Jump to content

Talk:Snake Island campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WeatherWriter (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 30 June 2022 (→Article name: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Elijahandskip (talk), PanNostraticism (talk), and NHCLS (talk). Nominated by Volunteer Marek (talk) at 07:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure what that means. Volunteer Marek 10:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That DYK doesn't post anything that could be deemed "current", which this is, but rather than say no outright, we could almost put it in reserve to be used sometime after if you want. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no requirement in DYK that featured articles must be on “old stuff”. It seems the article fully meets all the criteria. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is a requirement that they be stable and that posting them to the MP is not likely to be perceived as a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality. Things this is far from meeting, in quite obvious ways. Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any indication that the article is not stable? And if your concern is neutrality, then please state which parts are non-neutral, rather than bringing up irrelevant non-criteria (like "it's new"). Volunteer Marek 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it is new, I said it is current, that is very different. Surely you have heard of "current events" at some point. And I did not say any part of the article was not-neutral, I indirectly said that posting a hook about it could be perceived as a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality. Surely you can comprehend that putting a nominative resistance slogan of one side in a current war on the front page of a website claiming neutrality (no support for either) could give the opposite impression? I cannot take your continued "but"s seriously, there is nothing hard-to-grasp here, especially if you try to undermine my explanations by misquoting them. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your condescension (you obviously knew exactly what I was referring to), no, putting an article on a widely covered event does not violate Wikpedia's neutrality (whether it can be "perceived" as such by somebody is irrelevant). This is also a new argument you're making - your original one was that it couldn't be used because it was on... "current" (better?) events. You're moving the goalposts now and inventing new excuses. Volunteer Marek 00:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what you're on about, and no, being "current" (you know, the banner at the top of the article) is still my argument, I have just had to waste far too long over-explaining that to someone who has decided they will refuse to get the point so they can ignore reasonable objection. A current article, which if you don't know what that means you should certainly not be editing or nominating one for DYK, is inherently unstable and inherently contentious. ITN gives a neutral blurb, but doing any more than that is unwise. There are multiple facets as to why, which I tried to explain, unfortunately to someone who has decided they will trip over the simple word "current" and claim boo changing arguments and that's wrong rather than actually respond (spoiler: even if someone did in fact change argument, that would just mean multiple reasons to not post this, and you would have to counter all of them, rather than say they can be ignored for providing multiple reasons). If anyone here is being disingenuous it is certainly you. Kingsif (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, again with the condescension, apparently intended to obscure the fact that nothing you say has any basis in policy. Look. I've been here about 12 years longer than you, and I stopped counting my DYKs after the 100th one. There's absolutely nothing in the criteria or in any policy that says that "current" articles are "inherently unstable". In fact this article has been pretty stable, aside from some minor changes and improvements. But this isn't actually what seems to bother you. As you you kind of let it slip above, the real concerns appears to be that this article isn't "neutral". Because... .... ... ? Apparently because reality isn't "neutral", the way you want it. This happened. It's notable. It's covered in a plethora of reliable sources. It's got a catchy hook. It's long enough. It's new. It satisfies all the DYK criteria. Your only objection here boils down to a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'd appreciate it if you just dropped it and let someone else review it. Volunteer Marek 09:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have said my piece, and your presumed seniority is still not a valid response. I am not condescending you, I am trying to make the issues you refuse to see so obvious you cannot deny them - no, you just ignore them, ugh. If you were to tweet "did you know Ukrainian border guards told the Russians to go fuck themselves", people would assume you supported Ukraine quite strongly. The DYK hook does not need to be phrased like that, but posting during a time of explicit tension between the nations (i.e. the subject is current!) is just not helpful. DYKs, of which I am no more novice than you, buddy, have been refused for less. As an additional element, I must sadly inform you that having a current banner is indeed inherent (at least, assumed) instability, in that it is one reason to fail a GAN on stability grounds. It is not that I don't like anything; I have been working on the article as much as you and would like to see it recognised. No, I am trying to protect the DYK section. It is so useful to encouraging editing but often disparaged and any scandal could get some MP editors to more firmly suggest removing it for a full-column TFA. Nothing I have pointed out is baseless or unreasonable, and I have to assume from your latest reply that your actual opposition is because of some superiority you feel here, so you will just reject every valid argument in nonsense ways. Best to drop the stick and wait for someone else to chime in. Kingsif (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree/Oppose. While the Ukrainians guards were brave, this is a small part of a much bigger conflict. I also agree with Volunteer Marek. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 15:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Disagree” is not the way that DYK process works. The question is does it satisfy the DYK criteria? Volunteer Marek 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: title changed to Attack on Snake Island. Volunteer Marek 22:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done

Overall: @Volunteer Marek: Unless I'm missing something, I think this needs a QPQ? Also noting I de-dab'd the link to Ukraine, added a link to Russia (we should link to both countries or neither; either linking both or linking neither would be fine), and updated the link to the Snake Island article now that it's been moved and bolded it.
{{Current}} is not one of the WP:DISPUTETAGs, and so is no reason to reject the nom.
Stability isn't a DYK requirement, but even if it were, this article shows no recent signs of edit warring or instability.
I see no problems with the neutrality of the hook: stating the mere fact of the soldiers' response ("GFY") doesn't imply, in my view, any support of the soldiers on the part of Wikipedia. By comparison, we have right now these hooks on the main page:
  • "... that Bianca Baptiste was Tottenham Hotspur's top goal scorer during their promotion—and then they dropped her from the team?", which doesn't imply that Wikipedia is saying in its own voice that she should not have been dropped from the team.
  • "... that the Louis Micheels House was called a building of "great significance", but the new owners wanted it gone?" doesn't imply that Wikipedia is saying it disagrees with the owners.
  • "... that the captain of the warship CSS Baltic stated that she was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow"?" isn't anti-CSS Baltic or imply any criticism of the warship by Wikipedia.
These are three hooks on the main page right now, but the archive is filled with such examples. I don't see ALT0 as pro-Ukraine or anti-Russia; it's simply relaying a verified and interesting fact.
Add a QPQ link and ping me and I'll give it the green checkmark. If any editor disagrees at that point, I think WT:DYK would be the place to resolve the disagreement. Levivich 04:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: You know your comparisons are making a false equivalency, right? The context and knowledge bases are not comparable (tensions heightened during actual war, readers care less about things they have not heard of before). But, even so (or perhaps as a more equal comparison*), a couple days ago we ran a hook about Demi Lovato getting into an internet feud, appended "- and lost", and Lovato's Twitter fans were not happy, thinking Wikipedia was choosing to be insulting. *If people who are aware of Demi Lovato did not like the perfectly neutral and factual account of their internet "war", how are people who are aware of Ukraine and Russia going to react to something about a very real war? I feel confident in saying that the twitterverse, at least, will react if this hook gets onto the main page any time soon. Maybe that won't have any affect on DYK, but maybe it will. I would like to be better safe than sorry. (I also disagree with your stability assessments, but let's cut to the chase: waiting until a war is over before shilling fun facts about it is just common sense.) Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is a fine DYK entry that meets all the requirements (except QPQ as the reviewer outlines). Lagrange613 19:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry about lack of QPQ. I got unexpectedly very busy in real life. I will try to complete it later today. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek and Lagrange613: I'm happy to provide a QPQ if needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like this as a DYK subject. My concern is that DYKs are usually surprising – usually things that the reader doesn't know – and the fact in ALT0 has been widely reported and is still being reported in the media. I feel that something a little more surprising would better fit the 'interesting' criteria (rule H7). Suggestion what if we did an ALT about the postage stamp? According to Commons (here) Ukrainian postage stamps are in the public domain, so we could even use it in the picture slot (though we would likely have to wait for the stamp to be officially issued - the NYPost source says it will be published "soon"). A hook about the stamp might also do away with any objections from using the f-word. Proposed alt below (feel free to rework it). – Reidgreg (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: That Ukraine issued a postage stamp (pictured) commemorating the attack on Snake Island only a month after the event? (Note: hold per WP:CRYSTAL.)
Okay, this has been going on a bit long. I'm donating Template:Did you know nominations/Mattea Conforti as a QPQ and pinging Levivich to wrap up this nom with ALT0 (or ALT1, given that this nomination has lagged so long that we'd look like Internet Explorer). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ALT1, do we have any confirmation that the stamp was actually issued? Because right now it seems it is just a plan.Anonimu (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any news updates since about March 13–15. The Ukrposhta website's online store stamp catalog, which appears to be chronological, only shows one stamp released since February 2022. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TLC. I've re-checked the article as of today, and made a few minor edits (removing old tags, updating a source). ALT0 approved. I'm not approving ALT1 only because I cannot find a source that says the stamp has been "issued" (as opposed to planned to be issued). Levivich 17:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip, PanNostraticism, NHCLS, Volunteer Marek, and Levivich: I was going to promote ALT0, but I found a discrepancy in the article and the hook. The hook says that the quote is "Go fuck yourself, Russian warship" but the article says it is "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" (note that the article's quote is wikilinked). Which quote is correct, and should the quote be wikilinked? I pinged those listed as the creators of the article, the DYK nominator and the reviewer who approved it. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad I should have caught that. I just double checked and the hook is wrong; it should be "Russian warship, go fuck yourself." Thanks for flagging it. I corrected ALT0 above. I also added the link to quote. Is this a double DYK? I don't know how that works. Levivich 17:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: by double DYK, do you mean if "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" is also a DYK? In this case, the quote's article was not nominated for DYK as far as I know, and it was created in Feb. 26 so it is outside of the one-week creation window. If you would also like to bold-link the quote to be a second DYK, then you will need to obtain permission on WT:DYK. Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted ALT0 to Prep 6. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian claims

We only include Russian claims if they’ve been widely reported in reliable sources. Otherwise we’d have to include all kinds of ridiculous shit (we dont). Volunteer Marek 21:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language when using the talkpages, instead why not apply your criteria for both sides, what you think about Ukrainian claims then? There are three or more.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) From 26 to 30 April OC South claimed strikes on the Russian forces on the island left a control post hit and two anti-aircraft missile complex Strela-10 destroyed as well as 42 Russian soldiers killed. (Source Ukrainian site)

b) On 1 May, Ukrainian Air Force Command South claims to have launched an attack on Snake Island that destroyed Russian equipment stationed there. (Source CNN)

Both should be removed then.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My language is fine. Now stop putting in nonsense Russian claims into the article. They also claimed to have destroyed the entire Ukrainian Air Force on the first day, claimed Azov blew up the Mariupol theatre, claimed the Moskva didn’t sink, claimed Bucha massacre was staged, claimed to have destroyed ten times as many Bayraktars as Ukraine ever possessed, and a whole bunch of other total bullshit. We don’t put those nonsense claim into articles unless there are independent reliable sources which comment on them.
The text youre referring to regarding Ukrainian attacks is sourced to independent reliable sources.
Also stop edit warring. I see from your talk page that you’ve had several warnings regarding this kind of behavior. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case then only the first part "From 26 to 30 April OC South claimed strikes on the Russian forces on the island left a control post hit and two anti-aircraft missile complex Strela-10 destroyed as well as 42 Russian soldiers killed." Should be removed as well as TASS claim; since part b) is comented by CNN, and is a RS? What you have to say about that.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added the Russian claim because it was the same day, same place as the Ukrainian Bayraktar/Sukhoi attack. I did not know you were edit warring about that. ;-) There was some controversy in the media about the video and who hit what, and in this case we do not have any RS per se, just the claims. I think both claims shloud stay there bcs of context. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing this, I've noticed this too - on Battle of Donbas (2022), he's reverted numerous edits about civilian casualties and Russian casualties. I think he is a pro-Russian sockpuppet, because he's been accused of it by multiple users, his edit history shows that he includes notoriously pro-Russian biased information, and even his user page is a list of about 40 Turkish accounts that he's accused of sockpuppeting (Turkey and Russia have animosity over the Syrian conflict in recent times) PilotSheng (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, what you wrote above ("I think he is a pro-Russian sockpuppet") is a personal attack per WP:WIAPA so please discontinue such behaviour. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, go and review the rules before you come at me, literally nowhere in that rules section does accusing someone of being a pro-Russian sockpuppet based on their edit history and their talk page constitutes a personal attack. The only thing I can see in there is "lacking evidence" but if you go onto his talk page, where multiple editors have asked him to stop his pro-Russian editing, and onto his edit history, all he does is remove information about civilian casualties, remove information about Russian casualties, and etc.
With that logic then accusing anybody of being a sockpuppet would be against the rules, and if that were the case, how would we stop such activity on Wikipedia?
[Edit]: I just went onto your talk page, seems like we're sort of on the same page regarding Mr.User200's disruptive editing. On Battle of Donbas (2022) I've become infuriated by his reversion of almost every significant edit that I make regarding civilian casualties without any answer other than "social media isn't acceptable" when the sources that I am citing are acceptable under WP:Social Media. The fact that he's constantly reverting info and violating the 3RR rule numerous times on one article in one day is very infuriating to me. I do not understand his behavior, apologies for the "personal attack," but I just cannot see why he continues to revert edits and the only plausible reason for that is because he is purposely making disruptive edits. PilotSheng (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe someone is a sockpuppet and want to "accuse him", as you say above, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Otherwise, calling someone "a pro-Russian sockpuppet" falls into "derogatory phrases based on ... political beliefs" per WP:WIAPA. Please review the policy on personal attacks, as it seems this is not your first brush with PA. This is not something that can be accepted regardless of the target of your PA. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is sourced but is still a claim. Just like the Russian ones. That's why we need to consider both.Mr.User200 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian claims seem to have more credibility because there is independent commercial satellite imagery (as the cited metro article talks about).
Is there a better source of the Russian claims? Cononsense (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer is “no”. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop harassing other contributors 2804:D41:C910:F200:4D7C:89B8:C4F0:8099 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think is better for the article to remove that part go ahead, I don't oppose, but ask first WikiHannibal maybe he have something to say before concensus is reached.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian claims should be noted I think, not least because they are somewhat unbelievable. It's part of the event in my opinion, the Snake Island 'information war', but I understand the rules on RSS so agree in principle with the decision. We could head such citations with a disclaimer perhaps? Here is a source: https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Ukraines-Attempt-to-Seize-Snake-Island-Fails---Russian-MoD-20220509-0018.html Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep in mind telesur is a WP:DEPRECATED. see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#RfC:_Telesur
whether or not it can still be used, I dunno. Cononsense (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the Russian claim should be included, similar reasoning as Thelisteninghand. There is no need to use deprecated sources here. The Russian claim was published by TASS, which is not deprected, not even generally unreliable per WP:RSPSS, as "Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government," which is the case here. The problem is "we" do not belive what Russian government says regardlesss of the channel/media they use, and some editors do not want to include Russian statements bcs they are not sure to what extent they are true. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Not deprecated" is the lowest possible bar. It doesn't mean "we must include it". Volunteer Marek 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updates look good - just wondering if the article should be renamed Attacks on Snake Island as there are two in the text. We could maybe summarise the result of the 7 May attack - that Russia was on the island at the time. There's a NASA sentinel 2 image but I don't know how we can use it - on twitter here: https://twitter.com/obretix/status/1522977951981182977/photo/1 showing Bilne destroyed and a 'Z' on the ground. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I've added a couple of lines. Can we detail the extent of the Russian claims?? Just saying the citation gives an incredible 10 helicopters, 29 drones (we've stated it's 8?) and four fighter jets, the Telesur article claims a different set of numbers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
here a link to russia's MoD website directly, I guess it could just be cited directly?
https://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12420823@egNews
https://archive.ph/mGRPj
they claimed 30 drones down, 9 of which are Bayraktar-TB2. Cononsense (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of, everyone should please stick to WP:Civil and avoid talking profanities on the talk page as was done at the start. Also, making a personal accusation against a fellow editor is contrary to WP policy. Lets conduct a discussion in good faith as per WP guidelines. Now, for the sake of WP neutrality and presenting both sides POV in the conflict, I agree with Mr.User200, WikiHannibal and Thelisteninghand. We can not exclude the claim of one side over the other, otherwise we would need to remove both. A balanced presentation of events by both belligerents' POV needs to be shown. EkoGraf (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this, especially since it's a "he said/she said" event, which I think we'll also get some more third party opinions about to reference soon.
I ref'd the Russian mod's PR directly to cite their claims. How does it look now? Cononsense (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, as pointed out above, Russia makes so many absurd claim it would completely denigrate all of our relevant articles if we tried to include them all, attribution or no. We should only include Russian claims if they are verified or discussed at length in actual reliable sources. The same should be true for Ukrainian claims. The difference is that these often ARE verified or discussed at length in actual reliable sources. MrUser keeps removing text claiming it's based on Ukrainian sources but this text is actually reliable non-Ukrainian sources. Volunteer Marek 06:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "actual reliable source" and who decides? SCMP is a generally reliable source per WP:RSPSS and yet you removed it. Also nobody is sayin that we need to include all TASS memos but editors clearly want to include the Russian version of what happened 7-10 May on Snake Island, including detailed claims when reported as claims. Also many Ukraine-related articles are much worse than this one, reporting claims as facts so it is not efficient to spend so much time on this island. See for example what was in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine before this edit. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is outlined at WP:RS. SCMP hasn't been reliable since the change of ownership in 2016. "editors want to include" is also not a policy based reason since other editors want to not include. The fact that these ridiculous Russian claims - made in response to the verifiable videos of attack released by Ukrainians - are not taken seriously by reliable sources means the ones that don't want to include are the ones following policy. Claims abut other Ukraine-related articles is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Volunteer Marek 08:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include btw. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 1) I did not use 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to support my position by WP:OTHERSTUFF but to show ours is a trifling dispute compared to that. 2) Please quote where did you find that "SCMP hasn't been reliable since the change of ownership in 2016". So far it seems is is your opinion presented as fact here. The consensus about SCMP is from 2020 per WP:RSPSS. I mentioned RSPSS several times and you keep repeating your claims without addressing RSPSS. 3) My "editors want to include" means wikipedia editors at this talk page did not agree with your position, leaning to consensus against it, i.e. for inclusion. 4) As for WP:ONUS, I am not sure what exactly you invoke here. It says, for example, that "WP:Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." You want to remove information that you think "does not improve an article" so you need a consensus first that such "information does not improve an article". Then, if someone wants to add it, s/he needs a new consensus per "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WikiHannibal (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should consider the claim as such, maybe dont metion all the assets allegedly dstroyed but at least the number of aircraft and personel losses.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref to a jerusalem post article, which had similar content to that of scmp.
I am surprised in calling scmp a unreliable source though. Aren't they still a newspaper of record, and perhaps only dodgy when it comes to sensitive topics related to Hong Kong's status with the mainland?
Oh the other hand, I have not looked at their Ukraine war coverage, so I have a open mind. Cononsense (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable compromise here is just to say that Russia claimed it shot down some stuff without listing the ridiculous numbers. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same should be done with Ukrainian claims then. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the claims. The Ukrainian claims have been independently verified and supported by video evidence. The Russian claims? It's just Russian MOD pulling shit out of their ass. Volunteer Marek 06:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to reemphasize how idiotic Russian claims are, they claim they destroyed "three armoured assault craft", EVEN THOUGH earlier they claimed to have destroyed the entire Ukrainian navy. WTF did Ukrainians get "three armoured assault craft" if their entire Navy had already been destroyed? Yes I know this bullshit was very popular on pro-Putin social media but there's absolutely no reason for us to serve as a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda claims. Volunteer Marek 12:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek claims.

Volunteer Marek could you care explaining: 1)Why you reverted my edit on the late may Ukrainian counterattacks and 2) what's your source to back your claim on Romanian media statements.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summaries were clear. This info is UNDUE since it's only covered in two Romanian sources (which may be same source) and not in any other outlets, and even in those sources it's just speculation, mentioned in passing. This isn't an article about Bayraktars. Volunteer Marek 12:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from making false claims of consensus. You are the only one trying to cram this stuff into the article. Volunteer Marek 12:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No reason not to include if no basis was provided to doubt the reliability of the source. However, the information should be properly attributed so the reader knows where the information is coming from. EkoGraf (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the primary source, the Romanian Ministry of Defense, citing the report on their official site. I don't think anybody can cast doubt on their reliability at this time. EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Romanian Ministry of Defense just says they found a washed up wreck of a drone. In fact, they don't even say it was a Bayraktar. These other sources, "Bulgarian Military" website, and such, are the ones that speculate that it may have been a Bayraktar and from the fighting on Snake Island.
More broadly, this isn't some crucial info that absolutely must be included in this article, which is actually about something completely different. It's UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 22:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Undue since Ukrainian forces, including drones and Bayraktars, were known to be operating in the area during that time. We can also say it's UNDUE to consider Russian losses too. So there is no reason to exclude. You should keep your personal bias away from the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
since Ukrainian forces, including drones and Bayraktars, were known to be operating in the area during that time. <-- 1) this is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (you're putting two pieces of information together to get to your own conclusion) and 2) this has nothing to do with whether it's UNDO or not. It's UNDO because it's trivial information barely related to the topic of this article and because all the info is speculative at best. Volunteer Marek 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your repetitive disruptive editing is that it pushes a POV or narrative, this narrative is not what the WP needs as a encyclopedia. Your edits are not from encyclopedic nature. You have been told by many editors to keep content but you later errase them from time to time. Last time WikiHannibal told you to consider the claims made by both sides, at that was the concenssus made. Now you want to change the content of the article without listening to others.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, my edits actually do follow Wikipedia policies - what's "pushing a POV or narrative" is trying to stuff this article full of "Ukrainian L's" to try and counterbalance the actual subject of this article. The "go fuck yourself" part. Trying to hijack this article for this purpose is POV. Not the other way around. Volunteer Marek 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Romania is the closest country to Snake Island and has the best intelligence and observation of Snake Island. The content is good and relevant. --AwesomeLuigi (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there buddy. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The drone 'was thought'
The Wikipedia was thought to be an encyclopedia.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place to discuss. I have expressed my dissatisfaction and been ignored.Xx236 (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain me the need to include "On 23 May, the Romanian Ministry of National Defence reported that the remains of a Ukrainian drone was found in Romanian territorial waters, crashed "most probably during the actions conducted over 7-8 May."[1] Other sources identified the drone as a Bayraktar TB2, tail number 75; it was thought to have been shot down during the Snake Island attacks in early May 2022.[2][3][4]" Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we register the fate of all drones used in this war? Xx236 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is related to "These claims have not been confirmed" please rewrite and put the information after the phrase.Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that a drone with such damage as shown on the photo here [1] would be able to fly another 45 kilometers, i.e. from Snake Island (where it was allegedly hit) to place it was found. Hence that could be a "fake" or at lest a very questionable claim. Even the cited source say something like "probable". My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The drone was retrieved by Romanian authorities before being detected in the sea by the Romanian military. Both Romanian sources indicate that, and if you want to disregard the event displayed as a "fake" you first need several reliable sources that show that those Romanian sites are a hoax.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding this edit and it's summary if you find there is enough evidence that AwesomeLuigi is Icewhiz please start a SPI, because last time I saw Icewhiz account he was banned Globally by the WP Foundation.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Find better sources, preferably ones which don’t explicitly say “maybe” or “probably” or other kinds of speculation. This is not crucial info and is only barely related to the article. The only reason to try and cram it in here is POV - the whole “Russian warship go fuck yourself” smarts and whole world knows it so these are attempts to “offset it” or dilute it by inserting random but unverified “Russian wins” into the article. Same nonsense you have been trying to pull with cramming ridiculous Russian claims about Ukrainian helicopters shot down (after Russia had already claimed to have entirely destroyed Ukrainian air forces, lol). Volunteer Marek 01:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's been no response, just more edit warring by Mr.User200 as well as a couple very obvious SPA sock accounts. Volunteer Marek 22:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wreckage of a drone found in the Romanian territorial waters
  2. ^ "Epava dronei ucrainene din apele României - un Bayraktar TB2. Foarte probabil UAV-ul a fost doborât în timpul bătăliei pentru Insula Șerpilor" (in Romanian). 23 May 2022.
  3. ^ "Imagini cu drona Bayraktar prăbușită la Sulina. Ce performanțe are". Adevărul (in Romanian). 23 May 2022.
  4. ^ Downed Bayraktar TB2 of Snake Island battle was found in Romania

Article name

There certainly was an Attack on Snake Island in February 2022, by Russia, so the legacy article name "Attack on Snake Island" was accurate.

Now, with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine having last nearly four months, and with multiple attacks, by both sides, on the island in the past 120 days, it seems that "Attack ..." is rather the wrong word. "Attacks?..." doesn't seem quite right for a Wikipedia article name.

Propose we begin to discuss a more appropriate name for the article to reflect the ongoing battle or (mini-)campaign of the war, with both sides trying to take, then hold, the island. Perhaps Battle for Snake Island would be a better article name. Other ideas welcome. N2e (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Snake Island also isn't ideal, as it suggests there was a single battle, rather than multiple. Snake Island during the Russian invasion of Ukraine would be better, but a little long. BilledMammal (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly moved it there for the moment; while I'm not convinced it is the best title, I am convinced it is better than the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Snake Island campaign"? Or "2022 Snake Island campaign". It could also be "2022 Snake Island attacks". Super Ψ Dro 13:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "2022 Snake Island campaign" is the best of those; "2022 Snake Island attacks" could also work. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current title is suitable, but "Snake Island Campaign" is also a suitable title that is more concise. 86.22.31.94 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current type of title is vague and it has been previously rejected in several RMs for other articles, such as in 2022 bombing of Odessa and in the former Belgorod attack article before it was merged (by me). I will also be bold and just go ahead and move it. Super Ψ Dro 16:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think two seperate articles would work better - one for the initial Russian attack, and the successful Ukrainian attack. It could be called something like "First Battle of Snake Island" and "Second Battle of Snake Island" Dokateoo (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being "Snake Island during the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine" or similar is best we got. "Campaign" is just wayyy over top and inaccurate. Also even without checking, I'm 100% certain there's no sources that actually call it a "campaign"

Honestly I would just go with the original "Attack on" since that's still the most famous part and then cover the rest as needed. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see there are some references to "month long campaign" and such but it's still a bad title. Volunteer Marek 19:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would occupation be a good alternative name? Campaign is overblown but it was invaded, occupied, and then withdrawn. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the page creator, I support renaming this to the Russian occupation of Snake Island. That will match the other occupation articles like Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing this. The occupation articles do not cover military engagements unlike this one. "2022 Snake Island attacks" remains a possibility. Super Ψ Dro 20:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not occupied anymore though. Volunteer Marek 21:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, on the contrary, some of the occupation articles do talk about engagements (like Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast & Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast). Also, Volunteer Marek, that is the reason that calling it the "Russian occupation of Snake Island" would be a good idea. The Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast ended almost 2 months ago when Russia withdrew from the area, so there is no reason not to call it that. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever title you all settle on, don't forget to fix double redirects when moving, please. ansh.666 20:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing

I've listed the conflict as "ongoing"; while Russian forces have withdrawn from the island, there is no indication that Ukrainian forces have reoccupied it, or that Russia will not continue to contest it. Until the island is firmly in the hands of one or the other, I believe this is the best description. BilledMammal (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to the very Reliable (TM) sources of wikipedia, and its faultless and valiant editors defending the site from evil ruZZian misinformation, this Reconquest of Snake Island should be listed as a Super Ultra Mega Total Strategic Victory for Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!!!!! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1D77:74B:4DAF:4847 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is what we did in Wikipedia after the Russians withdrew from northern Ukraine. I remember reading in the infoboxes of several articles "Russians withdraw in 4 April" or something like that, not "Ukrainians recapture the territory in whatever date". Super Ψ Dro 16:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian losses

Currently, the article presents the following list, per Russian sources:

  • 4 "Raptor" boats
  • "Serna" class landing ship
  • "Vasily Bekh" tugboat
  • 3 air defense systems
  • Mi-8 helicopter with troops
  • helikopter Ka-52
  • several Pantsir missile systems

These don't appear to be attributed to Russian sources - some of them are from Ukrainian sources, while others are confirmed by independent media. I'm not sure what the "correct" figures are, but I think we need to clean this section up. BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it doesn't match up with the "Strength" section, which only covers the initial engagement (warships vs a handful of border guards). Not sure how that would be adequately modified to fit with the expanded scope though. ansh.666 20:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Ukraine offensive

Is this part of the southern Ukraine offensive? The campaignbox of the invasion lists this article separately from the 4 offensives but the infobox of this article includes it in the southern Ukraine offensive while the offensive's own article does not mention it. We need consistency here. Super Ψ Dro 16:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snake_Island_campaign&oldid=1095875447"