Talk:Ghost of Kyiv/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled section

On this Ghost here are some thoughts from a military expert, Tom Cooper on his Facebook page.

This thing is completely implausible. AlmeidaBarros (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, and I'm very curious why an account that has been inactive for almost a year would suddenly be used on this article and the AfD to make the same, poor, argument. Smartyllama (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The author is the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. I think it should be irrelevant that Facebook is the medium. Furthermore, I think implausibility is something that can be discussed in the article if reliable sources come to that conclusion, but it's not something we as Wikipedia editors should just declare of ourselves. Nor do I think implausibility is a reason for deletion, as many implausible events have turned out true and many false events are notable enough to warrant articles. Jumper4677 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

the article is pretty clearly about belief in a rumored pilot, it doesn't matter if it's implausible if the rumor genuinely circulated. Frobird (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Belief in a rumored pilot" is not a valid basis for an encyclopedic article. This is a site about facts, not breaking and developing news. Paratrooper450 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

it's a fact that people believe it is true. There's no shortage of sources establishing that, what's missing are sources going over the actual veracity of the belief. I'm just trying to clarify what the article is about, but it looks like you just think it should be deleted. You should talk about that on the AfD page. Frobird (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's fake IdkIdc12345 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am delighted when I quote a person, an expert in the field, and someone says that the source is the medium and not the author. And I satisfy the curiosity of others in a simple and objective way: I edit when, where and how I want. AlmeidaBarros (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This is literally fake

It stems from a myth from a war thunder YouTuber, there's no evidence of any of his claims IdkIdc12345 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the YouTuber who gave the story its legs (and catchy name, and created custom logo). He has since repeatedly called it a 'nice fiction'. He sells merchandise with the logo that he made for this story. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/t0xabf/psa_please_stop_posting_ghost_of_kiev_stuff_its_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/t0vk1t/ghost_of_kyiv_story_originates_from_a_scottish/hyce7wh/ 99.75.173.129 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

truefighter84 believes in him.

"There is zero evidence the "Ghost of Kyiv" exists with Ukrainian authorities not confirming their existence." People said the same thing about Bigfoot and MKultra. The ghost of kyiv is real this is just properganda from the russians to try and make the ukraine forces despair. KEEP THIS UP DO NOT CENSOR FREE SPEECH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefighter84 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Stfu. There's no evidence he exists. Also bigfoot is not real either lmao IdkIdc12345 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Unknown

The videos are faked

(https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-ghost-of-kyiv-video-real) Crazyeditor23 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As Snopes says right under the headline, The "Ghost of Kyiv" may be real, but this video is not. SWinxy (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No evidence he's real though IdkIdc12345 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't remove it

Even if it can't be proven or disproven, keep this page as a symbol of hope for Ukraine 66.154.176.47 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If anything, this is an argument against it. Wikipedia isn't here for propaganda purposes 177.225.152.202 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No it's propaganda and doesn't fit on Wikipedia. Fuck your hope. IdkIdc12345 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

    The article should remain, nut should be specified as an urban legend until treated accordingly, I see no need for such language here.

real

real 73.78.44.127 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

videos are from Digital Combat Simulator

According to Snopes, these videos are all fake. also, they are blatantly fake unless you think Playstation 3 graphics are "realistic." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-ghost-of-kyiv-video-real/ 69.127.80.46 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please review the subtitle under the headline of the Snopes article: The "Ghost of Kyiv" may be real, but this video is not. SWinxy (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

When I came across this, the digital combat simulator video was already covered in the article so I went ahead and added snopes as a reference in this edit. --N8 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

The footage of the plane is fake. Source: UkraineNumbaOne (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also the article is not about the video, but about the unconfirmed person(s). Please read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. SWinxy (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 by lemomngrasscap (media response)

suggestion: Add media and online responses, acknowledging important media events like Poroshenkos's tweet and art made by various communities. like posters, wallpapers, drawings, designs, shirts, and metalwork and any other art. And add the response from countries and people lemongrasscap (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot include copyrighted material on Wikipedia, except for those that abide by the WP:NFCC criteria (unless the author generously releases their work unto the public domain). As for media reactions, those also need to be sourced properly like the rest of the article (that is, the citations would mention people's reactions, not the reactions themselves). SWinxy (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Former President Confirming?

I suggest adding this perhaps?

https://twitter.com/poroshenko/status/1497293195763408905?cxt=HHwWkoCzodCOuscpAAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.204.209 (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

He is real and not an urban legend

He is real and was commented on by the former Vice President on twitter, he is a real person and is in the sky active or is refueling and grabbing snacks 2001:8003:3695:0:4D4:38A5:245B:D4D2 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

The Ghost of Kyiv has been proven to be a true Ukrainian fighter pilot that has, so far, taken down 9 Russian planes. 2A00:23C7:608F:AB01:38D1:98F4:F231:5CD1 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done: There is no edit request here. Kingsif (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

85.75.58.66 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

THIS MF IS REAL

Sources for the claim its real? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Real or Synthetic?

Reuters seems to think that a provided video is a capture from some combat simulation software : https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-animation-ukrainianjet-idUSL1N2V035G i.e. the story "downed 6+" may quite well be fakelore. ZwergAlw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We do say all of that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of kiyv

Ghost is down now respect 🕊 2001:14BB:CB:21FE:144B:7175:72BE:5FA9 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you mean shot down, source?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

He not even real Johny16cz (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

10 confirmed.

There was a video I saw where the ghost of Kyiv already has 10 confirmed kills. 41.189.248.78 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

? Tweet it or something? Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Fake

The clips where he shots down Russian aircrafts are from video game Johny16cz (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Add that the clip was already proven fake, because it came from a video game. According to the reliable source Kotaku. [1] 2001:4455:364:A800:64F3:4255:1433:C28 (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It may have been, but no one has Cleary shown the whole story is (and we do say it maybe fake) so I unsure what the video will add.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done. Already stated in the article that the video used is fake: "Computer-generated footage of a dogfight and downing featuring the Ghost of Kyiv has been made in the 2013 video game Digital Combat Simulator and uploaded by a YouTube user. The uploader openly stated in the description that the footage was not real and was merely a tribute to the Ghost of Kyiv, real or fake, to keep fighting." ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 10:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (2)

The existence of the ghost of kyiv has been confirmed by the Ukrainian gouvernement. 2A02:8440:521B:6F00:662F:9FE4:79F3:3362 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No, it has not. There is no confirmation from the Ukrainian Government. Alin2808 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Last Sentence of Introduction is Speculation/Opinion

The introduction concludes with "It is highly unlikely that the Ghost is a real flying ace, but his status was credited as a major morale boost for the Ukranian population." This is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moreover, no citations are given for it. It should be deleted or rephrased to state a fact. For instance, if the author believes such an ace does not exist because a news report says an American general discounted it as unlikely, it could be phrased as "American military sources suggested such an ace is highly unlikely to exist."

The term "Urban legend" has a similar problem, as its common use carries an implication of falsehood; the first sentence should be edited to clarify that an urban legend need not be false. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead does not strictly need to use references to back up claims, so long as they are repeated in the body of the article, per WP:LEADCITE. The statement you quoted was just added within the last 20 minutes, and might be refactored very soon. It is also been supported by the following statement at the end of the article: Task & Purpose argued that while it was highly unlikely there were even six air-to-air takedowns in total, given their rarity in the 21st century and Ukraine's strong missile defence, the Ghost of Kyiv was "real enough" as the spirit of the Ukrainians. As for the urban legend, it is directly supported by an inline citation. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball and cannot predict as to who/what the Ghost is, but the sources say it is unlikely to be real. SWinxy (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:LEADCITE - unless information is likely to be challenged, references should not be introduced to the lead section. Also, the lead should be a full summary of main elements of the article, of which the morale element is important. The sentence you quote is a summary of information that is fully cited later in the article, see the morale section and especially the Task & Purpose source. As you have challenged the sentence, perhaps we add this reference to it.
If you feel there is a big enough issue with the implications of "urban legend", you can attempt to clarify - with a source, of course. Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Still though, we don't have any good information either way on whether the Ghost of Kyiv is real, so the article should be unbiased and just state that it's an urban legend without mentioning either way whether the legend is likely to be true or not, simply removing the statement would be the best way to keep the article unbiased and focused only on the facts WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.125.250.79 (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth - we have at least one RS saying highly unlikely, which seems to be a relevant part of the media coverage of the specter. Deliberately ignoring that would be POV. Don't talk about these "fact" things lol Kingsif (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

origin of ghost of kiev

Add that the myth was started by ScottishKoala on Twitter. He later admitted he faked it to sell merch and got the info from a man on discord, I can provide links. Also none of his kills are confirmed IdkIdc12345 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the timestamps you alone have uncovered, because I have seen reliable sources that traced the very first mention to a benign Twitter thread just sharing videos, and people retweeting/replying really went with it. Any chance some random guy claiming he invented what by all accounts seems like a spontaneous phenomenon is - gasp - bullshitting? I have no doubts he has decided to make merch from it, maybe used the nickname first and kept exaggerating as it took off, but inventing something viral on purpose is hard. The masses make it happen at random. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Found the tweet you're referring to, and the followup one. We can't say it was faked or that it is real, unless you provide reliable sources for either direction. SWinxy (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The user previously started a thread saying it was all invented by a Youtuber with custom merch, too, and again didn't even link the account. Maybe a disruption warning is needed - or at least a message saying show an RS or stop asking about it. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You guys literally deleted the previous thread before I could reply with anything. His account is Sc0ttishKoala. It takes a few minutes to see where the term was first mentioned IdkIdc12345 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It stayed up for hours despite being off topic forum discussion, this thread only gets a pass for positing it as a request to update the article, however fractious. But since RS do not name or even refer to Mr Koala's tweets (and, in fact, do to others), guess what isn't being added to the article. Kingsif (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Having done some of my own research on this, including checking ScottishKoala's public discord server (Where the first reference to the Ghost of Kyiv from Koala comes from, as well as supposed admissions it's fake), it seems like he may have had a hand in popularizing the name, but didn't invent the idea of the ace pilot by itself. If any mention becomes warranted, it would be that; but I doubt it is. The merch part however, is verifiably false. Not only did he not create the design that's been plastered around, but he has repeatedly stated an unwillingness to sell the idea while it's not known if the Ghost is real. He goes on to say that if he did, only after their fictional status was confirmed, it would be non-profit (An example of him saying this is seen here) Bear in mind some tweets on the issue have seemingly been deleted, making what is left a confusing fragmented mess. However, I do have this tweet and this tweet showing the origin of the design that's been passed around as something Koala was trying to sell, just because he signal boosted the original image. The shirt designs using the design are not licensed or otherwise approved by the artist, to my knowledge, nor made by Koala. Just wanted to clear the air as best I could, first time using the talk section so, I apologize if anything's iffy or if this doesn't help at all. --TheOddOracle (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi TheOddOracle - your message does stray into WP:FORUM territory, but thank you for contributing to this. Independent user research from you and the user above are deemed about as useful as each other in terms of improving the article; no WP:Reliable sources have bothered trying to identify users that may have invented or popularised part of the myth, as the notable aspect is clearly its spread around social media as a whole. You have enlightened me that there seems to be a massive underground of social media users who really care about meme makers, though, which I am sure will be useful to some publications when they focus more and more on online communities. Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the Name

Should it be added that the name for the Ghost of Kyiv was likely inspired by the Ghosts of Razgriz from the Ace Combat series? S10342488 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No. WP:V Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Editnotice

Moved from Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Ghost of Kyiv

 – * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

{{FAQ|Talk:Ghost of Kyiv}}

Hi, I would like there to be an editnotice to Talk:Ghost of Kyiv with the page's FAQ. It's currently high-traffic with a lot of talk discussion. Thanks! SWinxy (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Created. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

mention by armed forces of ukraine

the armed forces of Ukraine have "confirmed" the existence of the ghost of kiev and claimed he has taken down 10 enemy combatants https://twitter.com/ArmedForcesUkr/status/1497989361798889473 lemongrasscap (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed with the same photo... I'd say the info should be added to the article but everyone should still beware of it.

Edit: Nevermind, the twitter page literally says it's an unofficial page. Alin2808 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

it was retweeted by the official defense of Ukraine https://twitter.com/defenceu lemongrasscap (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. But they didn't make an official statement about it. It could be a retweet for the morale boost. Alin2808 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

yes but it would be the same if they made an official statement, threes probably no way to know unless a third party confirms it. them retweeting it isnt actually much different than if they tweeted it themselves lemongrasscap (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

But there is a difference. It's not an official statement because it's not from them or published by them. I'm skeptical at this announcement, and I think it would be in our best interest to wait until an independent source verifies the claim. SWinxy (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for an indipendant 3rd party, but i also think its worth mentioning it, alongside with poroshenko's tweet. lemongrasscap (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The account that sent out the tweet just claims to be an "Unofficial page of support for the Armed Forces" (Google translate from the Ukrainian description). So in my opinion it's even less reliable than Poroshenko, as we don't even know who runs the account. I think we should wait on this one and see if an actual official confirmation or an independent source comes. Alin2808 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Confirmation by former president

The following discussion 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.

---

Petro Poroshenko, former President of Ukraine, has published a photograph of the Ghost of Kyiv on Twitter. Would it be correct for someone to add the photo and update some information? For example, this is confirmation that the Ghost of Kyiv is real. The Twitter post: https://twitter.com/poroshenko/status/1497293195763408905

Sorry if I have done something wrong, this is my first time suggesting edits on Wikipedia. 58.84.204.71 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no reliable source here and no evidence so it should not be taken as fact, but i would say (in my opinion) that it is important to acknowledge Poroshenko's tweet in the article. lemongrasscap (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2022/02/26/6219757d22601d2e038b45bf.html

I believe this is also related to the picture mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8240:8610:D4A3:8AF5:E6BC:66F3 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Government has confirmed the reality of the Ghost of Kyiv as seen here https://amp.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2022/02/26/6219757d22601d2e038b45bf.html 154.127.0.132 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

He is confirmed as a real person 2600:1702:48A0:1CF0:5F0:862C:71B6:2104 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

no, this isnt confirmation, this is still just the same tweet from the former president, just in the form of the article, the tweet isnt a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osty2018 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Since Marca is an RS, we can use it as a secondary source to attribute the fact that Poroshenko has posted a photograph claiming it to be the Ghost of Kyiv, and thus that it is real. We cannot use such a source to say undoubtedly that it is real. Kingsif (talk) 07:50, 26 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

(moved by lemongrasscap from "== Semi confirmed ==" and deleted "== Semi confirmed ==" for relevancy lemongrasscap (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)) -->>>

The wiki article says the ghost is likely urban legend, however the former president who is active in duty now stated the ghost is real and shared a photo of him in his pilot gear. Not a true confirmation but some further evidence it could be more true that legend. 75.70.154.204 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We can say "the former president" claimed it was true", but no more than that. Ans that maybe well be wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 27 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

(moved by lemongrasscap from "== This might be confirmed ==" and deleted "== This might be confirmed ==" for relevancy lemongrasscap (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) -->>>

I believe this is confirmed to be real. I have a source here: https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2022/02/26/6219757d22601d2e038b45bf.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eidicevocracy (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The former president of Ukraine said it was real (which we have included in the article). The source provided (which is also cited in the article) is more reporting on the ex-president's confirmation, not confirming it themselves. For us to include the confirmation, we would need a source that independently verifies the claim. SWinxy (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay. That makes sense, sorry for providing a bad link. Eidicevocracy (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Eidicevocracy

please move this to "== Confirmation by former president ==" lemongrasscap (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They arent real, they're proven to be fake SWinxy [2]. 2001:4455:364:A800:64F3:4255:1433:C28 (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We need non wp:primary sources to says its confirmed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dude, Kotaku isn't a "primary source". 2001:4455:364:A800:64F3:4255:1433:C28 (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because a picture maybe fake, does not mean the story is, but I indented my reply as a reply to the OP's request.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 27 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.

Claimes

We do not accept either side's claims as fact, nor should we imply they are. Unless independent third parties or the side whose losses are being reported say it's a fact, it's only a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful to point to the disputed text, but you have to appreciate context. The article was not using Wikivoice to say words to the effect of "Ukraine definitely shot down six Russian planes". It said: [there are social media claims that the Ghost of Kyiv took down six planes alone] However, commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi only confirmed six total Russian planes downed. The attribution, to a Ukrainian military official, is another way of saying "Ukraine claim", i.e. not in Wikivoice, and the use of "confirm" is pertinent to the point of including the sentence anyway - the comparison of the Ghost of Kyiv to the entire Ukrainian force, per Ukrainian numbers. The article was in no way "accepting [Ukraine's] claims as fact", it was making it pretty clear it was a claim (without using the word that makes more drama than content most of the time) and merely referencing it in comparison to the article subject. Even reading the sentence alone it seems harmless, but the nature is obvious in context, which should be paid attention to before making all-caps edit summaries on the first edit, whatever you were going for with that. At least you didn't suggest including an opposing Russian claim for false balance. This is a long reply, but making quickdraw edits, actually distorting things that are fine when context is appreciated, is unproductive (as is leaving talkpage messages about DN) when there are more important content disputes relating to this war to resolve. Kingsif (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it kind of is, as we said "he confirmed they had shot down 6 planes". At this time we must be very careful to ensure our article is neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless recognition of the enemy, to confirm Shooting down an aircraft in your own territory, you should have the aircraft's wreckage, its serial number, pilot's body if he was killed or picture for him/interview with him revealing his name, ID and other information in case of he was captured. If the aircraft wasn't downed in your territory, at least show the gun camera film that confirm the shooting by canon or air-to-air missile. I'm agree with Slatersteven, I'm not going to say it's propaganda, but shooting down those 6 aircrafts plus 2 Il-76 without material evidence till the moment is pure claims. Same goes for Russian claims of shooting down number of UKA's jets.--Amr F.Nagy (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for a separate article about semi-mythical "super-soldiers" as a whole

I'm not sure if these is enough independent research for one, but if there is, create a page about them, examples including this article, Lei Feng, Juba the sniper and others used for propaganda purposes.--47.33.186.77 (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting proposition, I might have to see if there has been any coverage at some later time, but I, at least, would also be interested. Kingsif (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Lei Feng's story is about how loyal is he and how he died in a factory, not mythical at all. And Juba the sniper had footage, even though he was not a real guy there was a lot of proof that the people that created his identity actually did the claimed things, again not so mythic. Ghost of Kiev have no video recording except for single one. I dont consider some soldier dying working in a factory becoming legend and a group of people recording what they do and compiling under pseudonym "Juba" is not as same as entirely myrhic and cryptic person. --88.230.232.244 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The See also section's purpose is to link to articles related in one way or another. As the facts change, these links will also change. In this instance, there are good reasons for why fellow editors added them: they are all symbols, real or fake. This being an unconfirmed person--no confirmation for either argument--we link. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention by the Security Service of Ukraine

In a post on facebook, the Security Service of Ukraine mentioned the Ghost of Kyiv as having shot down 10 airplanes. Here's the post. This seems to be where that twitter account got the information from and what the article from 5 Kanal (already cited in this article) was quoting. Think this is the closest to an official confirmation that we have right now and I think it should be added to the article. Alin2808 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Still not a third-party source. But yes I think we can add they have claimed he is real. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on that. I'll add it to the history section. Hopefully an independent source will come up in the future. Alin2808 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

" He " is not proper. It's an unknown pilot. It could be a she. Therefore they makes sense. 126.86.62.249 (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Being discussed above, make your comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Please discuss above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Photo in the confirmation by the ex-president

The photo from the "confirmation" by the ex-president Poroshenko where he identifies the pilot was taken from a 2019 article 109.252.65.193 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this was already identified in an article some time ago (can't actually remember where) and has also been recently reported by DW: Here. Should be added to the article since it appears to not be mentioned yet. By the way, the photo was first published here, again according to DW. Alin2808 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

But it is not a confirmation he is real, its confirmation the former president says he is, and we do already mention that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it's worth mentioning that the photo is from 2019. Someone already added the info to the article by the way. And who knows, the pilot in the photo could still be the Ghost of Kyiv and it just so happens that he was featured as testing the new helmet back then. Odd use of that old photo but possible, no way to know for sure as of now. Alin2808 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of OffGuardian

I would note that the use of OffGuardian is not RS enough to be included in the lead, let alone to be used as supporting text for the claim it's a hoax. Several media bias websites / sources consider OffGuardian to be anti-Ukraine. I've removed the source from the article, but welcome thoughts on whether to re-instate. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep it out. We need to respect RS. Nerguy (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s the right call. Thank you. —Michael Z. 00:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Content

Is not confirmed as a hoax yet, page needs edited to say "potential hoax." 2600:1009:B104:F043:80F:1450:9854:9B1D (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been addressed by changing it to "disputed and unconfirmed". Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

he?

in the lead paragraph the word "he" is used, but in the same paragraph it is stated that it is not clear that this person is real, let alone what their gender is. i propose removing the gendered language, just in case they is a woman. 74.46.253.250 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I came here after reading the article and thinking the same thing. Unless the Ukrainian Air Force is explicitly limited only to men, the article should be gender neutral. Aquova (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Does it matter? The prevailing assumption is that it's a man and, if you believe him, Poroshenko claims it's a man. If it does turn out to be a woman instead, it can be corrected. For now, I see no reason it needs to be changed. Ninjasr (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

At this time the only claim we have is that it is a man, it thus seems logical to say he. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Security Service of Ukraine called the Ghost of Kyiv a he. See the above link to their facebook post. So it seems that the pilot is a man. Alin2808 (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If it is real it is a he. They are not woke in Ukraine. Nerguy (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are thousands of women who serve in the Ukrainian military and although female Ukrainian fighter pilots are rare, they exist and so gender neutral language should be used unless the identity of the pilot can be confirmed. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

All official (the SBU) and close to official (Poroshenko's claim) sources call the Ghost a 'him'. So, since there is no other source that says the contrary, why change it? Alin2808 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. After looking at those sources, using masculine language is justified for now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should use gender-neutral language. I don't think it reasonable that because the former president used 'he' means that we should use 'he'. After all, we aren't taking his word that the Ghost of Kyiv is real, so why would Poroshenko be the authority? i.e. we aren't sourcing him for evidence that the Ghost of Kyiv is a real person. SWinxy (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the thing, it's not only Poroshenko that used 'he'. The Security Service of Ukraine also did in their post (here or you can check the link to the 5 Kanal report about it in the article). And the SBU is an official source, sure as of now it can't be 100% confirmed if he's real or not but it's certain that he's a he. Alin2808 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• thank you Alin2808. if google translate is to be believed then the facebook post does say "he", but translating only the first two words "Його називають" returns "It is called". so i am confuse. 74.46.253.250 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

According to wiktionary "Його" is the genitive form of "him" or "its" and "він" means "he". Maybe someone who knows Ukrainian can further confirm? Alin2808 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I don't speak Ukrainian, I do speak Czech. "Jeho" in Czech is primarily masculine, so I assume it's about the same in Ukrainian, considering it (presumably) stems from the same root. Ninjasr (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I used to speak Ukrainian but im not so good now, i pretty sure "Його" refers to masculine.

personally i think using gender natural language would be best, as we dont have enough sources to accurately identify there gender. lemongrasscap (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (2)

File:Ghost of Kyiv.jpg

DrowMerliss (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Does not appear to be any context for this image. Likely composited from copyrighted works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@DrowMerliss, is this your work? The description on commons says Fan art of the "Ghost of Kyiv" made by Ukrainian designer which implies that it isn't you. Could you confirm? SWinxy (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy, Yes its my work. The Ukrainian designer its me. To prove it I can send you the screenshot of photoshop session but I don't know how to do it here. DrowMerliss (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@DrowMerliss: I added your image to the commons category. I say one fan art is enough for the article. Alin2808 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think this is the problem that comes with the inclusion of fan art in articles like these: everyone wants their own art to be in the article, and we're gonna get many requests like this asking why their work can't be used while for some reason the current one is... ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I nominated this, but tag was reverted without discussion. I don't see what the problem is, since everything is reliably sourced and coherent. Shtove (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For a start this is (in effect) an ongoing event so it is way too early to judge what final form this article, will take. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Its too premature to nominate it for GA. The article is not in a stable condition and is liable to change significantly in the coming days and weeks (it's still not clear whether this person even exists, for example). This means its a quick-fail on criterion 5. I was meant to leave a talk page comment about it but was called away to deal with other non-Wikipedia issues. I should crosslink to WT:GAN#Premature nominations. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar plot in 2021 video

I've found that the legend of this ghost is similar to the plot of video made in 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM8tXUz2q0c. Same fighter (MiG-29 - not Su-27), same amount of first destroyed planes (6 - not 4 or 5 e.g.), same name (Ghost - not Sky Knight e.g.). Also in some fakes DCS was used too.

I think it will be usefule to right about this exellent video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.34.240.224 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

PLeae read wp:or and wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have seen the video as well (youtube recommendations) and it does seem to be the source of inspiration for the Ghost of Kyiv story, but there is no reliable source saying this is the case, see Slatersteven reply. Alin2808 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oleksandr Oksanchenko

Some appear to link "Grey Wolf" to the story of the Ghost of Kyiv. In this article it's claimed that he was indeed the Ghost, though this particular article doesn't strike me as a reliable source. In this article it's said that "Some are linking Oksanchenko to the growing myth of the 'Ghost of Kyiv' - a now legendary fighter pilot claimed to have shot down 10 Russian planes."

Asking for an opinion on this, should the information be added to the wikipedia article or should we wait for newer information to surface? (as nothing seems to be official about his connection to the story of the Ghost of Kyiv) Alin2808 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

These sources don't seem to be reliable enough to connect Oksancheko to the Ghost of Kyiv in any meaningful way beyond rumors. I'd recommend against including them. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I do remember some sources claiming he/she added some 4 kills to these 6 later.☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Some are linking Oksanchenko to the growing myth of the 'Ghost of Kyiv'" - assisted, no doubt, by the fact Wikipedia acts as an echo-chamber for this propaganda. Shtove (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Well as we do not say he is real, and we have in fact fought not to do so, no we are not (in case anyone might take the above seriously) an echo chamber. Except in the sense we echo what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

PLease read wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

The guy edited it to be fake. 2601:204:4003:26F0:29EA:A4AF:5C42:F2BD (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Add Category:Propaganda legends -- this wartime propaganda story is similar to Angels of Mons or The Crucified Soldier which are also in that category. Endwise (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I would rather wait till it's all over and we know for sure. But yes, at this time this category MAY fit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with waiting. A week or three won't hurt, and it seems likely to me that in a few weeks there will be more information to confirm either "real" or "urban legend" status. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Later I also agree to hold for a while on this. Especially in light of recent news that might help elucidate things beyond doubt. (or possibly muddy them - who knows really?)

@Endwise: I'm marking this as "answered" for the time being. If WP:RSs can surface some clearer information about this topic than what's already covered in the article please re-activate as indicated by the yellow box or create a new req. if appropriate. --N8 06:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Endwise: It seems like the only primary concern expressed from editors above (myself included) was timing. Well - I went ahead and updated this and here's why: In more of my reading I'm finding sources take the default position that this topic is a legend. The FAQ on this page and article sources indeed already use the term "urban legend". I'm also seeing the propaganda label applied more frequently. On top of that, the text of this article still explicitly leaves room for the possibility that the character is a real person. As best I can tell, that open possibility is still consistent with sources. Lastly— It's easy to change back later if needed.

I've also wikilinked propaganda right in the lead because I think one point of confusion may be whether or not propaganda implies intent to deceive or strategic disinformation. Based on what I'm reading, even if GoK is a real person, the story about that person still qualifies as propaganda. ...and that lines up with some of the more recent WP:RSs as well.

Lastly - thanks for the suggestion. Hopefully my lengthy comment above is adequate reference for future editors asking about the categories topic. --N8 07:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your decision (and think it probably should have been done at the outset). SWinxy (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda

Why do you tip toe around the topic with politically correct language like "morale booster for ukrainians" – when you should be calling it what is it outright, ukrainian propaganda. 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:72:3C57:37CA:63D8 (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that call it propaganda? Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutely hysterical that Twitter propaganda promulgating video game footage (DCS) would not only have a Wiki page, but being called anything other than pie-in-the-sky propaganda. 135.23.80.41 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

confirmed to be real?

If he has not been confirmed to be real why is it on the website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.5.225 (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Because it uses designated reliable sources, which give it a foundation of notability and preclude common sense. Shtove (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

What if all of the sources used to promote this hoax are part of a social engineering campaign? 135.23.80.41 (talk) 135.23.80.41 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy, God, they all have articles and no proof they are real. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, but the Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy and God weren't contrived by some coked-up journalist on the payroll of MI6. Shtove (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe not, but the fact he is alleged to exist is real. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv Post

The Kyiv Post twitter claims 49 kills, which is obviously ridiculous. Should it still be included in the claims section? https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1501924542259814407

jonas (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope. "49 kills" in this context is an exceptional claim that should require an even higher level of scrutiny than usual. If your obviously ridiculous characterization was meant to convey that this could be included as a ridiculous claim you might consider asking at Talk:Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis but I think it's still WP:OR until a WP:RS says it's ridiculous. --N8 00:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request -- overcategorization

Category:Flying aces is in the parent category tree to Category:Ukrainian flying aces and is WP:OVERCAT. Please remove the category Category:Flying aces, as it is already included as part of the Ukrainian flying aces category. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The claim is now 49 aerial victories

The Indpenendent in the UK is now citing Kyiv Post as crediting the Ghost of Kyiv with 49 aerial victories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedAndAfraid (talk • contribs) 04:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is paywalled for me. Can you (or someone with a subscription) quote the exact supporting text? Fieari (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's the excerpt I think this may refer to:

The ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ has shot down 49 Russian planes since Vladimir Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, according to the Kyiv Post.

I didn't see where The Independent gave any further sourcing details so I don't know exactly what publication from Kyiv Post they were citing. They might be referring though to this tweet by @KyivPost made on March 10th. As some pointed out on twitter, the claimed number "49" exactly matches what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed on the same day represented all Russian aerial losses in Ukraine. (WP:SYNTH alert: This might be why some now suggest GoK is a composite for the ukrainian air forces). I found this except more interesting:

Debates are likely to continue over whether the ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ has been fabricated by the Ukrainian government, or whether it is a role played by more than one person.

--N8 03:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Good Article Nomination

I believe the last sourced edit was four days ago, so the article has had time to settle and is ripe for nomination. Shtove (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it, as it is still an unfolding story and so can't be stable. Very premature. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's still way too early for a GAN. I mean, we don't even have a clear, reliable source that talks about what is behind the Ghost of Kyiv: was there a pilot? were there several pilots? was it mean to represent the whole Ukrainian Air Force? Who made this story first and why? We don't know any of this. Alin2808 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Evidence of death

The last entry here is 25 February 2022 [edit: it's 01 March], so I think we can take it as evidence that the ghost is dead. Shtove (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that would be wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not even OR, the Twitter account is not a source! SWinxy (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Untitled section 1 March 2022

How is everyone still taking this rumor seriously? Has everyone lost their collective minds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oknevermind (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Santa Claus is rumored to not exist, but he has been ingrained in popular culture. Real or fiction, there is somewhat of a consensus that the Ghost of Kyiv is notable. SWinxy (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's straight propaganda - not something ingrained in popular culture. Wikipedia clearly has problems with edits organized by PR agents, but this is a complete mockery. Shtove (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The point of comparing it to Santa was to make the point that fictitious things do not make things non-notable. You have been here much longer than me, enough to know that there is no cabal. SWinxy (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a fake, images of a videogame, notable this? LOL, a serious encyclopedia does not keep these articls -->[3]--Kirk39 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Pérák, the Spring Man of Prague wikipedia does keep "these" articles. Whether he's real or not, he is known around the world. And we don't even know if he's fake or real yet. Alin2808 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

We know he's likely to be fake, the earliest mention of the Ghost of Kyiv I can find happens to be unsourced, coming from a War Thunder YouTuber. Here's the tweet. Additionally, it is technically impossible to score that many kills on air targets (particularly fighters) in the allotted fuel time on the Fulcrum. At best, you get about 40 minutes of fuel, but in combat actually fighting with your enemy, due to the need for extra engine performance, that fuel load drops to roughly 15 minutes. Given time needed to rearm, refuel, and send the fighter back up, you won't be able to score that many kills against far superior aircraft and survive. I find it funny the first mention of this Ghost comes from a War Thunder YouTuber, and not well trusted sources, or from an official source in Ukraine. Senhara (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree on that. Though it is possible that he returned to base several times and got lucky with some of his victories, if he is real that is. Anyway, what I think is that the Ghost of Kyiv is in fact several pilots made into this legendary pilot. But enough talk, remember WP:NOTFORUM. Alin2808 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

What?? A fake of 3 days ago? Pérák, the Spring Man of Prague: ah ok, 3 encyclopedias that have the article, what notability... (Cit. John McEnroe: You cannot be seriuos).--Kirk39 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please... I'm begging you to read the FAQ: Regarding the videos, a widely-circulated Snopes article on the Ghost of Kyiv says (directly beneath the headline) that The "Ghost of Kyiv" may be real, but this video is not, referring to a particular video, not to all of the videos circulating on the internet. The video in question, as discussed in the article, never claimed to be real. SWinxy (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary - I've been here long enough to know that Wikipedia is a labyrinth of sources and interpretations, parts of which are commanded by propagandists. Linking to some hand-waving dismissal doesn't alter the fact. Shtove (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in fact it's been well documented in external media that there are strong political agendas being pushed on Wikipedia; something notably not well explained on the site itself. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either shockingly and surprisingly ignorant, or is aware, and is choosing to mislead.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Myth" or "disputed"

I can see that there are a number of Wikipedia contributors who would like to see the Ghost of Kyiv referred to as a disputed character, rather than a myth. Could the interested contributors please provide citations of this "dispute" that the Ghost of Kyiv is in fact a real individual. The citations in this article refer to the Ghost of Kyiv as a myth, urban legend and a product of propaganda. No where in the text is a "dispute" of identity discussed. If the opening paragraph to this article refers to the Ghost of Kyiv as a disputed character, where are the citations in the text claiming that this Ghost is in fact one individual pilot? Continuing to refer to the Ghost of Kyiv as a disputed character goes beyond what is actually described in the text and is violating WP:NPOV. If the description of the Ghost is to be one of a dispute, citations need to be added to cite this "dispute". ElderZamzam (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the dispute is that the Ukrainian government has released statements saying that he is real. Some other sources (for example, snopes) say they can't confirm this either way. Other sources go a step farther and say that they simply don't believe the Ukrainian government, and that he's simply made up. It's unlikely you'll find a single source that discusses it as a dispute, but rather that there are multiple sources that disagree with each other. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a valid point that the multiple sources disagree with each other. In that case then dispute should have its own subsection discussing the multiple sources disagreeing with each other. ElderZamzam (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As some people believe he is real, and there is nothing to indicate he is not. He is not a myth as such. So no I do not think at this time we can say it's a myth, better to say disputed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

In the lead, the use of the word "disputed" actually supports the POV that GoK is probably not a real person. That sentence can be read —without changing its meaning— as though it says

The Ghost of Kyiv ... is the nickname given to a disputedpossibly fictional MiG-29 Fulcrum flying ace credited with shooting down six Russian planes over Kyiv during the Kyiv offensive on 24 February 2022

Every source that suggests GoK "might be a myth", "is probably a legend", or "could be a composite" is acknowledging dispute over the "single pilot" narrative. (For claims of that narrative read the "background and claims" section.) Just as MOS:DOUBT indicates that "alleged and accused are appropriate [words] when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined," so too is disputed appropriate for this topic in which fantasy/fiction is asserted but undetermined. To replace "disputed" with "mythical" would actually compromise WP:NPOV because it eliminates the possibility/POV that GoK is a real person. It's important to remember that (last I checked) sources still leave that possibility open — however slim it may be.

The burden is actually on us to determine that a majority of reliable sources can confirm GoK is a fabrication before we can reliably say this topic is no longer in dispute and GoK is definitely a myth/legend/composite. For the time being, that's unlikely because outside of the Ukrainian military offering that confirmation, few sources will have access to information they need to make that confirmation.

In the meantime, that doesn't mean we can't also use words like legend and propaganda which can both apply even if the GoK turns out to be just one real person. Read the article leads on those two terms to confirm.

Incidentally, I also added a quote to the previous discussion earlier today (Debates are likely to continue...) which also seems relevant here. --N8 07:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a note; there was no "Kyiv offensive" on 24 February 2022, as claimed in the quote above.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@ConfusedAndAfraid, the Kyiv offensive (2022) article describes that topic as an ongoing "theatre of operation" that began on Feb 24. If that needs to be corrected, please provide a source here and also at Talk:Kyiv offensive (2022) with updated information. --N8_wilson 15:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

A theatre of operation is not the same thing as an offensive.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @Mathglot has proposed supposed as a suitable alternative which I think also works here. --N8_wilson 15:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Journal.ie claim doesn't speak to existence of the pilot

Slatersteven, I see the claim on March 3rd if that's what you were referencing in the edit summary. I think the question of identity and record is different from one of existence though. GoK could feasibly be both a real person and an undisclosed identity. Is there something else I might be missing here? I'm open to rewording, relocating, or even removal if appropriate. --N8_wilson 17:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there is nothing special about March 2nd, so why is this date significant, given that a day later they did in fact claim he was real. The fact they have not named him may be significant, but it might not be. So it's hard to see any real justification for the inclusion of this (and I am unsure the source even supports it). Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

March second is the date of publication. I included it in prose both so that readers can see how facts have developed over time and as an editing aid for the future. If this claim is ever overturned (official sources do provide identity) then future editors and readers don't have to dig through sources to see which claim came when.

A verifiable identity of GoK provided by official sources would resolve doubts about the status of this rumored pilot. For the same reason, the fact that this is missing seems similarly significant: sources are unable to resolve doubts about the nature of the pilot's existence. --N8_wilson 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Which we already say, thus I am unsure what this adds we do not already have. Again, we do not have to say 15 times "may not be real" or "unproven". Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This claim gives a clear reason why many reliable sources claim GoK might not be real. --N8_wilson 19:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hello Slatersteven, could you explain why you reverted my edits? The article as it stands is currently out of line with what is reported in reliable sources, and my edits were correcting that. Endwise (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

First of, even if it is not real, its still wartime propaganda, as propaganda can be (in fact) true). As such I am unsure why it needs to be said on the lede (as we already say " the Ghost of Kyiv has been credited as a morale booster for Ukrainians." which means kind of the same thing, so either have one or the other, not both). Also we do not say its real, and in fact say "Although some sources consider the Ghost of Kyiv to be an urban legend or war propaganda,", so adding "There is no evidence which supports the supposed fighter pilot's actual existence." is superfluous as we do not say there is any. Some of the rest are more minor changes, and are not really all that important or needed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying that some sources consider the story to be an urban legend does not mean the exact same thing as "there is no evidence for his existence", so I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Reliable sources say that there is no evidence for his existence, which is an important fact to include in this article which we for whatever reason have neglected to do.

The other edits were not unneeded stylistic changes, in this edit I was fixing what was previously factually wrong about what The Times said; this edit was hardly minor: the image was a fabrication, as this article previously stated only implicitly instead of explicitly; this edit seems rather hard to disagree with. Endwise (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We say (more than once) variants of the claim he is not real, hell you latest edit (in effect) says "a false photograph that was not real", as we said "The photo was later discovered to have been reused from a Ministry of Defence post from 2019 showing a pilot testing a new helmet." (not I think reused it better than unlreated) And we now say (in effect) "the False photograph was later discovered to have been an unrelated image from a Ministry of Defence post from 2019 showing a pilot testing a new helmet", which is called labouring a point. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We say (more than once) variants of the claim he is not real - The article does not claim that there is no evidence for his existence (nor "he is not real", which we of course don't state), despite that being true and a point reliable sources emphasise. I really don't understand why you want to keep that out of the article. Endwise (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it says that he may be "an urban legend or war propaganda" and that " the Ghost of Kyiv is an "example of bizarre distortions ... amplified by the chaos of war"" and "it was highly unlikely there were even six air-to-air takedowns in total". We do not need to labor the point he may not be real. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a first sentence providing a broad overview of the state of knowledge. The examples you gave are specific claims and arguments of sources claiming he is not real, but even so, they do not themselves state that there is no evidence for it. There are things in the world which evidence exists for yet nevertheless some sources say, on the balance of existing evidence, are probably not true; these two claims do not entail each other. It's true both that A: some sources say he likely doesn't exist, and B: there is no evidence for his existence. They are different claims, and B provides a good overview to launch into specific arguments for A (e.g. "it was highly unlikely there were even six air-to-air takedowns in total", etc.). Endwise (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

But it also lacks context, as a lack of evidence is not (in and of itself) and evidence of lack. Right now we have no way to know if he does not or does exist (I will not forum this by expressing my own views on this). As such we can't come down wither way, which your tone kind of does, erring on the side of nonexistence. I will let others chip in now, I have said why I object to some of your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made a post at the Fringe theories noticeboard to hopefully get some more opinions on the matter. Endwise (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

A comment I added to the section below could just as well have been placed here, as it addresses similar issues; in retrospect, maybe it should have been here, although the two topics overlap. In particular, with respect to any fringe issues, please see my comments about the "40,000 view". Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead summary and 40,000-foot view

This topic was split off from #Journal.ie claim doesn't speak to existence of the pilot, above.

Can we take a step back and do a 40,000-foot view? Here's what I think we reliably know:

1. Russian invasion of Ukraine started 23 or 24 Feb (as background info)
2. Rumors of a flying ace started online very soon after, on social media
3. Original claim was six downed aircraft, identified as specific aircraft types; later ten
4. One video went viral with 5M+ views by the early hours of 25 Feb
5. Reports were amplified (but not confirmed) by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry on social media (3:23 25 Feb tweet)
6. Doubts about the story are widespread
7. Attempts at supporting evidence have not held up
   • The pilot was unnamed (and has never been identified)
   • The pilot photo was debunked as a 2019 image
   • If the report were true, it would be an unprecedented military feat
   • The video was debunked as from a video game
8. Regardless of the truth of the matter, there has been an uplifting effect on morale in Ukraine

This seems like the main skeleton of what is reliably known about this topic. Did I miss anything essential?

My main problem was and is the lead, which I think waffles on the unproven nature of the alleged events, and so far, does not even contain the term urban legend, but needs to. As any lead, it should summarize the most important points of the body, but is not there yet. I think the legacy section already has sufficient evidence of the sketchy nature of the reports and about its nature as an urban legend that this should certainly be mentioned in the lead. Exactly how to phrase this in the lead is something we should debate here; whether we state outright in Wikipedia's voice that it "is an urban legend" or "is widely viewed as an urban legend" or "is claimed by many to be an urban legend" and should depend on what the preponderance of reliable sources are saying, and in any case, should be present in the body first.

The #Legacy section (which should be renamed "Impact") is in decent shape to support such changes to the lead, but could be improved, especially by the elimination of speculation such as "The claims are likely not a deliberate creation", which even if someone really said that, is a sideshow, and the underlying claim ("not a deliberate creation") can never be proved and is not helpful for understanding the main topic. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Made a small change to lead as searching the word legend – within the article page – reveals that 5 independent sources we've already cited use the word in their titles whereas the article uses it only once in the body. I also made an effort to use legend in the least controversial manner I could by describing the actions/feats of GoK rather than the nature of the character. Hope it's a step forward that consensus can support. --N8_wilson 00:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I think, your wish to step lightly in adding legend, as I'm guessing that you thought stating urban legend openly in the lead was too strong, somehow? But there's a problem, as legend and urban legend are not quite the same thing, and in particular, do any of the sources label it as a "legend"? I don't think so, which would mean that word would have to come out. Bottom line: trying to soften urban legend by turning it into legend doesn't really work. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Just noticed that two sources *did* say legend—one English, and one Russian; not sure if that changes anything. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the not quite the same thing-ness is absolutely correct. I just don't think the difference invalidates this choice of words. I would suggest that urban legends are a specialized subset of legends. The term "urban legend" itself hints at this and the WP articles on both topics support that relationship. Plus the hierarchy of Category:Legends actually codifies it here on WP. If you don't object to that, then every source that says "urban legend" is also saying "legend" by definition even if not by the specific wording of the text. In other words, it is not a mis-characterization of the sources to choose this phrasing; it's just editorial summary. --N8_wilson 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just tacking on here that I'm not arguing against "urban legend" either. Only attempting to show that "legend" is probably a permissible reflection of sources, not that it is necessarily the best reflection. --N8_wilson 02:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept that explanation, and your choice of wording for now. I'm not sure what kind of legs this story has as far as future articles, but if it does, we should monitor if there's a trend towards using one term more than the other, and adjust accordingly. Otherwise, I'm content to leave your choice of words. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead summary and 40,000-foot view

This topic was split off from #Journal.ie claim doesn't speak to existence of the pilot, above.

Can we take a step back and do a 40,000-foot view? Here's what I think we reliably know:

1. Russian invasion of Ukraine started 23 or 24 Feb (as background info)
2. Rumors of a flying ace started online very soon after, on social media
3. Original claim was six downed aircraft, identified as specific aircraft types; later ten
4. One video went viral with 5M+ views by the early hours of 25 Feb
5. Reports were amplified (but not confirmed) by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry on social media (3:23 25 Feb tweet)
6. Doubts about the story are widespread
7. Attempts at supporting evidence have not held up
   • The pilot was unnamed (and has never been identified)
   • The pilot photo was debunked as a 2019 image
   • If the report were true, it would be an unprecedented military feat
   • The video was debunked as from a video game
8. Regardless of the truth of the matter, there has been an uplifting effect on morale in Ukraine

This seems like the main skeleton of what is reliably known about this topic. Did I miss anything essential?

My main problem was and is the lead, which I think waffles on the unproven nature of the alleged events, and so far, does not even contain the term urban legend, but needs to. As any lead, it should summarize the most important points of the body, but is not there yet. I think the legacy section already has sufficient evidence of the sketchy nature of the reports and about its nature as an urban legend that this should certainly be mentioned in the lead. Exactly how to phrase this in the lead is something we should debate here; whether we state outright in Wikipedia's voice that it "is an urban legend" or "is widely viewed as an urban legend" or "is claimed by many to be an urban legend" and should depend on what the preponderance of reliable sources are saying, and in any case, should be present in the body first.

The #Legacy section (which should be renamed "Impact") is in decent shape to support such changes to the lead, but could be improved, especially by the elimination of speculation such as "The claims are likely not a deliberate creation", which even if someone really said that, is a sideshow, and the underlying claim ("not a deliberate creation") can never be proved and is not helpful for understanding the main topic. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Made a small change to lead as searching the word legend – within the article page – reveals that 5 independent sources we've already cited use the word in their titles whereas the article uses it only once in the body. I also made an effort to use legend in the least controversial manner I could by describing the actions/feats of GoK rather than the nature of the character. Hope it's a step forward that consensus can support. --N8_wilson 00:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I think, your wish to step lightly in adding legend, as I'm guessing that you thought stating urban legend openly in the lead was too strong, somehow? But there's a problem, as legend and urban legend are not quite the same thing, and in particular, do any of the sources label it as a "legend"? I don't think so, which would mean that word would have to come out. Bottom line: trying to soften urban legend by turning it into legend doesn't really work. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Just noticed that two sources *did* say legend—one English, and one Russian; not sure if that changes anything. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the not quite the same thing-ness is absolutely correct. I just don't think the difference invalidates this choice of words. I would suggest that urban legends are a specialized subset of legends. The term "urban legend" itself hints at this and the WP articles on both topics support that relationship. Plus the hierarchy of Category:Legends actually codifies it here on WP. If you don't object to that, then every source that says "urban legend" is also saying "legend" by definition even if not by the specific wording of the text. In other words, it is not a mis-characterization of the sources to choose this phrasing; it's just editorial summary. --N8_wilson 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just tacking on here that I'm not arguing against "urban legend" either. Only attempting to show that "legend" is probably a permissible reflection of sources, not that it is necessarily the best reflection. --N8_wilson 02:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept that explanation, and your choice of wording for now. I'm not sure what kind of legs this story has as far as future articles, but if it does, we should monitor if there's a trend towards using one term more than the other, and adjust accordingly. Otherwise, I'm content to leave your choice of words. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

categories

Given we are not sure he is real I am unsure he can be included in categories about real people. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

People of war, people of invasion, and military personnel are all inappropriate categories because we do not describe it as a person, but as an urban legend. Broadly, the article fits into Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. SWinxy (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine did not release any information on the pilot.

The article states that Ukraine released the name of the pilot as Major Stepan Tarabalka after he was killed in action. This is incorrect. In all sources the information is coming from The Times of London with no mention of Ukraine as a source. Please fix this.The Impartial Truth (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I could find within the article is that Ukrainian sources identified him as Major Stephan Tarabalka - there's no mention of Ukraine doing so. Hwqaksd (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Merging this page and Stephen Tarabalka

We know the name of the Ghost ok Kyiv now, we should merge the pages. Probably the final page should be Stephen Tarabalka --Sinucep (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Are we certain that they are one in the same?...and that the Ghost wasn't a made up urban legend, and then applied to Tarabalka? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it was, but it is still the case that the claim has been made. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Ghost of Kyiv should be redirected to his proper name. Horizons 1 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

formally invaded?

one of the sentences in this article states that the Ukraine was "formally invaded" by Russia but i am not able to edit this poor wording. would someone please fix this awful phrasing plz .usarnamechoice (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you propose it be changed to? SWinxy (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy: i would simply remove the word "formally". .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to “openly invaded,” to distinguish this from the previous instances of Russian invasion (i.e., Crimea February 2014, Russian insurgents April 2014, denied Russian forces in July 2014, etc.). —Michael Z. 21:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Air Force Command of UA Armed Forces

On 30 April 2022 the Air Force Command of UA Armed Forces confessed that Stepan Tarabalka is not "Ghost of Kiev" and that The ghost of Kyiv is a superhero-legend, whose figure was created by Ukrainians. https://www.facebook.com/kpszsu/posts/363834939117794 There can now be no doubt that The Ghost of Kiev is no more than a fairytale for those who chose to belive in such.85.24.253.5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

bbc article:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61285833

How Ukraine's 'Ghost of Kyiv' legendary pilot was born Cononsense (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on all pro-Kiev sources listed, which describe Ghost of Kiev as a fake (Russian and pro-Russian sources stated that even earlier), I think all mentiones of words "alleged", "supposed", etc. should be replaces with a neutral expressions stating he is a fake. I don't see a point of upholding this even from a pro-Kiev point of view, since they have themselves stated that the Ghost is a made-up story. StjepanHR (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And restore all the talk-page postings pointing out the transparent propaganda, which have been selectively archived by a bot. Shtove (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Random fan art

The current "fan art" in the article is from some random facebook page, why is it WP:NOTEWORTHY exactly? Reflecktor (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it shows how popular the Ghost of Kyiv legend is, and it has a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Theoretically, any piece of fan art could appear in the same context (there's another possibility at [4]), but it makes sense for some piece of fan art to be there. Gildir (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how some random guy on Facebook making fan art shows the popularity of anything, anyway there are better ways to show it. MOS:PERTINENCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" and I'm not sure how this image is "significant". Reflecktor (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

65.92.246.142: Although WP:BLP always applies, since the confirmation of GoK as fictional, I don't see a need to re-emphasize the "blpo" (non-titular living persons) notice on this talk page. The only immediate concern I could see right now is a brief reference to Sam Hyde which doesn't appear likely of further edits. I'm removing it as part of general talk page clean up but please feel free to re-add if I'm overlooking anything. --N8_wilson 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to nominate this article as an example of what not to do on Wikipedia?

The page underscores a big problem with Wikipedia that increasingly needs to be addressed. In this case, propaganda was used and Wikipedia ran with the propaganda and presented it as factual. Going back to the archived talk page is a good example of the discussion that went on. There is a rush by many editors to ‘scoop’ or be the first to create a Wikipedia page on some current event. Often this results in false information being spread or ‘Falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on.’ I would suggest Wikipedia enact a policy to avoid having such things happen. While the discussion was very passionate ultimately one side was ‘shouted’ down and false info was posted. There should be some kind of standing policy, especially where current events or politics are involved if Wikipedia is to have any true value. There has been a tendency on the part of some editors to hide behind sourcing to justify this behavior but the damage being done overall is immeasurable. Whether it is a matter of a blanket pause on articles of this type being fully reviewed before going live and by reviewed let’s say a certain number of Administrators it’s very important and has to be done for Wikipedia to maintain any worth. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah head over to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and suggest it be added. Collaborative projects tend to get better overtime. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you want to suggest a policy head over to the Wikipedia:Village pump/Policy and suggest it. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Once the article had become settled I nominated it a couple of times for Good Article status, in an attempt to force the issue, but got reverted with hand-waving reasons. The trouble is that, where the politics of a subject are in controversy, Wikipedia becomes a straight extension of newspaper and TV propaganda, which feeds and is fed by anti-social media. Otherwise, this website is an excellent resource. Shtove (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Similar concerns have been raised with some frequency and in more than one way. I understand the frustration and sometimes what helps is remembering that it's not all bad. Consider these observations with respect to GoK: 61 minutes after this article was created, editors added "unconfirmed" and "supposedly" qualifiers to the lead [5]. At two hours old, the article was given a {{Current}} tag declaring "reports may be unreliable" [6]. By two hours and 9 minutes, the page was protected to editors with extended-confirmed access [7] to prevent abuse. The first mention of urban legend came the same day the source was published [8]. Does WP always have it right? No. (See the disclaimer link at the bottom of every page.) Can it do a pretty good job of reflecting reliable sources? yes. ...and often quite quickly. --N8_wilson 23:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Within an hour of this article being created it said that the existence of this pilot was unconfirmed. A day later or so it said it was a “hoax”. It then it said it was “disputed” before settling on the present wording of “fictious”. Wikipedia did fine. Volunteer Marek 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It only got to "fictitious" after the Ukrainian govt acknowledged it was made up. For the few months before that, it was sort of presented as if there was two sides to a roughly equal debate about whether the pilot was real, despite reliable sources noting that there was zero evidence for his existence (you can find me complaining about that somewhere in the talk page archives). That's a fairly normal editorial critique though, and I don't think it's something that would've been solved had we had different policies & guidelines. Endwise (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)