Talk:Snake Island campaign

“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)

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)

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when a Russian warship asked the Ukrainian defenders of Snake Island to surrender, their response was "Russian warship, go fuck yourself"? Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/ukraine-russia-snake-island-attack-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

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

• Maybe we need a holding section for Russian and Ukraine hooks until all this blows over. Kingsif (talk) 09:26, 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
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - 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)

Massacre

WP:NOTAFORUM

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (Template:Lang-uk) 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)

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)

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". 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)

References

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)

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)