Talk:Snake Island campaign/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

“Battle”

Should this really be referred to as a “battle”? While the reports are all Ukrainian defenders were killed (RIP), it sounds to me more like there’s a bombardment against their positions before the Russians just went in and took over. “Capture” of Snake Island maybe? Juxlos (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe someone from the military Wikiproject can weigh in here on whether there are guidelines for naming military incidents. One journalist whose tweets have gone somewhat viral pointed out this page's name. https://twitter.com/aletweetsnews/status/1497013033520058369 --Alexkozak (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Officials confirmed recapture of the island, fullfilling the definition of "battle" mechanism in either way. Fate of guards unknown, not sure if everything happened as described. Let's wait for further clarification. --CptBalu87 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

War crime

This was not a “battle”. It was a massacre! 173.94.40.73 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

SoCalMusicLover (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read the edit request instructions before making a request again. You need to be specific about the change you are proposing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (2)

add link for ship Vasily Bykov to Project 22160 patrol ship - which is the class of vessel and has details. 76.18.79.79 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done: It would not be advised to use a link like that (making a sentence containing the link as itself would be better than linking an example of X to the article on X unless unavoidable), but moot now since an article about the Vasily Bykov has now been made. Kingsif (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (3)

change "Russian victory" to "Russian massacre" Dancolasanti (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus for change. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Add date to beginning of "Battle" Subsection

In the beginning of the "Battle" subsection, it just says "At around 18:00 o' clock", but not on which day. Was it on the 24th? The 23th? Specify the article. Scorpion442 (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2022 (1)

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: Withdrawn by nominator below. (non-admin closure) Brandmeistertalk 11:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Snake Island → Snake Island massacre – As noted above, at least one journalist (who, from their twitter, is heavily covering this incident), has noted - though not judged - the name of this article. We do not have the luxury of time to wait for a common name/byname for this incident to emerge (in recent, Wikipedia-era, current events, there was much debate over the article name for 1/6 long before "1/6" became popular in the outside world) BUT the only source I have found that even refers to a battle is the Independent. The only sources that coin a name, so far, are tabloids, which mostly have chosen "Snake Island massacre" or some other arrangement of those words. Tabloids may be tabloids, but they do get the masses talking. Have they historically coined incident names? Either way, as the only coinage not from us, I feel compelled to propose it. NYT also quotes it being called a massacre, about as close as they are going to get to dubbing it so at the moment, and Politico uses a subtitle instead of coining a name, which is basically defining massacre instead of saying it: "Russian forces have killed all the soldiers who were defending Zmiinyi Island, also known as Snake Island, located in the Black Sea". Now, another option could be seize or capture, as used by e.g. NZ Herald. As a naming precedent that first comes to mind, I offer Bloody Island massacre, which did involve a bit of a battle and losses on both sides, but also a power imbalance, so judge for yourselves. Kingsif (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ETA: ME also uses both capture and attack (on Snake Island). Perhaps I should have made a more detailed RM, but "massacre" as a redirect and "capture" as the name is another possibility. Kingsif (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose massacre for one reason only; the posthumously awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine. While it is not just a military/combat honor, the name "massacre" doesn't sound right for that award to be given. I would support seize or capture if majority disagree on the massacre move. Elijahandskip (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue that not surrendering when faced with certain death, and being quite defiant at least over radio, makes them heroes (in common parlance) kind of because they were massacred, but I respect your view. (Also, RIP) Kingsif (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose massacre it was not indiscriminate, all the killed were combatants; the killed were not unresisting, they rejected the offer to surrender; it wasn't a large number of deaths. Stgpcm (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Given tabloid naming, I'd support and encourage a redirect from massacre to battle, but strongly resist emotive naming at this time. Bloody Island victims were mostly women and children, and given the ongoing treatment of the Pomo there was no realistic surrender. Stgpcm (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Note Stgpcm has not edited in over six months, and has only edited this talk page. While not a clear-cut WP:SPA, this information (and their comment in the below section titled #Massacre) may be useful in assessing the helpfulness of their comments. Kingsif (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the only source calling this a "massacre" is The Sun; the New York Times is using "massacre" in a quote referring to the invasion of the country, and not in reference to the battle of Snake Island. Further, we should only use non-neutral terms like "massacre" when they are the WP:COMMONNAME, which this is clearly not. Note that I have also removed the notice from the article, as an exception from the norm due to the exceptional nature of the situation. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget the Daily Mail and News Colony (among other tabloids I haven't heard of from around the world). Also thanks, I agree that the notice on the article would be overall unhelpful given the situation, though removing does stifle future participation in discussion. Kingsif (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The bot reinstated it; I've tried something else. Could you link any uses you find; my search only found The Sun? They would be helpful of assessing how common it is, though if it is only used by tabloids I won't give them much consideration. BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If you want the ones that aren't blocked by my ad filter (Daily Mail Online) and which are not just duplicates of each other, as well as the Sun and Scottish Sun, there is: News Colony, Turkish "media agency" Ajansev, Central Minnesota News (duplicated by Twin Cities Buzz), and Digital Industry Wire (duplicated by all the "PLACEnews.LANGCODE" sites). Kingsif (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm fine either way, just wanted to point out that massacres aren't qualified by the number of deaths (cf Saint Valentine's Day Massacre). And people can be honoured even if they are the victims of a massacre. The only agreed-on criterion seems to be that a massacre has to have an element of moral repugnance. In the case of Snake Island the border guards were armed and defied the Russian call for surrender, so it is an encounter between two armed parties, lopsided though it was. Note also that the Battle of the Alamo is not usually defined as a massacre, while conversely the Wounded Knee Massacre was often described as the Battle of Wounded Knee especially in older literature. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose massacre Per reasons above, mainly because the killings being not indiscriminate, and all the killed were combatants who refused to surrender. Tragic, yes, but it I don't believe it should be changed to massacre. Cheers, The man from Gianyar (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't we call it a bombing instead? It's definitely not a battle and calling it a massacre when Russian troops only sought to take a territory held by their enemies and to do their "job" doesn't seem very neutral to me. Anejersa (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Besides saying missiles/firebombs (depending on publication time) were used, I am not seeing it I’m sources. And from a descriptive POV, "bombing" generally suggests a civilian terror attack, at least as people see it now. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, bombing or shelling would be better, we have various military articles starting with "Shelling of" or "Bombing of". As much as I'm sympathetic with Ukrainians and with all due respect, there was no battle in the first place. They were simply bombed to death after refusing to surrender. Brandmeistertalk 11:50, 25 February 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.

Standardisation of the "Result" section in the summary

The Result section currently reads as follows:

"Snake Island's security infrastructure was destroyed by the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet.

All 13 Ukrainian border guards were killed."

"was" should be deleted from the first sentence The second sentence should be deleted altogether, as casualty and losses have their dedicated section. This sentence is also already in the correct section as well, so deletion from the Result section is sufficient. Yiferan (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (4)

Rename to Massacre of Snake Island please 31.205.4.176 (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (5)

Change the title to Massacre of Snake Island not Attack on Snake Island. 2603:7000:E43F:9867:D8E2:F09B:9CB9:2125 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per § Requested move 25 February 2022 (1) above Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What time zone?

The article says at 18:00 the battle began. What time zone would that be in? 174.252.192.190 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

*crickets* Kingsif (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Translate this article into Russian please

Where do I make such a formal request? Victor Grigas (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

At Russian Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

(
)

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

Not sure what that means. Volunteer Marek 10:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

”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)

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


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)
@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)
  • I agree with Levivich and VolunteerMarek. The hook accurately and neutrally reports the response of the Ukrainian soldiers. It's a solid hook. Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
@Volunteer Marek and Lagrange613: I'm happy to provide a QPQ if needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
Promoted ALT0 to Prep 6. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI, there is a discussion above about the original source of the audio. This CNN article is calling it a "purported audio exchange" and seems to redistribute the Pravda YouTube video, but doesn't add any new information about provenance. --Alexkozak (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Names

Hope their names, once unveiled, will be recorded.

The least we can do to remember their sacrifice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.163.135 (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Vlad Zadorin (23 years old) was one of them; there are also rumours that 11 out of 13 soldiers were women but I can't find good sources for the latter yet. -KiloByte (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I would point out that Wikipedia is not a memorial, but since they are getting military honors because of the incident, that would be recorded anyway, I think. So, yes, they will. I have also seen that eleven were women, from RS but unconfirmed by them. Kingsif (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Massacre

Not a battle on any sense. A massacre of the men on that island. 121.74.209.5 (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a massacre either. Perhaps Snake Island Suicide by warship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgpcm (talk • contribs) 10:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not a suicide. Standing up to a home invader and dying isn't a suicide, this isn't anything different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:e43f:9867:d8e2:f09b:9cb9:2125 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Expand "See also" section

With all due glory to the heroes of Bastogne, much more locally topical is the "Merde!" ascribed to Pierre Cambronne as well as the Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.174.169 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking that the section might be worth trimming, as we cannot reasonably collect every phrase of defiance and similar. But the point is articles and sections that relate, not just phenomena that so. Since you link to the article for the word shit and the article for the famous-itself painting of the insulting response being written, neither seems apt. Kingsif (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Title

I support change of name to Attack on Snake Island. 2607:FEA8:651F:E430:F8B2:BE84:30DB:F8C1 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Change name to Massacre

Change name to Massacre 2601:500:C201:6F00:B140:A6D:8FA3:883A (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen; see § Requested move 25 February 2022 (1) and other sections above. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2022 (2)

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: page moved. better title, looks like strong consensus on talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Snake Island → Attack on Snake Island – "Attack on" is what the Ukrainian and Russian language Wikipedias call it, and it is also somewhat present in sources, including a few mentioned above. Close instructions suggest I cannot SNOW close the above RM I started, but someone else feel welcome. Kingsif (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Asymmetric nature of the battle suggests that "attack" is more fitting. Was worried the "Attack on" is used extensively in fiction, but wording used on Attack on Pearl Harbor.Bogger (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is not fiction this is a battle which is part of a war, no matter how asymmetric or one-sided that battle is. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support finally a good proposal. This was not a battle but not merely a massacre either. Super Ψ Dro 12:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find the above to be very odd comments, that do not really explain anything beyond !voting. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Changing support to "Capture of Snake Island". Super Ψ Dro 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Commment - 'Capture' is a confusing term, this is not a 'capture' it is a military occupation as part of a war. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Commment - I find the above to be very odd comments, that do not really explain anything beyond opposing the proposal. "Capture" is not a confusing term in any way I can think of. It's as valid as battle or attack, it's just that one of these three may be deemed more appropiate for the events there. Super Ψ Dro 16:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Not a massacre, not exactly a battle either. Definitely an attack. Though considering the result, shouldn't it be Capture of Snake Island (or fall of) instead? Juxlos (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually yes, other articles using the "attack on" formula (Attack on Veracruz, Attack on Mers-el-Kébir, Attack on Pearl Harbor) did not involve the capture of the attacked position, which is not the case here. Support Capture of Snake Island. Super Ψ Dro 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Did they capture it or just want to get past it? I am seeing reports that all infrastructure was destroyed, but none that any Russians have stuck around to claim it. Kingsif (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Nevermind, have now. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Doesn't seem to have been a battle. Robert Brockway (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Battle is the common nomeclature, lets not confuse people. attack makes it sound separate from the wider war, this was a battle, it may have been very one sidesd, but it wasn't an attack and then run away from only one side and the other side being passive. There were two sides they engaged each other, albeit the engagement was one sided, but it was still a battle and subsequent occupation, as opposed to an attack and go away. Lets no confuse the situation and lets stick to the regular nomenclature. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It is not regular nomenclature. I think you are invoking internal consistency, and while many articles may be named "Battle of X", that is for battles or incidents known as battles, not universally used for every single military skirmish. I also don't see how a different name would imply that this incident was not part of the (as you put it) wider war, at all. Of course, I would question your good faith, anyway, as you insist that the two sides engaged each other, which even by Russian reports isn't true. Kingsif (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It can't be a battle, that implies that both sides traded rounds extensively and is usually reserved for a much larger collection of troops. This was not a battle since one side was doomed from the beginning. Massacre or even attack is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:E43F:9867:D8E2:F09B:9CB9:2125 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support either "capture of" or "attack on." Battle indicates active resistance, and while the defenders were certainly heroic they did not have the means to strike back. Fritzmann (message me) 14:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. It was an attack. The garrison had no chance to retaliate. No battle to begin with. Yekshemesh (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This was anything but a "battle". For this to be considered a battle we'd need more back and forth offensive between the two teams. Since they were mostly overpowered and didn't have a chance or enough power to attack back I wouldn't consider it a battle. -- Additionally, the Russian warship crew apparently did not try to convince the Ukrainians to surrender, nor did they try capturing them. I disagree with the name "capture of snake island" because the most relevant part of this event were the deaths caused by the attack, not the capture itself. RIP. --GeGian (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. There wasn't much of a battle here, and the proposed name is more accurate. SWinxy (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, based upon the asymmetry which has been repeatedly alluded to above. · | (t - c) 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Based on reports and evidence that it was asymmetrical, and the language used by press. Not sure if this is relevant but I'd also suggest moving sooner rather than later since the name of this article appeared to generated a fair bit of attention. https://twitter.com/aletweetsnews/status/1497013033520058369 --Alexkozak (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Alexkozak: Typically, RMs are left open for a week, but in current events there have been exceptions. If there is some agreement to move ASAP, it can probably be implemented. I feel I should ask if you have responded to that tweet, given a certain recent incident? Kingsif (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what you're referring to? Feel free to take to my talk page, but no didn't consider engaging and quality of the article here is my main concern. Just wanted to point out that the name of the article itself (and whether to call it a 'battle') is a timely issue! --Alexkozak (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Important comment it appears Ukraine has retaken Snake Island [1] [2] [3]. This is the third event that happens in the island. Maybe we shouldn't use a title in singular. "Attacks on Snake Island", "Snake Island skirmishes", "Snake Island clashes" and "Snake Island attacks" are potential titles in plural that come to my mind right now. Super Ψ Dro 17:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Very puzzling. A translation of the second article seems to suggest he is saying in the video that they never lost control in the first place. Right now appears to be two different advisors to the same Interior Ministry with different accounts. --Alexkozak (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I opened up a new section to discuss this, since verifying this info has implications for the content of the article beyond the name. --Alexkozak (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Much better title. Volunteer Marek 19:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Attack is definitely more fitting since the Ukrainian border guards didn't seem to fight back, so it's pretty asymmetrical, which makes it an attack by definition. DJTechYT (talk) 21:59, 25 February 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.

“Go f**k yourselves”

Any credible sources for the report that the Ukrainian guards fought to the death and responded to a call for surrender with “Go f**k yourselves?” Blackout8771 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Source isn't in English but there's a recording https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/02/25/7325592/ Draconicfire (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The cited source is only a tweet, should probably update as such to reflect the article you linked.
Seems rather on the nose, but is being widely replayed on social and cable news. Any way to verify it? --Alexkozak (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Follow up: Auto translation of the article linked above gives a source for the audio but it's an acronym that I don't know what it refers to. Any way to refer to native speaker? --Alexkozak (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The only source for the audio that the source article appears to cite is the reporting media outlet itself. I'm not able to translate the YouTube video description. Given official reports that comms were lost, it seems reasonable to ask at this stage if the exchange actually occurred or if it's a dramatization of the events. --Alexkozak (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
This video https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/t0o37b/ukrainian_soldier_deployed_on_snake_island_live/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 also purports to be from snake island, if geolocation can prove it to be accurate it lends credence to the audio in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:33E0:DE0:3C23:C098:B1AB:14FA (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. If this is from the island, then I think would lend credence to the prerequisite that they had comms available until the attack, and make the audio more a possibility, but the short clip doesn't seem to contain what Pravda posted so doesn't directly cross-verify. --Alexkozak (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree there is no direct connection, another lead may be that there seem to be two separate audio recordings that captured the same event, I believe the original source of the secondary audio is here https://twitter.com/aletweetsnews/status/1497008826201124870?s=20&t=8fkwhvwxEPjCTdimWbbbcA and it should be noted it is shorter in length and appears to be of a higher quality than the one provided by Pravda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:33E0:DE0:3C23:C098:B1AB:14FA (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for citing this. It appears to me the Pravda article and YT video were posted about 2 hours before this tweet, in the early minutes of Feb 25 (presumably local time). --Alexkozak (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be a white tower in the background of that video I'm not able to locate on the island, based on satellite imagery publicly available. Not definitive evidence, but noteworthy. --Alexkozak (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe this is the same white tower that can be seen in the video https://goo.gl/maps/VBCU98XiwStkbp3c6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:33E0:DE0:3C23:C098:B1AB:14FA (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It does look similar, nice find. --Alexkozak (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The tiled walkway the men can be seen next to also appears to match the pattern and density shown here. https://goo.gl/maps/jhMqjBtKGYTrrzS6A 2600:1702:33E0:DE0:3C23:C098:B1AB:14FA (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
YouTube video of audio on Pravda's channel here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDrFVdms8yk --Alexkozak (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Telegram channel of Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, with audio as a reply to the posted report after the attack. Note that parent may have been edited after audio was posted. https://t.me/s/Pravda_Gerashchenko/270 -- Kovaelin (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! If the time is local this may be the original source for the audio. --Alexkozak (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and made an edit until this can be more properly investigated. Welcome any tidying up of how I did it or other suggestions! --Alexkozak (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that the BBC is reporting that the message was "Russian warship, go to hell."
Any idea if this is coming from an alternate primary source, an issue of multiple translations from the original, or 'sanitized' reporting? Should it be mentioned in the article at all?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60522454
TheLetterThorn (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I do think something a little confusing is going on here and I haven't tried to directly compare the audio samples, and it might be worthwhile to do. The simplest explanation to some of the obvious differences could be that the Pravda audio was re-recorded by their staff before posting the article and YT video using (eg) a cell phone, and the quality downgrade and voices are a result of that process (and therefore not the soldiers). The audio file posted to Telegraph would then be the source for the viral English tweet mentioned above. But what is making this more difficult is that there seems to be another 'advisor' to the Interior Ministry giving a completely different account of the attack, as it stood yesterday (see different section below). A deeper look at Interior Ministry comms by a native speaker or Ukranian gov't expert might be useful. --Alexkozak (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional potential primary source here https://twitter.com/zloy_odessit/status/1497111225955762235 --Alexkozak (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've got a source in French: https://www.tf1.fr/player/68dfe13e-3072-44e9-b3d8-aa5ff34c41cb?startAt=818.352173 Firestar464 (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

List an additional name (Snake Island Massacre), sometimes used to refer to the Battle of Snake Island (2022)

The attack on Snake Island, also reffered to as the "Snake Island Massacre", took place on 24 February 2022 on Snake Island (Ukrainian: Острів Зміїний, romanized: Ostriv Zmiinyi) during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Sources: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17766686/snake-island-massacre-last-words-ukrainian-soldiers-slaughtered-russia/

HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done An unreliable source is not going to change anything. Plus, this would be a violation of WP:NPOV. This has also been discussed in the above sections. --Firestar464 (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Reaction"

I raise objection to to the wording of the last words. The phrase "defiant" is stated as if it is a matter of fact and leads to a biased tone. (WP:IMPARTIAL) Also, "rallying cry for Ukrainians and their supporters around the world" is framing the situation as if all Ukrainians are in support of the government, and the whole phrase is presented in an encyclopedic manner. The use of the phrase for defiance to the invasion is important, but it is phrased in such a that does not belong on Wikipedia. The Radioactive Box (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts from Ukrainian government sources

Per a comment left elsewhere on this page, I thought a new discussion section was warranted to discuss reports that an adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs Vadym Denisenk saying Ukrainian forces never lost control of the island, contradicting official reports from both sides. The original video appears to be here, it was reported on here, and a secondary report on this report is here. I think the key question at this stage is whether this warrants mention in the article, if he's indeed an official advisor to the Ministry, saying what is reported on the official Ministry YT channel, and providing a conflicting account. --Alexkozak (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Vadym Denisenk appears to be a spokesperson for the Ministry of Interior and is reportedly giving an alternate account. It's possible he and/or the media outlets are intentionally or mistakenly muddying the waters (maybe he has his facts wrong), but nevertheless it seems worth mentioning unless a native speaker can provide a different takeaway from the YouTube video. Maybe we wait for more reporting. There is a fairly significant delay between local and english speaking reporting, and the latter has somewhat diminished ability to independently verify information during the conflict. --Alexkozak (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Interestingly, the BBC updated their article more recently than the new account coming out, but makes no mention (also "Russian warship, go to hell") Kingsif (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post reports on newer reports from official sources that conflicts previous accounts about the fate of the soldiers. --Alexkozak (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We need to verify this!

I did read another article (Russian side) that there are 82 soldiers on the island and they are all surrender and have arrived at Sevastopol: https://crimea24.tv/content/pribivshikh-v-sevastopol-s-ostrova-zme/ While it's indeed a battle of propagada, but the source even have pictures of the POW, should we at least put extra information under controversy to make it more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinner2211 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is already mentioned and given appropriate WP:DUEWEIGHT based on its preponderance in reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 09:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a fact checker, either. If RS have something to say, we wait for them. Kingsif (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Sinner2211 - theree edits here, none elsewhere. A burner account.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Satellite image

Satellite image from Feb 23rd Satellite image from Feb 26th

Even with quite low quality of images (You can check them yourself on Soar.earth), we can see that there is no signs of damage, caused by artillery and air-strikes. This make Russian version of events more legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LavolpeZach (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR, IP expert. Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
User:LavolpeZach A burner account.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine official facebook account reports possible survival of Ukranian soldier on Snake Island

As stated here https://www.facebook.com/100066866381279/posts/285013563737521 by the official account of State Border Guard Service of Ukraine are stating that the original story that all defenders died could not be in fact real. 87.20.164.184 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post reporting on this here https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-snake-island/
See also, discussion section above about conflicting reports from Ukrainian gov't. --Alexkozak (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It's in the article, too. Do people not read articles and the talkpage before commenting? Kingsif (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the Infobox Per Ukraine Casualties report can reflect that the border guard isn't sure about it? Not sure. Finbee (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Should this be flagged as affected by a current event?

There's clearly a lot of conflicting information circulating about the subject matter right now, and I expect it to become much clearer in the near-future. For the moment, I propose marking this as {{Current related}}.

Saklad5 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

On 26 February 2022, CrimeaTV post an article cited 82 soldiers from Snake Island have arrived at Sevastopol, all were alive and well, and that they had "voluntarily laid down their arms".[1] Sinner2211 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I would not call that a controversy; an RS indicating that something is controversial is needed, realistically, for that, and "but Russia claim X" is mentioned then swiftly ignored in RS that discuss both claims. Russian state media obviously not an RS. Kingsif (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/802716.html--Alexander Pieniezny (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Interfax is a Russian news agency, and all media operating in Russia have been ordered to write reports about the conflict based only on Russian state information ([4] so, no. Kingsif (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, this is Interfax-Ukraine. Secondly, if you are trying to say that all independent Russian media outlets, including those that were designated as foreign agents, are now unreliable because of that order, you are writing nonsense. Mellk (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Прибывших в Севастополь с острова Змеиный украинских военных отправят домой после юридических процедур".

Discussion at Talk:Russian warship go fuck yourself § Merger proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russian warship go fuck yourself § Merger proposal. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
where is the woman...? You could clearly here a female voice --91.35.171.231 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Requested move 2 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: No consensus to move. Presumably, further news developments will help us figure out the title. For right now, there's definitely no consensus. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Media sources, like this article by Slate (mentioned above in the talk page headers), directly calls this out as "Attack on Snake Island". Yes, it is talking about the Wikipedia article, but too many people know it by this name to change it. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose - It was reported that there was a naval battle involving well over a dozen vessels. More information will be uncovered as time goes on about what happened.XavierGreen (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)]
  • 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)
  • Support - per MWFwiki. "Capture" is a more precise title than "Attack." Cookieo131 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is still very little concise information about what actually happened. It is clear there was some type of combat action at snake island, as to what that exactly was, only time will tell once the dust settles down and more information about what actually happened is released. The Russian government claims that there was a full blown naval battle against a squadron of Ukrainian fast attack craft, the Ukrainian government now says that its force stationed on the island fought until they ran out of ammunition, but mentions nothing about a naval battle taking place.XavierGreen (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above. Redoct87 (talk) 19:13, 18 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

The soldiers were released as part of a prisoner exchange on March 24, 2022 (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/24/1088593653/snake-island-sailors-freed-prisoner-swap) 2A01:4B00:88F5:900:A0CD:79FF:AC90:11C5 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Snake Island massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Snake Island massacre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Snake Island massacre until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

I've removed the tag as these issues no longer appear in the article. Levivich 16:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrposhta stamp

Just leaving a note here per the DYK discussion, that Ukrainian postage stamps are in the public domain (Commons link) so an image of the stamp can be used once the stamp is actually issued. Check this link to the Ukrposhta online stamp catalog to see if it's been issued (recent releases are at the top). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s up. If someone could grab it, upload it here and put in the article that’d be great (I can’t do it myself right now for technical reasons). Volunteer Marek 04:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Cringed

I am a little cringed out by how a soldier who surrendered without a fight is glorified for swearing at an enemy. Very odd. It should also note that at first these soldiers were reported dead by Ukraine then they ressurected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.184.180.208 (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a media and propaganda war. I remember too those soldiers were declared dead, later alive.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
It is stated in the article as well, so what is the purpose of this section? To me, it seems WP:NOTAFORUM and I think this subsection should be deleted. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
After reading again, the article did mention those soldiers were initially reported dead later were declared as captured. So its mentioned.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Short answer is “no”. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Please stop harassing other contributors 2804:D41:C910:F200:4D7C:89B8:C4F0:8099 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Not deprecated" is the lowest possible bar. It doesn't mean "we must include it". Volunteer Marek 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include btw. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Same should be done with Ukrainian claims then. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey there buddy. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The drone 'was thought'
The Wikipedia was thought to be an encyclopedia.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss. I have expressed my dissatisfaction and been ignored.Xx236 (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
Do we register the fate of all drones used in this war? Xx236 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
  • I do not think that a drone with such damage as shown on the photo here [5] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
It's not occupied anymore though. Volunteer Marek 21:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
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 3 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)

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

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)

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)
"Ukrainian Advances" Dawsongfg (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Wait that's the map, but yes it did say that for a few because there was major fighting (bucha, hostomel etc) except there wasn't here, except for russian equipment being destroyed etc Dawsongfg (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
Well then we need a section on there during the attack and another after. Dawsongfg (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
All we really need to clean up is source. Dawsongfg (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snake_Island_campaign/Archive_1&oldid=1192624810"