Talk:Russian warship, go fuck yourself

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Felicia777 (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 3 March 2022 (→‎Merger proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Just FYI apparently the soldiers who said this may be alive and were taken prisoner[1]. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. I would think this topic could be covered within Attack on Snake Island. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • stong oppose The phrase has taken on a life of it's own. Limiteddx (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Support per Kingsif -- HurricaneEdgar 01:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE - this topic is covered nearly separate from the Snake Island attack. CanadianOntarian (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. At least for now. --Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 05:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And to what do the billboards and speeches allude to? The attack. Thanks. Kingsif (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is still stubby, but its subject absolutely transcends the military action. —Michael Z. 13:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. The phrase has achieved notability independent of the battle. Davey2116 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose The phrase is ubiquitous, almost motto of Ukraine now.--Newbamboo (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose It is a notable rally symbol. Also other Wikipedias have an article on it. Felicia (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2022

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)[reply]

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

The F Word

WP:NOTCENSORED — Czello 14:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dude, Wikipedia isn't censored. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:Offensive material. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_warship,_go_fuck_yourself&oldid=1075071255"