Talk:Russian warship, go fuck yourself

Merger 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.

The result of this discussion was don't merge. No consensus to merge and a reasonable consensus that events around the slogan had developed sufficiently to merit a standalone article (international protest slogan, commemorative stamp, commercial trademarking etc.)

---

I propose merging this article into Attack on Snake Island, where this phrase was first made and what it is associated with. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, if the phrase becomes a meme it will be notable as stand-alone. But that's for the future; for now - weak support. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I could see this being used as a funny phrase so thats why i strongly oppose TheScottish801 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, as it is a popular topic. It has achieved notability outside of the battle. Nascar9919 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose this is the rallying cry of the Ukrainian and other opposition to the war and should not be buried Drakcap (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as original redirect creator, it is a popular topic right now and is a rallying cry for Ukrainians and Ukrainian supporters, I think it's notable enough. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 12:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Talking about notability, this article has been written in other 10 languages of Wikipedia. It has its own Wikidata page and its own Commons category. That itself shows notability and wide coverage already isn't it? And for the list of citations, I think if we were to find all of the available sources in English language only, looks like we can easily reach almost about a hundred third-party reliable sources. Chongkian (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just FYI apparently the soldiers who said this may be alive and were taken prisoner[1]. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge. I would think this topic could be covered within Attack on Snake Island. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support for merge, but with the possibility of the page existing if there is long-term notability of this phrase. But if this page isn't merged, there should be a comma after "warship". —AFreshStart (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC) WP:BOLDly moved article to current title. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• stong oppose The phrase has taken on a life of it's own. Limiteddx (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Even if it has taken on a life of its own, which I probably don't dispute though haven't checked social media today, it has not become a meme with legs - that is, each use is tied to its origin, and I doubt it will ever become so abstracted from the context in which it was first said (i.e. there will not come a point when people using it do not consider the defiance/last stand/whatever of the original to be an inherent part of the phrase, something being referred to each time it is used) - so it will always be, effectively, a subtopic. That is philosophical argument, but also right at this moment, one decent start article is better than two stubs. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support currently a WP:PERMASTUB, and TOOSOON to know if has enduring separate notability. Can always SPINOUT later. Widefox; talk 22:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The phrase is ubiquitous, almost motto of Ukraine now, there will be tonns of sources about it in the coming days. It would be more fit to save a separate article, not to merge and then split it. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems that it's being used more than just in the attack.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawsongfg (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support per Kingsif -- HurricaneEdgar 01:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - this topic is covered nearly separate from the Snake Island attack. CanadianOntarian (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This phrase has clearly become notable in its own right, even among persons unfamiliar with the battle at Snake Island. This is particularly true among English speakers. Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The opposes argue that the phrase is very well-known, but not all notable topics need to have their own page. The question I'm asking is: How much is there to say about the quote that'd be undue or otherwise unsuitable for the Snake Island attack page? Right now, the page is basically just the quote with context copied from the attack page. Given that, it'd be plenty sufficient to just discuss it here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. It's become a rally cry, and a worldwide phrase that's a sign of strength and support. Crazyeditor23 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support The coverage of the attack and the phrase are the same, they are the same topic and should be covered in the same page, rather than just having this likely permastub. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose.Strong Oppose At least for now. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 05:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Ukrainian version has enough material and citations to show this subject can stand on its own, even if the English-language version is still short. Tisnec (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Instead of merging Russian warship into snake island, I think the attack of snake island could be added to go fuck yourself, as an extra section, and both could exist. ~~HavokLad~~
• Oppose If Putin khuylo has its own article, I don't see why this shouldn't, especially considering its rapid spread as a rallying cry. That said, and as another user has pointed out, the article needs significant work to come in line with WP:NPOV. The Kip (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and expand. Other Wikipedias have written a longer article about this subject with examples of the phrase's use outside the context of the Snake Island attack. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It is a completely separate phenomenon (when somebody from Ukrainian delegation directly alludes to it in his speech - it has nothing to do with a Snake Island). Formally, now it already satisfies WP:GNG (if there are not enough sources - one can always refer to uk-wiki), hence deserves a separate article. Ipsign (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support it has not become a meme with legs - that is, each use is tied to its origin … The coverage of the attack and the phrase are the same, they are the same topic and should be covered in the same page, rather than just having this likely permastub. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong - there are already lots of its uses without original context (just two examples: (a) billboard photos with the men in uk-wiki, and (b) allusions to it by government officials). Ipsign (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And to what do the billboards and speeches allude to? The attack. Thanks. Kingsif (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It is still stubby, but its subject absolutely transcends the military action. —Michael Z. 13:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support it made sense to create this page when it first hit the news, but now it doesn't make sense. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 19:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The phrase is like Putin khuylo, it transcends the Euromaiden, in the same way, the phrase transcends the military operation it is related and now has become a symbol on its own.LordLoko (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The phrase has achieved notability independent of the battle. Davey2116 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the phrase has become an independent meme phrase and has lead to actions like a Georgian ship refusing to fill the tank of a Russian ship. --DefendingFree (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's a significant part of the story of the Attack on Snake Island and it belongs there. Simply being an iconic quote doesn't mean it needs its own article. We don't have a Now i am become death, destroyer of worlds article or This is Sparta article, rather those quotes redirect to the primary topic. – Anne drew 15:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Neither of those phrases have much usage outside their original context. This phrase has become a rallying cry across Ukraine; it transcends just the attack now. The Kip (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• That just is not true. This phrase does not transcend the attack as each use, however widespread, is referring to the attack. Quite unlike "now I am become death", a phrase you can see inserted into absurdist memes with no context at all - you can use and 'understand' that without any knowledge of the original context, which you cannot with "Russian warship..." Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's incorrect. It is in fact being used as a general "message to Russia" and a point of resistance, this being one good example. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support, The quote in question refers specifically to a certain instance. Unless the phrase becomes more culturally widespread in the future, it is best to keep it in context (by keeping it in Snake Island article). Additionally, the amount of information available about the phrase is far too little to warrant an individual article. JSory (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Not even Remember the Alamo has its own page. This viral slogan is essentially what makes the Battle of Snake island notable and all the relevant information can be adequately covered there. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The phrase is ubiquitous, almost motto of Ukraine now.--Newbamboo (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It is a notable rally symbol. Also other Wikipedias have an article on it. Felicia (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Very prevalent in the media and used by Ukraine. Flalf^Talk 18:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's nice to see this as separate article Adiee5 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Very clearly this phrase is a meme/reference that has taken on a life of its own, beyond the initial usage. It's become a broad idea of resistance. It's been used on Street signs, as a general phrase of resistance by the Ukrainians, you can even buy T shirts, stickers and "Russian Warship Go Fuck Yourself" coffee!. The phrase has reappeared as a message of resistance on the streets of various countries including Lithuania Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support any article that describes the origin of the phrase would describe the attack on Snake Island. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above, the phrase seems notable enough for its own article. —Paul1337 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment An topic can be notable and not be appropriate for a standalone article, Skdb mentions that above. (Indeed, I think there is likely consensus that it is notable; the issue is whether it should have its own article.) Note: Personally, I think it's fine merged or fine as-is right now; I think it will become clearer in retrospect whether the phrase should have its own article. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 05:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have said, the phrase has gained enough notoriety on its own where it has become a more abstract act of defiance by Ukranians. I believe this article should continue being independent. Ktvptf (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The phrase is clearly notable in its own right. --Tataral (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is WP:TOOSOON (mentioned above by User:Widefox) to determine if this phrase will come into popular use, for now it should be merged. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The specific phrase has generated an extraordinary amount of RS in some of the highest quality sources from WP:RSP (there is an RS from almost every single one of them). Clearly, a phrase that has become notable (globally) in its own right, and its expansion/adoption into popular culture, shows it is still a developing topic. 78.18.231.44 (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on the face of it, there hasn't been enough time for this to mature into a notable subject yet. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, the weight of opinion seems to be that the article should exist, and moreover, the article is bigger than the attack on snake island article. Even though Wikipedia isn't a democracy, the lack of agreement lends itself to leaving the article in place.Mozzie (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose enough valid content to fill both articles on their own. Most of this article's content is not found in the other one. This is about the phrase not the attack. Dream Focus 08:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose it’s big enough to be a valid article on its own. It’s not WP:NOTNEWS cruft either since it’s been immortalized in a stamp. Merging strikes me as unnecessary work and would bloat the other article. Dronebogus (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose now that it's forever in a stamp. This isn't a single puff in the wind that's gonna fade! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral. I think this is notable enough to be a stand-alone article, but I do see the idea of merging this or at least creating a major chapter in the article about the battle of Snake Island. Sam the speed fighter (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support the attack on Snake Island would be a footnote in the opening day of the war if not for this phrase and its popularity. bragr (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The phrase has proven to exist far beyond its first noticeable use, and has even found its way onto a Ukrainian postage stamp. It has become the No Pasarán of this war. Fanx (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The extension into becoming a postage stamp, and the trademarking of the slogan implies that it is now notable in its own right. 78.19.254.135 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about the meme "Russian Warship, Go Fuck Yourself", not the battle. The meme is being used quite extensively in present conversations. 2603:8080:E403:D96F:E1E1:E1F1:A523:18C3 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, now it is a famous phrase, symbolic, like some other famous quotes, single war photos, gestures, the Ukrainian Post Office plans to publish a stamp with this quote --Daniel Naczk (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article and the batter are two different topics with two different scope and two different Wikidata page. This page, although it is indeed mentioned during the Snake Island Battle, itself focuses on the linguistics/words/language which itself becomes more and more notable phrase as this war continues. The phrase has become a symbol of resistance in Ukraine (and start to spill globally), irrespective of the Snake Island battle itself. The phrase has even started to become business slogans, where trademark/parent disputes have started to appear globally. Chongkian (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This phrase is very iconic and should be left alone on its own article. Besides, this is a substantially long article tha twould be difficult to merge with the other. Js26x (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The phrase stands on its own, though as the article is written now it actually gives more weight to the Battle of Snake Island than to the phrase that extends from it. Even still, this phrase (and its variants) transcend the battle itself. Biktor627 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is about the phrase which is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. -Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - notability of this phrase is strongly linked with the attack of Snake Island, and there's no reason that the content can't be included in that article. As is, I don't think the phrase has established any sort of lasting notability or notoriety to warrant its own article. --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – notability of this phrase is strongly linked with the attack of Snake Island, and there's no reason that the content should be included in that article. Had I responded on 28 February, I might well have voted "support", but this phrase has gone far beyond the attack on Snake Island in coverage and notoriety. It's kind of like that advertising slogan, "Where's the beef?" which is now as well known as the fast-food company it was made for; you know, the, uh... what's the name of that fast food company again? You know, um... not MacDonalds, not Burger King, not In-N-Out... The "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" will remain, long after no one remembers the name "Snake Island" anymore, and very likely, decades hence, long after no one even knows what war it came from. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - the phrase has become famous and meets the criteria for an article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2022 (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.

Neutrality

I think this article violates W:NPOV specifically: "This phrase became one of the symbols of Ukraine's struggle against the Russian occupiers. Those who opposed Russia's invasion of Ukraine were so impressed with the bold answer that it went viral on various social media platforms. The recordings were circulated on the Internet, causing an uproar, and Ukrainians were greatly indignant." Jakoats02 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Partial things can be written about neutrally, i.e. just because something is only about one side does not make it POV, and I would say those sentences you quote are good examples of handling something partial and contentious neutrally:

1. The phrase became a symbol of Ukraine's struggle - what is factually untrue here? Even the word "struggle" is sitting-on-the-fence
2. People opposing Russia invading were "so impressed" - perhaps this needs some direct quotation, but still factually sound
3. It went viral - definitely true
4. The recordings were circulated on the internet - ditto
5. Said circulation caused an uproar - basically how it became viral; again "uproar" is a term describing a situation mildly without a qualifier that bears judgement
6. Ukrainians were greatly indignant - this is probably unnecessary, though the whole last sentence you quote is repetitive overkill probably to bulk up the stub, but I do not think it implies all Ukrainians. It could be changed to "Many Ukrainians" or "Ukrainians sharing on social media" to really make it clear.

So, really, what element of the sentences is non-neutral? Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Rereading, I think the bigger issue is the article needs to be copyedited. I do think the phrase "so impressed with the bold answer", without directly quoting someone is breaching W:NPOV. I'd suggest changeing it to something like "the phrase went viral on social media" and then quote notable opinions on it. "impressed" and "bold" are subjective descriptions.

"their bravery" is also a subjective value judgement. if it's to be included, I think it should be presented as a quote of someone. other articles around acts that we might say show bravery don't state as if it's objectively true Jakoats02 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Numerically this is 6-4 in support of the move, which would put this within "no consensus" territory. However, the opposing arguments mostly boil down to "this is a new topic so we should wait". I see nothing on Wikipedia:Article titles which discourages page moves of articles about new topics. There is WP:TITLECHANGES, which suggests that article titles which have been stable for a long time should not be changed without a good reason, but in this article's case, the title clearly hasn't been "stable for a long time" given the newness of the article. Ultimately I find the supporting arguments to be well-reasoned and conform to the Article titles policy, whereas the opposing arguments are weaker. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Russian warship, go fuck yourself! → Russian warship, go fuck yourself – Most times I saw this phrase in newspaper articles it was without the exclamation mark. Most Wikipedias don't put it on the title. Super Ψ Dro 09:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Super Dromaeosaurus: Since the redirect exists and has history before this title, that would need a technical RM. I would also say it is a non-controversial request - fixing punctuation. So, ask as technical moves, no need for an RM discussion. Kingsif (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now Considering this thing happened less than a week ago, and the sign itself did have an exclamation point on it, I think it's far, far too soon to move the page to eliminate the exclamation mark for no reason other than "most times...in newspaper articles it was without the exclamation mark." Let the dust settle a little. Several months down the road, it will be clearer which version is the more-oft reported; but regardless of all of that, the version with the exclamation point can't be considered wrong, because the original had the exclamation point. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:214B:15FF:24A6:C4BD (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Whichever spelling Wikipedia chooses is likely to shape where the dust settles. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The original version was spoken. It couldn't have had an exclamation mark. Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support, as the person who moved it to the current title. I had tried to move it to the title without one, but this was technically impossible, so I thought using the exclamation mark would be the best until the merge request had finished (the former title had no exclamation mark and no comma, which is much worse IMO). I was going to bring an RM once that was closed if there was consensus to not merge this page. I hope this makes sense. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as for now This is a highly developing stories which is currently still happening. Once this war is over and all of the events that took place have been properly documented, then we shall slowly see all of the proper and official names on everything that happened during this war, including this F phrase. So I guess no need to rename/move the page just for a small grammar mistake/error. We all know the meaning of what the article title tells us about, and I believe Wikipedia will give it as a search suggestion (if there is no proper redirect) when people search this term. Chongkian (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

no need to rename/move the page just for a small grammar mistake/error - that is always a good reason to move. A quote is not going to get a different name in future. Kingsif (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support  I looked through every cited English-language reference and the first ten results in a news search, and not a single reference to the phrase used a quotation mark (it was usually in quotation marks, often followed by a comma or period per normal sentence structure). Only a single blog post used an exclamation point, where the phrase was quoted stand-alone in a call-out. (Ukrainian often marks an imperative statement with an exclamation mark, so you may see some direct transcriptions that include it, like the home-made sign in the photo, but it appears that professional editors are not doing this.) Indeed, the whole idea is to improve the encyclopedia whenever we can, so let’s change this to conform to WP:COMMONNAME. —Michael Z. 14:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per nom Flalf^Talk 18:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I can see the sentiment of the nominator, and I think technically they are correct, but I think as its a currently developing topic, we should leave it as it is for the moment. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The phrase is (translated) direct speech and the exclamation mark is the correct indicator in English of a forceful utterance like that. How other publications have chosen to punctuate, or not, their reports is irrelevant. We do not replicate other house styles (we for example transform curly quotes to straight quotes). Headlines in particular are in any case often written by editors in a hurry rather than the article authors and we often give them less weight than the article content, for example when evaluating the relevance of references. --Mirokado (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• support - exclamation mark is superfluous. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2022 (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.

The F Word

The following discussion 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.

---

I firmly believe that this article should be amended by removing all obscene words (the "F" word) and replacing it with "F---" whenever it appears.

This is due multiple reasons one of which is the number of young readers who visit Wikipedia. Teenagers and preteens do not need to go onto Wikipedia and find prominent articles with swear words in them--especially in the title!

Replacing any and all curse words (including the one in the title) with the first letter of the word, accompanied by the appropriate number of dashes, will not detract from the quality of this article and will instead improve it in numerous ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOrangeOctopus (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Dude, Wikipedia isn't censored. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not arguing that point. It is quite evident that Wikipedia is not censored, but that is no reason why we should not implement my suggestion. This website may not enforce censorship, but it does not seem to discourage it. There is no reason why we cannot and should not change this page. TheOrangeOctopus (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:Offensive material. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason: guard said fuck. Guard did not say "F---". Hope that clears it up. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Currently, there are 35,491 words in the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, before "the F word" appears. It does not have a prominent place in the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Support in principle, oppose on policy I fully support the censoring of the title, however wiki policy is fine with the profanity, and wiki policy dominates opinion. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (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.

Recent usage ....

Business Insider is reporting an incident at see in which the phrase was employed. Perhaps it belongs in the article? Source.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 20:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Go fuck yourself" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Go fuck yourself and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Go fuck yourself until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity of the audio recording

It should be clearly stated that the source of the audio recording is unknown and it might very well be fake. Main reasons:

- There are voices that can be heard outside of the radio transmission, so apparently it must have been recorded by the Snake Island defenders. Were the defenders recording themselves while being attacked by an enemy warship? For what reason - to share on Twitter or TikTok? Seems unlikely. How did they publish the recording if they were captured/killed?

- There are distinct mouse click sounds that can be heard right before the response is "transmitted". Usually, when communicating over a radio, the operator uses a microphone. Not a mouse.

- The radio response of the defenders is distorted in the same way as the incoming transmission. Since they were recording themselves, their voice would not have been heard over the radio, but through the microphone of the recording device (for example a phone). Hence, it would not have been distorted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.111.37.39 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have independent reliable sources that challenge the authenticity of the recording, please offer them. Your own interpretation of the recording is original research. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Most sources like CNN use the word "purported" but don't offer specific evidence or reasoning to doubt the recording. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I can not speak of the audio, but the video published by Sky News showing a Slava-class cruiser close to the shore of what is supposed to be Snake Island, is most likely fake. The weather in the video is clear with sunshine and a slight haze. The weather in the region at february 24 was heavy overcast. /Esquilo (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Phrase on official Ukrainian site

If one goes to the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine page setup by the government of Ukraine, then click Russia from the list of nations, this phrase pops up. Should this be added? --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless it should go elsewhere, I think I will put this, with cite, in the "Continued use" section.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

This phrase was referenced on his most recent show. Add?--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't immediately think of a way to include that without generating discussion. However, this fox business story covers the gist of Stephen's claim about using the phrase to generate funds for humanitarian benefit. ...albeit with an example that's not needlepoint. --N8 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I too am not sure precisely where it would go, though it is a pretty mainstream reference to said phrase in western media. I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe a popular culture section wouldn't hurt. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

postage stamp

Would it fit to have a section, and ideally a sample image, of the Ukrainian postage stamp celebrating this event? Donfede~enwiki (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/12/ukraine-reveals-russian-warship-go-fuck-yourself-postage-stamp

 Done, the section is created except don't think we can get a non-copyright image of the stamp? 78.18.231.44 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fate of Vasily Bykov

Section of the article mentions the supposed destruction of the ship in question and latter disproval of this rumor. In the interest of preventing WP:EDITWAR I am looking to start a dialog and get consensus on the removal of this part of the article. My reasoning for the original removal was that I don't consider it relevant to the current article. Following WP:RELE, this information doesn't contribute to the article itself, nor does it make the article clearer. The article is about a specific phrase and its origin, the rumor about the ship involved in the origin of this phrase I would day bears no relevance. I'd say it would also be a candidate for WP:ANOTHER and have the information moved, had it not been already mentioned verbatim in the article about ship itself Vasily Bykov and the ships class Project 22160 patrol ship. Battlestar59 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, that part makes the Ukrainians look like liars, we can't let that happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D41:C90D:B900:B455:1FAC:7627:2E79 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on Russian language

For some reason, I cannot find in this article (or even on the internet), whether he spoke the phrase in Russian or Ukrainian? My instinct is that Gribov spoke it in Russian (his family uses the Russian spelling of his surname being Gribov vs. the Ukrainian spelling of Hydbov). It is another noteworthy aspect of this terrible war, that many Russian-speaking Ukrainians (who go by the Russian spellings of their names and surnames) are fully opposed to joining with Russia, despite the Russian propaganda otherwise. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukranian

Should we correct the spelling of "Ukranian" [sic] in this article? It quotes the translation accurately, but is obviously wrong. Certes (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense to me. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made the change. If anyone objects, please revert. Certes (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixing minor typos is explicitly encouraged by WP:MOS#Original wording. There would have to be a good reason *not* to fix it. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

which warship was told to fuck off?

Was it the Russian cruiser Moskva? Because that is the same ship that was likely struck and sunk by Ukraine today, by Neptune anti-ship missiles. -- GreenC 23:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Historical comparisons

For me the most appropriate comparison is to Ohi. The concise answer to an aggressor's ultimatum. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Conversation language

The whole interaction was in Russian on both sides. The Ukrainian soldier responded in Russian «русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!», even if the Ukrainian version would sound very similar, especially the abuse part. --Anatoli (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)