will run into the same problem I did, but if not more power to her. And actually, the exchange above is spillover from Azov, which is definitely making me crazy. I am pretty much at peace about the Russian information war article now. It’s well sourced and you seem to have the matter of the titles and the problems it will cause in hand. Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear. Yes, I noticed the back-and-forth about the redirect, and if one is needed when the dust settles, I can supply it. (If you have the patience for WP:ROBIN, you could, too; I used to have to map them out with pencil and paper before starting, because it's rather tricky at first, and highly error-prone. Now I can do them in my sleep, which is to say, I've learned how to ride that bicycle. But it's really annoying the first several times.) We'll see how it goes with any needed reorgs; I tend to be slower lately, a lot slower even, so feel free to nudge me, if nothing seems to be happening, and it should. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well the thing is, this request for merge continues and people keep voting on this based on the incorrect way it’s been presented to them. My thing is, if somebody can manifest a bunch of material that I somehow missed that make that the appropriate title, but I am fairly certain that these people, having inappropriately renamed the article, will then move on to template somebody else and I’ll be left with the balance problem. The request for merge template should require the requestor to summarize its contents, grumble. Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I know what you mean; there's one like that going on where if they only delved deeper or had been editing there a while, it would be clearer. A lot of people sign up at the Feedback request service (as do I), and then they parachute into some Rfc or RM they don't know anything about, and they want to help, but they don't want to spend the time to really understand what's going on. I understand the conflicting desires, after all, we're all volunteers here. I don't have a solution for you, other than try to be patient; when you get frustrated, it shows, and then I think some may become more closed to your valid arguments; if you could stay calm, you might just get through better to at least some who are willing to listen. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The point being, if the renaming should wait on the re-.org, then the sooner it is done the better. No pressure or anything :) Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I had actually been thinking about that, and I was worried that making a major change now, right in the middle of an RM, might be seen as disruptive. Because what I would do, is strip the article down to 20-30kb parent article with Ru-Uk_dis as the title, and then a quite large child article on Ru_dis, and a kind of tiny child article on Uk_dis. But that would kind of undermine the RM, or at the very least, ruffle a lot of feathers on why I'm making huge changes to the article right in the middle of it. Because they will be pretty huge. So, I think discretion calls for me to wait until it's over, one way or the other. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm then we are at cross-purposes. Maybe ask in the discussion what people think about you doing that, because the my goal is to stop the merge if possible and avoid the ensuing headache. Because these template warriors don’t actually write. I need to sift some talk pages urgently though, to figure out if I need to remove the alerts. I’ve already invited HouseOfChange to edit the article, but I don’t think she has. Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It's funny that of all the unsupported claims you've made about me, ElinRuby, it turns out I'm bothered by being mis-gendered.[1] HouseOfChange (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The mistake is noted and will not be repeated. Meanwhile, how about that redirect? Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}

Elinruby, not telling you what to do at the ANI, but often, less is more. So far, they are not making their case, and it's all very weak. You've stated your position, and unless something particularly damaging or incorrect comes out that truly leaves no wiggle room for interpretation, sometimes the best thing to do, is just let it sit there without a response; the admins are all very experienced and will recognize a weak argument when they see it. I was once taken to ANI by a whiny editor, and I literally did not respond at all. Even their provably false claims, I let them lie there, with no response. No admin is going to just credulously gobble up claims, they require diffs and proof, and if it's not forthcoming, it's dead in the water. So I didn't respond, whiny editor got nowhere, and skulked away after some time. Certainly jump in if there's something clearly false about you (like, they said you said 'X' at time 'Y', but you didn't), but if it's just rehashing a content disagreement, or an interpretation of something you did or didn't do, try and resist the urge to respond to every point. I.e., "pick your battles"; stick to the provably false ones; their case is weak, and mostly doesn't need a response. At worst, you're guilty of getting crabby sometimes when you defend the encyclopedia against POV pushers, and because there are so many of them, especially in contentious topics subject to AC/DS, sometimes it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and maybe you got testy with a good guy (or maybe not). This is nothing that's going to get you taken to the woodshed, so don't worry about it. So just chill, let them expostulate, and try not to get distracted by it, while working on stuff. This will blow over with no action in a few days; at worst, you'll get a warning about CIVIL or RM#CM. A good strategy for you right now, is to keep half an eye open on ANI, but lose yourself in Dilma, or Lava Jato, or Vichy, or Belfast, or Xinjiang, until it does. "Less is more." Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Джерела

• Глосарій назв, термінів та словосполучень, які рекомендовано використовувати у зв’язку з тимчасовою окупацією Російською Федерацією Автономної Республіки Крим, м. Севастополь і окремих районів Донецької та Луганської областей Archived 2021-10-20 at the Wayback Machine// Сайт РНБО України, 20.10.2021 Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian-Ukrainian information war

I found a great source for you for Russian-Ukrainian information war: In the Ukraine Conflict, Fake Fact-Checks Are Being Used to Spread Disinformation. (The article just came out today.) This might be the first case ever of a disinformation false-flag operation. "It’s like Russians actually pretending to be Ukrainians spreading disinformation." I've added the citation to "Further reading", so if you want to use it as a ref, it's ready to go.

By the way, ProPublica is a great source; you can sign up for their email newsletter (which is how I found this article) and get unique angles on plenty of stories of the day. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: thanks! I just worked your doctrine in (forget General’s name) sourced to US Marine Corps, about to wikilink Elinruby (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been looking at that link and it is indeed disturbing that things will get even more confusing. One issue slash question that I have, though, and which I am struggling with in this article, is attribution on the “Ukrainian” side. Sure the Ghost of Kiev was a hoax, but who produced it? I think there are things to be said about the Ukrainian defense in the information war, starting with zelensky’s speeches and the use of Telegram to source tires for defensive barriers but it seems pretty overt? Just noting my questions. I previously concluded that there was some misleading both sides stuff on the article and renamed it but I consider the jury still kind of out. There is an section on the article talk page wondering about this. However I did identify a misleading edit in the article about the 2022 Russian-Ukrainian information war, cited to a genuine Ukrainian debunking site called StopFake, which said that a photo of a demonstration in Moscow was fake. Thing was, on the news I consume, there definitely have been demonstrations in Moscow, so I clicked the click and found nothing of the kind on their website and tagged the claim failed verification. Some other editor subsequently removed that text but now I am eondering if that was an example of this fake debunking. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how much I can help with that right now, but I'm working on gathering sources and thinking about a rewrite of New generation warfare, which I started, but have stalled on for a week, after finding some really good sources that give a completely different view of it, especially in connection with the Gerasimov doctrine. The source I trust most at this point, is Janis Berzins (he's at a think tank in Latvia, that NATO set up specifically to try to get a hold on Russian information warfare and analyze it. I've already used some of his articles as referenes (see the "Works cited" section) but have found a couple more of them that are more recent (see "Further reading"), including the 2019 and especially 2020 articles that are upending my views of Gerasimov, and of Russian information warfare, and giving me a much better understanding of asymmetric warfare and hybrid warfare, and their central importance to Russian strategy in general, and this war in particular. You should definitely check out Berzins. You'll find other references there that you will find useful for the articles you're working on, but if you're feeling overwhelmed, I'd start with Berzins, and then maybe Hoffman (a classic. oft-quoted 2009 article to know about just for background), and Chambers.

Oh by the way, your nemesis Repszeus was indeffed, but I'm not sure why; there's no ANI discussion linked, so an admin must have noticed something pretty serious. Mathglot (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the account was a sock but didn’t want to comment on editors etc. Unclear on its agenda; it did catch some typos, etc, but mostly seemed to waste time. That point about the Deepfake it was good but after praising I notice it is a really really close paraphrase of the source. I asked Diannaa to have a look, because if I edited it, her bot was going to blame it on me if I wasn’t thorough enough, based on my past experience. I will look at those sources. You did notice, right, that Gerasimov was describing what he thinks the west does, not what he thinks the RF should do? If not, my source for that is cited pretty high up in the information war article and it should be obvious which one from the title Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Re Gerasimov, I didn't at first, until Berzins clarified that, especially in his 2020 article. Earlier sources (not J.B.) attributed the doctrine more to Russian (not Western) strategy, so in fact, there is disagreement among experts about many of those terms, and that's exactly what I have to work into the article, staying as NPOV as possible, and trying to get all major opinion in there. From what I've read so far, I'm biased towards Berzins (possibly in part because his sources are more recent, and comment on some of the others), but I'll write neutrally. There has also been an evolution of all of these terms, as well as expert opinions that none of the terms mean very much, and are thrown out there by some writers the way corporate flacks use the latest marketing buzzwords just to sound in the know. So, a tricky area to work in. Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Elinruby (talk)

Fyi. From Russian information war against Ukraine: “It has "a broad political objective — to distract, divide, and demoralize — but otherwise it is largely opportunistic, fragmented, even sometimes contradictory", carried out by an assortment of "political entrepreneurs" seeking Kremlin approval, wrote Mark Galeotti in Foreign Policy.”

Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: drawing your attention to the suggestion above Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Great resource, and important for putting all that disagreement and variability of definitions into context, thanks very much for that. That led me to another one by Galeotti:

• Galeotti, Mark (2018). "The mythical 'Gerasimov Doctrine' and the language of threat". Critical Studies on Security. 7 (2). Informa UK Limited: 157–161. doi:10.1080/21624887.2018.1441623. ISSN 2162-4887. OCLC 8319522816.

but I don't have access to it beyond the first page, so I made a request at WP:RX which you can follow, if interested. I had just finished making a couple of edits to Grey-zone (international relations) in the #Definitions section, addressing the "definition variability" issue there as well. There's a great little section and diagram about the variability and disagrement about definitions, here wrt "Grey zone", in the "Literature Review" section of this article in The Forge (Australian Defence College). I have a feeling that kind of variability and criticism is widespread among a lot of these post-2000 terms regarding theories of military and non-military conflict. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was a problem I was running into at information war: people who don’t know what they don’t know want it to be about DDOS. Mind you I once was one of those—but there definitely is a cultural difference in definitions, que no? Informs also looks very interesting Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I managed to find the full text of the second Galeotti article. I had previously checked The Wikipedia Library and it had the citation/info page and abstract, but full-text was fee access only. Then after posting at RX, I had a brainstorm, and went through TWL a different way (direct through the Taylor&Francis access point), and found it! If you're interested, you should be able to pull it up the same way (try this link, but there might be a log-in step before you get there), but if that doesn't work, I also downloaded the PDF, so I can email it to you. Oh, you've disabled email on the site, okay, so I can't email it, hmm, well, you can email me (click 'Email this user' in the left sidebar) and then I can reply, with a copy of the article. That will maintain privacy of your email, but expose mine, which I'm okay with, since it's a Wikipedia-only email address, and anyway, I trust you. The article is short, only 4 1/2 pages; just send me an email with a link to the article, or to this conversation so I remember what it's about. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Try “Causes of the Bourbon Restoration” as a search term if you haven’t already. Elinruby (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)