Talk:Lie

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

Companino = Companinon 2603:8000:D300:3650:54E:99BD:2917:FE0 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Todays Technology is Misused by Liars Communication Approaching

Hi,The liar was not part of the business deals but one lie to recruit more clients and as some said that they had been selected or been nominated and recently received phone calls as winners or for loans or for position of somewhat and is all about beautiful lies or phone number selected for the contract device and they makes calls to ask your personal details or any life or funeral insurances and what they did since and is mostly one year now or more this liars they did failed to do goodness. Some made calls using computer and sign or files your details in a second and drops the call once they done with this lies or typing or copying.So I did ask them is that they do use AI because I use it and with its automation and I can have more time as a human rather than being in front of this computer like before.Amooketsi I can only visit my email or internet if there is something to print or to make follow-up or otherwise stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.167.71 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Misnomers

I thnk misnomers are lies and should be included in this page. Calling something which it is not, whether intended or not, is a lie. 161.8.254.253 (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. A lie is an intentional act, it is giving a false statement with the intent of causing another to believe the statement. There are no unintentional lies. 2600:8800:1716:2200:D5AB:A29E:8C3:9E87 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, Noble lie being a sufficiently distinct philosophical and sociological concept that warrants separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

---

The Noble lie article is fairly short and has five references. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the information there could easily be added here. No excessive size problems if a merge took place. Thoughts? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Support merge. It would work as a new section in this article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Support merge. --GHcool (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. It's an important philosophical concept that I feel is distinct. 86.15.114.121 (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Disagree Its' an important social scientific and philosophical concept that warrants its own article.

176.121.236.210 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The information isn't lost; not even the term would be lost (as it would be a redirect). Why is it important that it be a separate article rather than be discussed in the context of Lie? Schazjmd (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree -- it deserves its own entry. 2600:8800:1716:2200:D5AB:A29E:8C3:9E87 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't merge. I saw this topic mentioned on another article. I clicked it, and I was happy to find this article as a separate concept. Five references is not too little and this article is not too short. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree -- it deserves its own entry. 2600:8800:1716:2200:D5AB:A29E:8C3:9E87 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose merge to Lie, Oppose merge in general - Noble lie is a WP:SPINOUT of Republic (Plato), the philosophical work that introduces the concept, and there's no shortage of scholarly literature on it justifying its own article. If it should be merged at all, it should be back to the parent article. but five references, three of which are secondary sources, more than justifies a standalone article. Psychastes (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Obviously don't merge -- Hard to imagine a more exemplary misunderstanding of the concept than suggesting this merge. It's a philosophical and sociological concept, separating it from lie; it has enough varied meaning and interpretation across philosophy and other disciplines across all imaginable time and culture to separate it from the Republic/Plato. 26 May 2025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.36.17 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree Due to its importance in sociology is deserves its own article. 88.216.251.167 (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I think the concept of the noble lie is notable enough to warrant it's own article. Plasticwonder (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Vranyo

@TylerBurden

As per the reference Christopher Bort is listed as a non-resident scholar of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a non-profit think tank, which has nothing to do (as far as I can tell) with the acclaimed Carnegie Mellon University. I assume his position needs to be mentioned to establish his credibility, but linking to the endowment fund isn't saying much, so I propose to mention his most prominent position - a senior analyst of the CIA.

Regarding the sources I removed, the lengthy discussion under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo found a rough consensus that they are not reliable. This is a different article, and the aforementioned discussion wasn't solely dedicated to the reliability of the sources, but since the topic has already been discussed, I move that the burden to prove sufficient reliability of the previously rejected sources shall now be on the editors wishing to include them Deliberate Baobab (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no rough consensus, there is you saying that established WP:RS are unreliable while others disagreed, the article is now deleted and you now move to fixate on a nonresident scholar's background on a different article. This is how Carnegie Endowment describes him in the relevant article: "Chris Bort is a nonresident scholar with Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program." This is an article about lies, not Chris Bort, so if he is deemed sufficient and described as a nonresident scholar by CE, there is nothing to be added and really to be said here other than that this is a continued WP:SPA effort. TylerBurden (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion, I am referring to the summary of the closer, who found, after reading through comments of 8 different editors, that there was not enough evidence presented that the sources used were "sufficiently independent, reliable and in-depth".

Can we at least agree that in the sentence "According to nonresident Carnegie scholar Christopher Bort" the link to Carnegie the university is factually incorrect, since he is a non-resident scholar of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which has nothing to do with Carnegie the university? Thus, at least this factually wrong part should be changed to something else? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion, if the closer of an article deletion discussion happened to agree with you, that's fine. We are not talking here about these sources being used as a foundation of an individual article. I have changed the link, you could have done this without inserting a fixation on the CIA which is not part of the source. TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree on that. Now, the person accusing the Russian government of lying is, per the disclaimer at the bottom of his article, "...a paid employee of the U.S. government..." in his capacity as an analyst in the CIA.

I do not intend to weigh whether or not his words are true or not, but to keep a WP:NPOV it seems necessary to mention his potential conflict of interest. I am fine with either saying that he is an employee of the US government, or saying that he is an employee or an analyst at the CIA Deliberate Baobab (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

It still doesn't seem like you understand that this is not an article about Chris Bort, adding personal information about Chris Bort would be for an article actually about him, he's a nonresident scholar and that's a sufficient description for this article. Do you have any evidence about him being an unreliable source that outweighs the fact that an actual WP:RS describes him as an expert? TylerBurden (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Is the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace a WP:RS when it comes to who is an expert an who is not? Before we establish that, a random think tank describing someone as an expert doesn't say very much.

Instead, we can simply mention Christopher Bort's primary occupation, which he holds now, at the time of the writing of the article, and for a long before that. That achieves both things:

1) Clearly establishes him as an expert in the topic

2) Strictly adheres to Wiki's WP:NPOV guidelines (even the think tank deems it for sure ethically and maybe even legally obligatory to disclose his position at the bottom of all of his articles). Deliberate Baobab (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Please explain where in the reference his CIA background is fixated on to the extent you are doing here. Do you want to really describe Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as a random think tank? Feel free to bring it to WP:RSPN, I guess.

TylerBurden (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@TylerBurden Right at the bottom, "The author is a paid employee of the U.S. government and conducted this research under a government-funded fellowship at an external institution."

Not sure, my first time hearing about this endowment. If I do bring it to WP:RSPN, since this is a recent addition to the article, I assume we'll have to take down the sentence while reliability is being established, right?

Before doing something unnecesary, are you saying my position to want to include his affiliation with the U.S. government is completely unreasonable? And you are not willing to move even a step from the current description? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

So we have a note of the US government, but not specifically the CIA, yet you're insisting on including this particular organization? The CIA is specifically notably not mentioned in the source, this is something you inserted by changing the link to the author's personal page, not the article itself. The recent action here is the same editor who advocated for a dedicated article to vranyo being deleted looking to remove sources and fixate on the background of an article author on a seperate article covering said subject, no, not going to remove it unless an editor in good standing agrees. TylerBurden (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not wish to remove it at all. I am perfectly fine with just mentioning his affiliation, as either a CIA analyst or an employee of the US government. I do prefer the CIA option as that is both more specific, and his primary occupation almost for the last three decades. I do not have anything against the CIA, and I don't think that discredits him or his words in any way.

So, would you be willing to mention this affiliation in any way in the article? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You just said above that "I do not intend to weigh whether or not his words are true or not, but to keep a WP:NPOV it seems necessary to mention his potential conflict of interest." You're speculating about a conflict of interest that is not present in the source, once again, please provide evidence that there is a conflict of interest here that isn't your own WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying there is absolutely zero reason to consider that a "paid employee of the U.S. government" might have a COI when making statements such as that the Russian leadership is "lying" and "projecting brazenness"?

Would you also dispute that the disclaimer in the article is meant to disclose a potential COI? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe you should stick to a single narrative, you first said "I do not intend to weigh whether or not his words are true or not", you then proceed to make your following arguments, saying that he should be described as a CIA employee, for no other reason than I guess you finding this to make him less credible. Once again, would be good to see what editors in good standing have to say. TylerBurden (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not judge the merit of his statement. For example, I might be fully confident in the reliability of a research work about cereal, but if the research was funded by a cereal company, it is only natural to clearly state that.

On a side note, I familiarized myself with the Carnegie Endowment, and, yes, it is indeed as you said - generally a reliable source for both factual information and in its designation of experts. However, I still hold that full disclosure of Christopher Bort's primary occupation is necessary for a NPOV.

I agree, let's see what editors in good standing have to say. Let's start with a WP:THIRD request. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@TylerBurden Here, I will try to provide a decent summary for WP:THIRD. Feel free to add or correct.

TylerBurden and I disagree about a sentence in the article "Lie" that follows the subsection "Vranyo" (meaning "transparent lies" in Russian).

The article quotes a piece published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wherein its scholar Christopher Bort asserts that the Russian Leadership uses this type of lying (i.e., "Vranyo") to deflect blame and project brazenness.

I believe that for the sake of WP:NPOV it is necessary for the Wikipedia article to mention that the author, Christopher Bort, is an employee of the US Government, namely a CIA analyst. The original piece only mentions that its author "is a paid employee of the U.S. government and conducted this research under a government-funded fellowship at an external institution". His primary position as a CIA analyst can be found on his profile, a separate page. I am open to any mention of the fact, the second editor is opposed to any such mention, believing it to be an unnecessary overfixation.

TylerBurden notes that I was the initiator of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo for the now deleted primary article Vranyo, to which he was a significant contributor. He also believes I am a WP:SPA.

Deliberate Baobab (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: TylerBurden and Deliberate Baobab: neither the CEIP nor the CIA are RSes for the concept of a lie. Nor are any of the other sources cited on that bullet (along with most of that section). This article should be based on the work of social scientists. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

For the record, the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo was focused on whether or not the sources used there were reliable for the concept of "Vranyo". The closer found better arguments and a "rough consensus" that the sources were not reliable. The bullet point for "Vranyo" in the current article cites sources either very similar or some of them the exact same as were discussed in the WP:AfD. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess we can sit and say that established experts are unreliable sources all day, it was deemed that "vranyo" was not to have its own article, but since Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, given the significant coverage and available sources, I added it here as it is directly related to lying, which seems like a fairly WP:DUE solution, and in fact was suggested by a different editor in the AFD. Since there were clearly some strong desires to eliminate Wikipedia covering "vranyo", I added this to the watchlist, and sure enough the very same editor that initiated and argued for a full article deletion arrives and starts removing references and adding a CIA label to a nonresident scholar, so forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical here.

So if this article should only contain the work of social scientists, how do we solve the problem of coverage for our readers when it was already determined an individual article is not the way to go? TylerBurden (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how the sources cited for vranyo in the article are established experts? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@TylerBurden, before proceeding, the much experienced editor Alaexis posted a most excellent reply to my inquiry on the noticeboard. They succintly spell out all the points I have been awkwardly trying to make.

I fully agree with them. To expand, regarding their point #2, "vranyo" could be left in the article, but with entirely different sources. There are a couple of academic articles from sociologists and linguists mentioned in the AfD discussion, albeit they are in Russian. Going to point #3, perhaps the current sources (and other ones similar to them) belong better in an article such as Russian disinformation. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia appropriately covers the term based on WP:DUE policy, I'm happy, Alaexis is indeed an experienced editor, and also has a long track record of aligning with pro-Russian interests on Wikipedia, so I don't by any means take their words as gospel when advocating about the unreliability of sources that describe a negative aspect of Russian society. I don't think I have ever seen such pushback against what should be normally considered WP:RS on Wikipedia (experts, scholars, professors) as I have with this term, it's quite odd indeed, and since these sources exist it's the responsibility to fit them into the picture of what is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia, not censor its coverage. So my question is again, where does it go if it can't have its own article but also can't be here? TylerBurden (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

By no means, it would be quite troublesome if you took anyone's words as gospel. For any and all arguments, you should engage with the substance of the arument, not its author. The overarching argument is that if there is indeed such a negative aspect to the entire Russian soceity (perhaps WP:EXCEPTIONAL), then there should be high-quality, peer-reviewed sociological/linguistic/anthropological scholarship on the subject. To answer your last question, the claims of lying would belong better in an article such as Russian disinformation, while the claims about "vranyo" shouldn't really be on Wikipedia until we get the abovementioned academic coverage. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain where any source or anything on Wikipedia past or present has said this applies to the whole of Russian society? TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad, I meant to refer to your statement "that describe a negative aspect of Russian society" Deliberate Baobab (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

No one is claiming that this applies to the entire Russian society, though? You are using a very key word here "entire", this was also used as an argument in the AfD to argue that lying is not something that is unique to Russia, which is not something that has ever been claimed, there is a specific term for a type of Russian lying though which happens to be "vranyo". TylerBurden (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, please discard the word "entire". Perhaps a better wording would be "The overarching argument is that if there is indeed such an aspect to Russian soceity, then there should be high-quality, peer-reviewed sociological/linguistic/anthropological scholarship on the subject." Deliberate Baobab (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Then you're moving the goalposts, it's a very different thing claiming that the entire Russian society is based on "vranyo", and there existing a term for "vranyo". If we have experts, scholars and professors covering a subject, on top of other types of coverage, it'd be wrong to entirely remove this from Wikipedia, per WP:DUE. If editors say that these types of sources are unreliable because they provide "commentary", that is usually dismissed, because commentary from academic/expert sources are not considered the same as "layman" commentary. TylerBurden (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we are running in circles here. Can I ask you for advice how to proceed? We have got a third opinion, we got one one editor from the RSN. Should we wait a bit more for someone else to come from the RSN, or is a formal WP:RFC the next logical step? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It depends, are you at this point saying the term should be entirely removed from Wikipedia? TylerBurden (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

How about this? We include "vranyo" in the "Lie" article, describing it with something like: a Russian word similar to the English "lie", "fib", "tall tale", a lie not expected to be taken seriously, a lie told in contempt or dismissively. And then add a section to the Russian disinformation article about how the Russian leadership frequently tells this type of lie to project brazenness, and etc.

If not, could you please explain what is the core of what you think is necessary to include? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable, but I believe including a brief association with Russian propaganda is WP:DUE here, as this connection is frequently made in the sources. Something simple would be enough like "its use has been associated with Russian propaganda". This could replace the current specific example and also resolve the argument surrounding attributing it to one individual. TylerBurden (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue that would be WP:UNDUE. Since this is a primarily philosophical/psychological article, the tone is particuralry neutral and apolitical. Even the bullet point for Big lie mentions neither its role as a propoganda technique and Hitler, nor its contemporary use by Trump. Although maybe you'll argue it should mention those things?

Further, would you agree that "vranyo" is not primarily a tool of Russian disinformation? It is a descriptor that many have found useful to explain the contempt and dismissiveness Russian leadership postures with. Which is the reason that, despite the word's many other uses, it is overrepresented in this light in English sources.

Hm, maybe adding Russian disinformation would be WP:DUE in the See Also section, next to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you base that on? The overview provided in the article lead has no particular fixation on philosophy or psychology, but on the broader meaning of lie, I don't see that as any reason to exclude political content, in fact deception/lies and politics are obviously quite connected.

Not sure what you mean with primarily, it's clearly described as a term that by no means has to be exclusive to "disinformation", but its overrepresentation with disinformation in English sources compared to Russian ones could also have to do with censorship in Russia, where inconvenient writing can land you in jail. My suggestion is to cover both the term in general and its association with propaganda.

As for Trump/Hitler etc I don't see why they couldn't be given as examples or mentioned in some way if they are associated strongly with specific terms. TylerBurden (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I am basing that off of the complete absence of any political bodies in the current article. Although if there was a section dedicated to lying in politics, I'd totally agree, the association of vranyo with Russian propoganda should be mentioned there.

By primarily, I mean that "vranyo" in Russian is just a simple word. It has been in active use as long as Russian was a language, and it is not innately associated with propoganda. "Vranyo" is associated with propoganda to the same extent that the English word "lie" is associated with propoganda. "Its use has been associated with Russian propaganda" is a circular statement - yes, lying is indeed associated with propoganda.

Even though English sources mostly mention Russia and "vranyo" together, Neil Bermel reminds us that "vranyo is not of course unique to Russia". Which is why I'd argue mentioning Russian propoganda right after the definition of "vranyo" would be WP:UNDUE Deliberate Baobab (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The scope is lies in general, nothing about the article title indicates that it should be limited to only covering the philosophy or psychology aspects of lies, there are specific subarticles like pathological lying with a more limited scope, but if anything here it seems like the article could be considerably improved by covering a larger general basis.

That's great and I think is also made rather clear, but in English, and we are on the English Wikpedia after all, the term is also heavily associated with Russian propaganda/disinformation, in fact Bermel describes "Western and liberal Russian sources have called vranyo a characteristic tactic of the Russian state, even coining a new compound gosvranyo, literally “government-vranyo”." This is not undue, because while clearly not unique to the Russian government, the only other example given is Donald Trump, and that's across all the sources. Per WP:DUE, "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". When it comes to the specific term "vranyo", almost every source mentions it in connection to the Russian regime, in other words, it's what is prominent in the sources and therefore warrants a mention. TylerBurden (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's actually establish what sources we are working it. Out of the 6 we assembled on the bottom of the page, only 1, 5, and 6 we could even begin considering reliable. When #1 briefly mentions vranyo, he is not speaking from his own authority, but is referencing our source #3, which is not reliable. Source #5 at no point claims that "vranyo" is an ongoing phenomenon, he lists it among things which are clearly relics of the soviet union. And the only source we have left is #6. And our source with the best claim to high quality specifically says that "vranyo" is not uniqely Russian. The example he gives there is "just one example", implying there are more, but he simply doesn't list them. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Huh? I think it's quite the reach to equate providing a link to a separate article describing the term in more detail with him not describing the term himself, which "the Russian leadership’s frequent resorting to transparent lies, known in Russian as vranyo, has been widely analyzed" quite clearly does. If anything, the fact that a scholar is linking to this article undermines your own claim of it being unreliable. Another source is Mark Galeotti, who also does not describe it as a relic, but gives an example as recent as the most recent Russian election, and once again the connection is made directly with Putin's regime here. TylerBurden (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Changed the bullet point of vranyo in the article. Left a link to Russian disinformation. What I wrote is not very concrete, but I think such is the term. Sources are also quite wishy-washy, without a single strict definition. Added two Russian-language sources. Left one source that was previously there, #5 below, and added source #6 from below. What I would consider the strongest sources. Hope we can iteratively arrive at something agreeable. Regards, Deliberate Baobab (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Context matters; these sources are indeed experts on something, but not the topic of this article. 'There's nowhere else to put this information' is not an argument to put the information here. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The topic is lies, we're talking about a term for lies, described by experts/scholars. TylerBurden (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

You can't just say "experts/scholars". Experts are experts on one thing. As Alaexis put it on RSN, the way their writing is used in this article implies a distinct category of lying not found elsewhere. The sources cited aren't reliable for that kind of information. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Because it is a distinct term for lying mainly associated with Russia, as described by high quality references, and I don't think this can be labelled "commentary" and discredited on that ground, what source isn't "commentary"? TylerBurden (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Personally, by "commentary" I mean sources that are not peer-reviewed as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. A piece otherwise rejected from academic sources by fellow professionals, may find light in a newspaper as an "expert opinion" Deliberate Baobab (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, this topic area isn't their area of expertise. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you're making much sense, "vranyo" very much falls under the expertise of these people, no one is adding them to concepts described elsewhere in the article, where your argument could make sense. TylerBurden (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

For future discussions, here is a copy of the source summary I posted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. All five sources are commentaries mentioning "Vranyo".

• [1] -- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, by its nonresident Carnegie's Russia and Eurasia Program scholar, primarily an analyst at the CIA. Author's about page.
• [2] -- The Moscow Times, by a writer and a psychotherapist. Author's about page on Amazon.
• [3] -- The New York Times Magazine, by a writer who grew up in the Soviet Union, Elena Gorokhova (writer).
• [4] -- Military Spectator (a monthly military science journal), by a major in the armed forces of Netherlands.
• [5] -- Centre for Democratic Integrity (self-described monitor of malign influence by authoritarian regimes), by a professor in Ukrainian Studies at UCL.

Deliberate Baobab (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

We can add [6] as well, Neil Bermel, Professor of Russian and Slavonic Studies, University of Sheffield. TylerBurden (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

[7] - Mark Galeotti, described as an "expert and prolific writer on Russia and international crime" and an honorary professor at University College London, a senior associate fellow at RUSI. TylerBurden (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)