Talk:Russian destroyer Admiral Levchenko

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Reported to be on fire

This is being widely reported following a claim apparently by a Ukrainian military spokesman on Facebook and now being picked up by some media outlets. We really must wait for a reliable source before adding this in. Springnuts (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reliable source for what? That it's on fire? Or that it's claimed by Ukraine?

The Facebook page is Pletenchuk's official mouthpiece for when he's speaking ex cathedra. It's a primary source, but it's robust for "A Ukrainian official spokesperson made this announcement". That was then covered as a secondary source by several RS Ukrainian news channels.

None of this proves that it is on fire. But we haven't claimed that it is (and it would be very bad editing if we did so at this point). Either way, a government-level hoax that it was on fire would still belong in the article, just as an example of black propaganda. Similar claims are described for the USS Eisenhower.

BTW, you're heading for 5RR over this, and that's some serious edit-warring, especially on a designated contentious topic field. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggest this bit of information fails WP:Verifiability and - with only one, and partisan source - currently fails our requirement for enduring WP:Notability. All other sources simply repeat the same claim, usually attributing it to the Ukrainian spokesman. It might belong in an article on Ukrainian Information Warfare, perhaps, if it is significant. But surely not here. Springnuts (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic