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 Agne27 (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 9 March 2022 (→‎Requested move 2 March 2022: Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kyiv’s navy has taken to social media to reveal that the thirteen Ukrainian border guards who defended Snake Island in the Black Sea and told a Russian warship to “go f–k yourself” were not killed.

We'll wait for the collated from nothing but leftist sources to kick in before correcting an obvious hoax. No WP violations here declaring folks dead whom are still alive, we just report what our exclusively leftist sources report. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2121:437:D1E7:B66C (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And these people believe they live in the "free world", amazing stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.255.231 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian officials said they believed them all to be dead, then later said they'd seen evidence they had been taken captives. This isn't an "obvious hoax", nor is it "leftist".-- OsirisV (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
where is the woman...? You could clearly here a female voice --91.35.171.231 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morale victory???

I know its not frequently used, but what about add "Ukrainian morale victory" in to infobox, as while Ukrainians soldiers survived, whole incident had unique positive effect on morale of many Ukrainians.--78.102.112.124 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morale victories are not the primary concern in a battle. It would be accurate in a greater context of the war that the initial Ukrainian portrayal of the incident appears to have motivated resistance, however this is outside the scope of the article. JSory (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 March 2022

Attack on Snake Island → Capture of Snake Island – "Attack on" gives a look like the island was attacked/raided and the attackers retreated, instead of captured. I would say that term is more appropriate. And I also see that there was barely a clash. Beshogur (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A counter-argument would be that battles are named "battles" regardless of the outcome. I believe that "attack" has the same neutral implication as "battle".JSory (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - The island was indeed captured. This is seemingly in-line with other articles, such as Capture of Damascus, Capture of Malacca. This would fall under the "Consistency" requirement of WP:CRITERIA. Note that most of these involved far mORe combat than apparently occurred on Snake Island. While information is scarce at this time -- and it's doubtful the full truth will ever be known, anyways -- it's hard to position this as an 'attack,' much less a 'battle.' Or rather, I should specify, yes, it was an attack, but ultimately it resulted in the capture of the island. @Elijahandskip I would say that the public simply know "Snake Island," much like they know "Pearl Harbor" as a location and an event. Speaking of which... we have the Attack on Pearl Harbor article. Does this situation equate to that? If it was just an attack and the Russians didn't capture the island or fled/retreated post-attack, then I would oppose this. But the island was ultimately captured. I understand that folks are hesitant to agree with this proposal as it makes RUS seem strong, UKR seem weak, and we want to make it clear that RUS was the aggressor. But that's bias, and it should not factor in, here. WP:CRITERIA also requires "precision" and "concision" or conciseness; An 'attack' DOES NOT imply a capture; 'Capture of...' DOES inherently suggest -- or at least imply -- that some action -- possibly an attack -- was taken to bring about the capture. Thus, in the interest of WP:CRITERIA's "precision" and "concision" (and "consistency") requirements, "Capture of Snake Island" is the more appropriate title. MWFwiki (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple “Capture of…” articles had (rather massive) battles that preceded them. What happened at Snake Island was, at best, a skirmish, but I’m not here to argue semantics. WP:CRITERIA “consistency” requirement necessitates that we take this into account.MWFwiki (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)][reply]
  • Support - The same article that claims that the island was shelled, also claims that all of the defenders were killed, a fact that has proven to be false. As the defenders did not put up a fight and given that there aren't details as to how this attack occurred, or if it did for that matter, this should be reworded to "capture" as that is essentially what occurred. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Confusing and unclear

I have added this tag for the following reasons. The background section contains random information about the status of the island, specifically the maritime dispute between Romania and Ukraine. This background information has nothing to do with the War in Donbass conflict nor the incident itself and is confusing to the reader. In addition, this Wikipedia page is written parallel to news article publishing stores of this incident in a chronological order. Over time, the narrative of this incident has changed significantly from all of the Ukrainian State Border Guard's being killed, to all of them surrendering. Given this, the info box still claims that the Ukrainian government believes that all of the troops on the island were killed, despite a cited addition in the text claiming that they acknowledge they all surrended. A cleanup is warranted. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snake_Island_campaign&oldid=1076145518"