Talk:US condemns Russian Defense Minister for awarding pilots who intercepted US drone

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

No category for Ukraine conflict[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a category for the Ukraine conflict. Should one be created? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Heavy Water (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, my bad. I could have found that by looking at your article about 'Crimea is a red line'. I just searched "Category:Ukraine" and didn't see it. Sorry! Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Heavy Water (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the very first listed sub-category in Category:Ukraine. Cheers, SVTCobra 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it should be breaking news[edit]

CNN is currently running live updates on the topic on the front page of CNN.com, which led me to believe it would be 'breaking' here, allowing for the story to develop as more info is released.

Both the US and Russia are trying to retrieve the wreckage. Retrieval by Russia would likely be a significant, reportable event that expands the story.

Is 'breaking' here, generally considered within X hours (less than a day or so)? Maybe I'm misunderstanding how to appropriately use the template:breaking. I did read WN:Breaking and thought the event was "a major breaking news event" as potentially a major development in US-Russia relations.

But I could have fallen victim to over-dramatization by CNN (embarassingly).

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Generally it's, as {{breaking}} says, just happening and information is changing quickly. The sources do not describe retrieval efforts or anything ongoing. Heavy Water (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are:
Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I agree we shouldn't call this one "breaking." There is skepticism about the OrenCNN tweet above not showing anything significant regarding ongoing retrieval efforts. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4716397 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4716397 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: The article, which is well written, does not even entertain the Russian point-of-view. The article relies too heavily on US military sources (though I don't know where to classify Janes).
There are tons of sources which provide both sides of this incident and we don't have to go to Russian state-run sources to find them. This is unfortunately one-sided and if you know me, you know where my personal allegiance lies.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4716397 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: The article, which is well written, does not even entertain the Russian point-of-view. The article relies too heavily on US military sources (though I don't know where to classify Janes).
There are tons of sources which provide both sides of this incident and we don't have to go to Russian state-run sources to find them. This is unfortunately one-sided and if you know me, you know where my personal allegiance lies.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Citation question[edit]

The source I recently added from CNN by Katharina Krebs titled "Call between US and Russian officials focused on "causes and consequences" of drone incident, Moscow says"[1] is from a CNN page titled "Russia's war in Ukraine" and contains live updates.

The link I provided takes the reader directly to that specific live update with the title.

Is my citation of the source structured correctly, using the update title rather than the page title?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it later when I hopefully have time for a second review. Meanwhile, if there are any redundant sources (the list is getting rather long now) please trim. An extensive list of sources may seem like the way to go for verifiability, but it also adds a burden on the reviewer. The only thing that needs two sources is the focal event. Cheers, SVTCobra 15:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done (hopefully).
I trimmed sources used for the background/general info. I have also included HTML comments indicating inline citations pointing to the relevant sources per statement, to aid in the review process.
Thanks again,
Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we follow the formal steps, can you resubmit for review? Thanks, SVTCobra 19:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The review is underway. I cannot complete tonight. Sorry. Someone else is free to take over. SVTCobra 00:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian pilots receive state award[edit]

As the worm turns.

CNN reported this[2] just over an hour ago:

Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu has presented state awards to the pilots of the combat aircraft involved in the incident Tuesday over the Black Sea that led to the downing of a US military drone into the water.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the pilots of the Su-27 aircraft had "prevented the violation by the American MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle of the borders of the area of ​​the temporary regime for the use of airspace, established for the purpose of conducting a special military operation," Russia's term for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

An aside; it's a notable use of the term "prevented." It supports the American assertion that the aircraft had not violated Russian airspace and was instead in international airspace.

SVTCobra, if the article is about to be published, do you think we should add a statement about this, to make the article more timely and relevant when its published?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video file is also now available in commons, which could be used in the article (it's used in the wiki article, which should be linked as a sister page): 2023 Black Sea drone incident (an example of the Wikipedia vs Wikinews dilemma).
Camera footage from the drone during the incident
Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was offline for about a week. SVTCobra 07:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We goterdun. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not abandoned, just not reviewed[edit]

Is this article still worth reviewing? I didn't abandon it. It was marked as being reviewed and therefore not to be edited. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael.C.Wright: It was being reviewed, but the reviewer has not made any edits in the past five days so I removed the tag. I know it's not abandoned, but that is the tag used to indicate staleness. I just noticed you added new information. If the article is refocused around that, it may be salvageable (this is known as gatwicking; pure WN:NEWINFO is rarely used in favor of gatwicking). Heavy Water (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New title verbiage[edit]

Sorry about the extra move, again.

I almost re-re-renamed the article to use the word 'intercepting' instead of 'downing.' Shoigu's statement regarding the awards was that the pilots' actions "prevented the violation of the borders of the area..."

The more I think about it, the more I think 'intercepting' is the more neutral term. Any other opinions? Choosing a good title is a challenge for me because I don't want to use click-baity titles and I know they need to be very succinct yet very specific. A complete re-working of the current title would not offend me. Help in that department is always welcome.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I personally don't see a problem with "downing", unlike "aggression" or "violation". And it has been used in headlines: Tensions increase as US recovers downed Chinese "spy balloon" debris, Iran admits downing Ukrainian jet, cites 'human error'. Heavy Water (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4717397 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4717397 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Passed
  • Verifiability: Not ready: The Insider source is the only one source for the new focal event. We need two mutually independent sources focusing specifically on the focal event.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: @Michael.C.Wright.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4717397 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Passed
  • Verifiability: Not ready: The Insider source is the only one source for the new focal event. We need two mutually independent sources focusing specifically on the focal event.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: @Michael.C.Wright.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Done Many apologies. I should have known that. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. --Heavy Water (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per these sources, it's possible: 1. Shoigu nominated the pilots on March 17, Putin confirmed the award-giving, and Shoigu conducted the actual ceremony on Wednesday (Sputnik); 2. Shoigu gave them the awards on March 17/last week, nothing more to say (CNN, Insider); 3. Shoigu awarded them on Wednesday (The Hill).
But then, the White House doesn't (unlike us) suddenly start talking about things five days ex post facto, so Kirby was clearly reacting to an awarding on Wednesday. Having no better solution, I'm going to resort to the "media reports conflicted" strategy. Heavy Water (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was 1) some of the Western sources not fully understanding how the Russian military gives State awards (I didn't/don't) and 2) a translation problem. The Sputnik article says "Shoigu presented for state awards the pilots [emphasis added]" It also says he "awarded Order of Courage [emphasis added]." Then later the article explains it was just a nomination and Putin has to give the award.
Given the confusion though, I agree with you. However, it looks like a typo in our article here: "Media reports conflicted." There is a missing verb.
Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. "Conflicted" is a verb, however, see here. Heavy Water (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pick nits, but...there are other dictionaries that disagree: [3], [4], [5]. Cambridge further clarifies it as "after verb" meaning: "An adjective that only follows a verb."
I think what wiktionary is trying to say is "conflict" can be a verb, but not in the past tense. They don't give an example of "conflicted" as a verb. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for statement re: leasing to Ukraine and Poland[edit]

The source is Janes[6]. I erroneously removed the citation[7] to reduce the number of citations after good feedback from SVTCobra in the first-pass review. If you think it is useful/necessary, I can re-add the statement and source.

My intention for including the statement was to show expanding deployment of drones, especially the MQ-9 series, in the region. Purely background though.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for statement: airmen stationed in Romania[edit]

Similar to the above, I erroneously removed the source[8] for the statement regarding airmen stationed in Romania. It is also background only. Not critical to the article, but certainly enriches one's understanding of the bigger picture.

I can re-add if you think it's valuable.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Background is nearly always good to have, so yeah. Heavy Water (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video doesn't depict a 60-second cut in feed[edit]

The 42-second video does not (can not) depict 60 seconds of feed-loss. The video only depicts roughly 9 seconds. I believe the source for '60 seconds of feed loss' comes from US-EUCOMM's description of the event. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. That was stupid of me. I have corrected it now. Heavy Water (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4717528 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4717528 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: @Michael.C.Wright: As usual, please see edit history. There were a couple of paragraphs at the end I could not verify and had to remove; were they verified by the source you removed earlier? You can add them back in with a/the source in the first 24 hours.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4717528 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: @Michael.C.Wright: As usual, please see edit history. There were a couple of paragraphs at the end I could not verify and had to remove; were they verified by the source you removed earlier? You can add them back in with a/the source in the first 24 hours.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

I apologize for abandoning my review in the middle without even removing the {{under review}} tag. Unforeseen circumstances in meatspace is my best explanation. Glad it got published. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. It got done and your feedback was helpful. And I learned how to Gatwick an article. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:US_condemns_Russian_Defense_Minister_for_awarding_pilots_who_intercepted_US_drone&oldid=4717707"