Talk:Kremlin drone attack

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

Include false flag allegations under reception/create false flag section?[edit]

Creating a false flag section may be a little pre-mature, but given the way discussion seems to be going I imagine one will be needed eventually. Given the reaction/discussion ive seen im sure that the false flag allegations should fall under reception but Im not sure the best way to include those. Best wishes and I hope we can stay civil. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a section is premature. But given Russian allegations, I think it should be noted that Russia did not release any evidence to show that Ukraine was behind the explosions. Meanwhile the False-flag accusations (for example) and the possibility it might be ​Russian opposition groups working inside the country. --Nilsol2 (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ISW, quite an authoritative source, states: Russia likely staged this attack in an attempt to bring the war home to a Russian domestic audience and set conditions for a wider societal mobilization. Several indicators suggest that the strike was internally conducted and purposefully staged.
To me a false flag section is not premature anymore with this comment. Being a non-native English speaker I will not add such a section myself, hopefully it helps you to do so  →bertux 15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
State-owned media outlet, Radio Canada, has begun to entertain conspiracy theories about the May 3rd attack, by at least the following day. Radio Canada / Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on May 3rd Was An Inside Job 186.141.137.197 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The false flag allegations are far from a conspiracy theory at this point. I dont have the time to collect sources and write it right now but Ill try to get to that soon. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative term to "attack"?[edit]

Given differing accounts of the facts and interpretations of these facts (including attributions of responsibility), a more neutral title might be "incident" or "event". 88.152.147.241 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah can someone find a different way to say 'alleged attack' it reads terribly annoying Odoacer Rex (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I think incident would work pretty well. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to address it too and would think it would be better if we moved the page to incident and not attack Polalb 2 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Support moving the page to "incident". If it seems relatively uncontroversial Ill make the change. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incident is too vague. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's supposed to be vaguer than "attack". Do you have a better suggestion? 88.152.147.241 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO "2023 Kremlin Drone Incident" is just vague enough to impy anything political, while being descriptive enough to show that it is a major event. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shootdown is a better word. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it a bit more, I think I would support "explosion" most, it is 100% verifiably accurate and gets the point across quite well. Thoughts? Googleguy007 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In accordance with what seems to be a rough consensus I have made the move. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An attack is an attack. Could be self-directed, could be nowhere-directed, could be huge or tiny, effective or attempted, it's still an attack. A statement of fact, not of initiator, intention or direction. It's not the point of a title, or even possible, to render the rest of the article outright unnecessary. A shootdown it wasn't even technically, incident is newspeak and referring to that "pop" as an explosion is inappropriately funny. The Atlantic to name only one usually isn't that prone to hyperbole, with a very similar title, alternatively they have strikes, either is about okay. Leave it alone. -2001:9E8:6A67:F900:A00:27FF:FE34:1184 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is very weird, attack Carry’s an implication, the drones definitely exploded and it’s weird to try to dismiss that, also “newspeak” (or factuality and NPOV) is a goal of Wikipedia. Given that this is an IP with one total edit I’m inclined to ignore. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was carried out by the Russian gov (a significant possibility) with no damage or injuries intended or caused, it wasn't really an attack. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A third possibility: Russian dissidents?[edit]

So says Ilya Ponomarev, former Russian lawmaker who now lives abroad: [1] 2600:1014:B060:AC15:179:D3D5:909:4399 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion of this in a section (to be created once there is more information out) regarding the possible perpetrators/origins of the attack. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-government Russians are the most likely perpetrators. Moscow is far too far away from Ukraine for it to be feasible for someone to have flown a drone from there & it not been detected & brought down before reaching the city centre. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

request for edit[edit]

1. Currently the lead suggest that drone was in fact shot down, for which there is no evidence. Please remove the comma so allegedly apply to both parts of the sentence:

> footage of two drones allegedly targeting the Kremlin, and subsequently being shot down by Russia, was released

2. In the Attack section please add the highlighted text. This is better descriptor and there are some theories that suggest the flag was the indented target.

> An unverified video posted on social media showed an object flying towards the Kremlin before a small explosion occurred near a flagpole on top of the Kremlin Senate dome.

--Nilsol2 (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Both are good copyedits IMO, but Ill make it clear that I included part 2 due to it being a better descriptor, not due to the theories suggesting the flag was the target. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

IMO this is exactly the sort of situation where the infobox "perpetrator" parameter can't capture the nuance of "nobody knows right now, everybody blames somebody else, but some claims are more likely than others", so that parameter is better omitted for now; the article prose does a better job of explaining. -sche (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Either remove parameter or leave as 'disputed'. 'unknown' another option. The choices currently presented are verging on opinion - partly because there could be others. I'm tempted to boldly delete but will leave for now. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2023[edit]

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kremlin drone explosion → Kremlin drone attack – While we can describe this as having been one single attack, we cannot say it was one single explosion, because the number of drones that hit the Kremlin was two. These two explosions can be described as composing a single attack but we cannot do the same with the word "explosion". A new title is needed. Super Ψ Dro 10:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I usually defer to RM’s, but this would clearly have been suitable for bold move.  —Michael Z. 06:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was moved away from "attack" just last month, due to a variety of concerns, including that it may not have been an attack but a false-flag operation by Russia. So perhaps we could move to "incident" or something. -sche (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my opinion it's pretty unprofessional to hint that Russia has hit the single most important building of its capital so I'd rather not even consider such a theory because I do not believe it's true. Super Ψ Dro 16:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2023 – I haven't decided on the right title, but has a drone come to the Kremlin in previous years with 2023 written on it? IT'S LIKE CALLING THE GEORGE W. BUSH SHOEING INCIDENT THE 2008 GEORGE W. BUSH SHOEING INCIDENT! Parham wiki (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we could do that too. I changed the proposed title. Super Ψ Dro 16:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kremlin_drone_attack&oldid=1215414005"