Talk:USS Donald Cook

Flyby incident

This was added last weekend, but it contains references to speculation in blogs, etc. There is no reason to split this off into its own section to encourage expansion of the section. The claims regarding crew resignations are laughable and any press releases regarding electronic warfare are completely unverifiable, unless the ship is destroyed during an electronic attack. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the incident was a year and a half ago, with very little additional details or follow up incidents. Donald Cook and other US / western ships have been to the Black Sea, apparently without incident. Certainly not an incident as long-lived as the historically notable incidents involving Yorktown and Caron. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct with this trimming. There is some amount of newsworthiness to the false accusations, and I don't see the point in completely ignoring it while discussing the actual facts. Having a complete absence of those widespread rumors stands out, and doesn't jibe with Wikipedia policy on addressing and properly relegating fringe theories. I'm going to make another edit for coherence and this topic. We can further discuss if you disagree.Koijmonop (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I created that section to debunk the false claims of resignations and jamming head on, instead of continuing to revert them and being accused of censorship. I expected pushback from those making the false claims, but frankly did not expect it from you. At the time, this article didn't even link to the Pentagon statement, but did link to the Voice of Russia story that made the false claim about jamming, without debunking it. These false claims are not just a fringe theory accepted by a handful of people, but are reported by Russia's mainstream media and believed by many. If you google USS Donald Cook, the buzzing incident and the false claims still dominate the results. Ignoring them won't make them go away, and merely stating that Western newspapers and analysts ignored them just sounds to readers like an example of Western media bias. In the end, Wikipedia readers are no better informed than they were before, which is a shame when we know the origins of the false claims, and can easily debunk them. Frankly, I think removing my section was a gift to the propagandists. IHTFP (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, here's how the rumor evolved.
On April 15, 2014, Russian blogger Lunoxod wrote a blog post, "Khibiny versus Aegis or what scared the Pentagon so much?" which speculated why the Pentagon's statement was so "emotional and even hysterical" if the Su-24 was unarmed. "So what happened in international waters? I believe the answer lies behind such a mysterious name as Khibiny... I see the situation as follows..." and proceeds to tell the fantasy. "In conclusion, I want to note that everything here are just my logical constructions. If the moderators consider this post inappropriate, remove it :)" (http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/48815/)
On April 17, it was picked up by Komsomolskaya Pravda, which reported, "On the web, there's a full on discussion of a version according to which it was not quite an ordinary plane, but its reconnaissance variant Su-24MR. Not only that, it was equipped with Khibiny..." (http://www.kp.ru/daily/26221.4/3104418/)
On April 21, Voice of Russia reported in English, "However, experts say that this plane was equipped with the latest Russian electronic warfare complex. According to this version..." (http://in.sputniknews.com/indian.ruvr.ru/2014_04_21/Russian-Su-24-scores-off-against-the-American-USS-Donald-Cook-5786/)
So it went from one blogger's speculation, to "discussed on the web", to "experts say" without naming the experts because there never were any. IHTFP (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How about this one then, does this warrant a mention? http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/13/politics/russian-fighter-jet-us-destroyer/index.html --Petrim (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed section

On 12 April 2014, the Donald Cook was buzzed 12 times by a Russian Su-24 attack jet, according to an April 14 statement by the Pentagon.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said, "The aircraft did not respond to multiple queries and warnings from Donald Cook, and the event ended without incident after approximately 90 minutes... This provocative and unprofessional Russian action is inconsistent with international protocols and previous agreements on the professional interaction between our militaries." "The Donald Cook is more than capable of defending itself against two Su-24s," he added.

Russian state media including Voice of Russia (now Radio Sputnik) falsely reported that 27 crew members submitted letters of resignation, and that the Su-24 was equipped with the Khibiny jammer that shut down the ship's Aegis Combat System. The claim about letters of resignation was first reported by the Central Information Agency of Novorossiya, which only cited the Pentagon's April 14 statement that made no mention of any resignations. The claim about the Khibiny jammer originates with a Russian blogger's speculation about what may have taken place, and has been dismissed as "nothing but a newspaper hoax" by the Khibiny jammer's Russian manufacturer KRET, which noted that "Khibiny are not installed on Su-24."

What "state-run" news ? The Sun and Fox News equal the truth is POV

• If possible use the formal name of the Russian News, it can well be added it's state-run (but preferably with source.
• To state the Russian information was false and The Sun (London's least reliable newspapar, by the way) and Fox News (according to not so few in the US, an extreme right propaganda machine, also by the way) information as the truth simply is POV. Adjusted Boeing720 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Per repeated discussions at WP:RSN, Fox News and The Sun qualify as reliable sources. As such, the statement here (that Russian state media made false claims which were repeated by The Sun and Fox News) is fine to include, and shouldn't be censored. Better references for this should be able to be provided as well. If you'd like to re-raise the status of Fox News and The Sun at WP:RSN, please do so. Please also see WP:BRD before further reverting - you need to gain consensus for this proposed change. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, I see that the source given is actually the New York Times. That's clearly a high quality source, and it supports all the claims being made (that Russian state media made false claims which were repeated by The Sun and Fox News). It even provides a detailed timeline. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't about the sources !

• To state the Russian information was falsified and The Sun/New York Times/Fox News information as the truth simply is POV. Especially in a case like this, as the primary sources behind all of them are MILITARY. Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV. This formulation is POV. Boeing720 (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. We follow the reliable sources. That's how our verifiability and neutrality policies work. The reliable source cited here (the NY Times) says what what our article says, factually and without biased language. Yes, sometimes that means distinguishing truth from fiction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with New York Times as a reliable source in general. Neither with the fact that "Voice of Russia" is state run etc. But this "event" (which is a part of the article) is related to a military/intelligence matter. And all military/intelligence lie or twist the truth. The New York Times cannot evaluate such matters themselves. They have used military or CIA statements ("proof" which are not reliable but propaganda, or possible propaganda). Hence I say this formulation is not NPOV. With its current formulation, this article kind of states "the Khibiny electronic warfare system cannot defeat the Aegis combat systems" as an absolute fact. Something we surely can't verify. (A bit off-topic, but somewhat related. The American lt.general Ben Hodges in Defense News became very impressed by Ukrainian, ex-USSR EW-weapons. But Russia has apparently even better ones today [1] ) I leave it with this, but under a protest Boeing720 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times isn't reliable for military/intelligence matters... that's a new one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

New York Times presents whatever they want, it's reliable enough (just like the Guardian, the Observer, Le Figaro, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Helsingin Sanomat, El Pais, Berlinske Tidene, Washington Post etc etc) YES, for their own researches. But they cannot determine an outcome of a hypothetical "fight" between the Khibiny EW system and the Aegis combat system. Our article is suggesting that, as of its current formulation. And against two of our five basic pillars. Encyclopedia & NPOV - solely and unnecessary due to current formulation (nothing else, just those...)Boeing720 (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand how you go from the current language we're using to "the Khibiny electronic warfare system cannot defeat the Aegis combat systems". The New York Times source doesn't say this and neither do we. The source isn't even about military/intelligence matters. It's about the media. So honestly you have lost me. (Didn't you say you were leaving?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's all about this.
"In 2014, Russia′s state-run news media outlets ran a series of reports that falsely asserted that during that incident the Su-24, equipped with the Khibiny electronic warfare system, had disabled the ship's Aegis combat systems. The misinformation...etc"

And I think something like this
In 2014, Russia′s state-run news media outlets ran a series of reports asserting that during this incident, the Su-24's Khibiny electronic warfare system had disabled the ship's Aegis combat systems. The Sun and Fox News later stated this was pure nonsense.
would be NPOV as well as better from an encyclopedic point of view. Solely what has been stated. As of now, the article takes side. And "boiled down", it can well be read as I wrote here before. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

About leaving , yes. I gave you the ball for the article. Out of courtesy to more senior contributors. Am I then not entitled to have the final word here ? Boeing720 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"The Sun and Fox News called this pure nonsense" -- Say what? Where does that come from? I think there may be a reading comprehension problem here. That's the opposite of what the source says. Please tell me I've misunderstood your comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I havn't read them. But just change "pure nonsense" to what's stated. As I have said, it's about the formulation. My suggestion:

In 2014, Russia′s state-run news media outlets ran a series of reports asserting that during this incident, the Su-24's Khibiny electronic warfare system had disabled the ship's Aegis combat systems. The Sun and Fox News later stated "WHAT THEY STATED". Boeing720 (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Our source here, the New York Times, explicitly states that the claim made in the Russian state media "was false", and actually originated as a joke article which the Russian state media years later presented as fact. There is no reason to imply that the claim has any factual accuracy. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So Boeing720 hasn't actually read the sources. That settles it for me. A word of advice, don't start typing until you actually know what you're talking about. What a waste of time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(herr Doctor F - you just twist things around )

Nick, I have already wrote "I leave it with this, but under a protest" for the article. But assumed I could have the last word here , at the talk-page. This was obviously a wrongful assumption. After have read New York Times, I wish to propose:

"In 2014, Russia′s state-run news media outlets ran a series of reports asserting that during this incident, the Su-24's Khibiny electronic warfare system had disabled the ship's Aegis combat systems. New York Times later in an article demontrated how Russian propaganda spread from a parody website to Fox News. And that the Russian statements were falsified (ref to NewYorkTimes)"

A quit proper standard way how to express such matters in text at Wikipedia. At least stating (whatever state-run) "that falsely asserted..." - as if this was publicly known at that time. Isn't it really sufficient to use the word "falsely" in the following part ? Logic analogy - of which I prefer the first one:

• 'A stated x=true, later B reveals that A's statement was a lie and that x=false'. Rather than
• 'A made the false statement x=true, later B revealed this was a lie and that x=false'

Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems to boil down to a suggestion to present what's already somewhat wordy text in an even less clear way. There is no reason to imply that this story ever had any truth. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If you just look my suggestion above in Italic style, there is neither any truth or lies to be read in the first part. It's then revealed the Russian info was false. Chronological order. That "Voice of R" lied wasn't a certainty (even if suspected) until later.

I'm not the greatest fan of using WP:this WP:that etc. But under our NPOV-pillar Wronger than wrong,(second and) third statement is, in a way, similar to this. "Even though scientific theories are later proven wrong, the degree of their wrongness attenuates with time as they are modified in response to the mistakes of the past." I think the word 'scientific' well could be replaced with 'historical'. And although the state-run messages were suspected to be propaganda, there was no certainty (of falsified propaganda) initially, was there ? Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Russia 2016

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ostsee-russische-kampfflugzeuge-provozieren-us-kriegsschiff-a-1087045.html