This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Obviously the US and Russia deliver contradicting reports on this incident. The final verdict can therefore not be spoken by now. This is the normality in a war because of the Fog of War. Therefore, the editors of the Wikipedia should exercise extreme caution in order to be objective and impartial.
One-sided judgements like "damaged the propeller" should not have any place in the introductory paragraph. There, only those statements should be made which are in coherence with both reports.
Why do I have to say this? It should be self understood or not? Manorainjan 20:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The full statement of the MoD of Russia was:
"On 14 March 2023 in the morning, the Russian airspace control systems have detected an American MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle flying over the Black Sea near the Crimean Peninsula in the direction of the state border of the Russian Federation.
◽️ The drone flew with its transponders off, violating the boundaries of the temporary airspace regime established for the special military operation, communicated to all users of international airspace, and published in accordance with international standards.
◽️ Fighter jets of the air defence force on duty scrambled to identify the intruder. As a result of quick manoeuvring around 9.30 a.m. (Moscow time), the MQ-9 drone went into an unguided flight with a loss of altitude and collided with the water surface.
◽️ The Russian aircraft did not use on-board weapons, did not come into contact with the unmanned aerial vehicle, and returned safely to their home airfield."
You can read it in English on the official telegram channel of the MoD. Manorainjan 20:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
A Russian blogger published the first real footage of that drone: https://t.me/fighter_bomber/11435 Manorainjan 12:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The telegram post says: что и как видит летчик истребителя при встрече с низкоскоростной целью на больших высотах
, which loosely translated means "here's a video of what a pilot when he meets a low-speed target at high altitudes". It doesn't say "this is a video of the drone that crashed". I would advise caution when consuming media to avoid misinformation.
BeŻet (
talk) 15:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The first line states that the drone was mistakenly in Russian airspace, but the source provided only mentions the US claim that it was in international airspace, and doesn't mention even a claim of it being in Russian airspace. Is there another source for such a claim, and for that matter should any claim about the airspace be in the first line? 331dot ( talk) 18:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like Hanjifi addressed this as I was writing this. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 18:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
FWIW there has been an attempt to geolocate the thing https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1636551052525813762?s=20 . ©Geni ( talk) 13:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Here’s the video in case anyone wants to migrate it (I’m on mobile otherwise I would): https://www.dvidshub.net/video/876667/us-air-force-mq-9-camera-footage-russian-su-27-black-sea-intercept Victor Grigas ( talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change citation of last line from citing a Daily Beast article to the actual Reuters article the Daily Beast article is referencing.
Last line is "Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said, “We view this incident as a provocation” after being summoned to a meeting with State Department officials, according to Reuters. Procrastinator acc ( talk) 21:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I have not been able to find any information regarding the Su-27 fuel dumping system or nozzle positioning.
However, it sounds unlikely to me that dual fuel jettison nozzles would be positioned so near than the exhaust nozzles due to fire ignition issue, notwithstanding the utility of two nozzles.
From the video angles, it is possible that it is simply condensation trails, see this image also https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/img_9163-jpg.970/ 77.141.63.203 ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not our job to do original research. We are presenting what reliable sources are saying. BeŻet ( talk) 18:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.
(...)"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles.
@ Compusolus, you reverted my edit removing the statement that the incident was part of the Russo-Ukrainian War from the infobox. Per WP:BRD, I'll expand on my rationale here:
While there is {{
Campaignbox Russian invasion of Ukraine}} in the article, the 2023 Black Sea drone incident page is listed under a "possibly related" header, so authoritatively stating that it is "part of" the war may be misleading. Additionally, responding to Arguably, the US wouldn't be monitoring there if not for the invasion
, I feel like that only makes it tangentially related.
DecafPotato (
talk) 15:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it is claimed that the incident was the first direct contact between the USAF and the Russian airforce since the cold war, and cites a CNN article as its source. When reading the article however, there is no reference to this at all. HDC 311 ( talk) 07:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Obviously the US and Russia deliver contradicting reports on this incident. The final verdict can therefore not be spoken by now. This is the normality in a war because of the Fog of War. Therefore, the editors of the Wikipedia should exercise extreme caution in order to be objective and impartial.
One-sided judgements like "damaged the propeller" should not have any place in the introductory paragraph. There, only those statements should be made which are in coherence with both reports.
Why do I have to say this? It should be self understood or not? Manorainjan 20:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The full statement of the MoD of Russia was:
"On 14 March 2023 in the morning, the Russian airspace control systems have detected an American MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle flying over the Black Sea near the Crimean Peninsula in the direction of the state border of the Russian Federation.
◽️ The drone flew with its transponders off, violating the boundaries of the temporary airspace regime established for the special military operation, communicated to all users of international airspace, and published in accordance with international standards.
◽️ Fighter jets of the air defence force on duty scrambled to identify the intruder. As a result of quick manoeuvring around 9.30 a.m. (Moscow time), the MQ-9 drone went into an unguided flight with a loss of altitude and collided with the water surface.
◽️ The Russian aircraft did not use on-board weapons, did not come into contact with the unmanned aerial vehicle, and returned safely to their home airfield."
You can read it in English on the official telegram channel of the MoD. Manorainjan 20:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
A Russian blogger published the first real footage of that drone: https://t.me/fighter_bomber/11435 Manorainjan 12:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The telegram post says: что и как видит летчик истребителя при встрече с низкоскоростной целью на больших высотах
, which loosely translated means "here's a video of what a pilot when he meets a low-speed target at high altitudes". It doesn't say "this is a video of the drone that crashed". I would advise caution when consuming media to avoid misinformation.
BeŻet (
talk) 15:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The first line states that the drone was mistakenly in Russian airspace, but the source provided only mentions the US claim that it was in international airspace, and doesn't mention even a claim of it being in Russian airspace. Is there another source for such a claim, and for that matter should any claim about the airspace be in the first line? 331dot ( talk) 18:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like Hanjifi addressed this as I was writing this. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 18:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
FWIW there has been an attempt to geolocate the thing https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1636551052525813762?s=20 . ©Geni ( talk) 13:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Here’s the video in case anyone wants to migrate it (I’m on mobile otherwise I would): https://www.dvidshub.net/video/876667/us-air-force-mq-9-camera-footage-russian-su-27-black-sea-intercept Victor Grigas ( talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change citation of last line from citing a Daily Beast article to the actual Reuters article the Daily Beast article is referencing.
Last line is "Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said, “We view this incident as a provocation” after being summoned to a meeting with State Department officials, according to Reuters. Procrastinator acc ( talk) 21:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I have not been able to find any information regarding the Su-27 fuel dumping system or nozzle positioning.
However, it sounds unlikely to me that dual fuel jettison nozzles would be positioned so near than the exhaust nozzles due to fire ignition issue, notwithstanding the utility of two nozzles.
From the video angles, it is possible that it is simply condensation trails, see this image also https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/img_9163-jpg.970/ 77.141.63.203 ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not our job to do original research. We are presenting what reliable sources are saying. BeŻet ( talk) 18:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.
(...)"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles.
@ Compusolus, you reverted my edit removing the statement that the incident was part of the Russo-Ukrainian War from the infobox. Per WP:BRD, I'll expand on my rationale here:
While there is {{
Campaignbox Russian invasion of Ukraine}} in the article, the 2023 Black Sea drone incident page is listed under a "possibly related" header, so authoritatively stating that it is "part of" the war may be misleading. Additionally, responding to Arguably, the US wouldn't be monitoring there if not for the invasion
, I feel like that only makes it tangentially related.
DecafPotato (
talk) 15:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it is claimed that the incident was the first direct contact between the USAF and the Russian airforce since the cold war, and cites a CNN article as its source. When reading the article however, there is no reference to this at all. HDC 311 ( talk) 07:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)