Talk:Operation Spider's Web#Requested move 3 June 2025

{{requested move/dated|Operation Spiderweb}}

:Operation Spider's Web → {{no redirect|Operation Spiderweb}} – More frequently appears as "Operation Spiderweb" or "Operation Spider Web" (sans possessive) in sources and it is more natural to say "Operation Spiderweb" than "Operation Spider's Web" (which is why "Operation Spiderweb" is more common). "Spiderweb" vs. "Spider Web" is an unimportant spelling distinction, whereas "Spider's Web" is not just a spelling distinction.

Some sources: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/06/01/ukraine-drone-attack-russia-bombers/ Washington Post], [https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/ukraine-drone-strike-on-russian-airfield-rcna210210 NBC News], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/02/operation-spiderweb-visual-guide-ukraine-drone-attack-russian-aircraft The Guardian], [https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/01/operation-spiderweb-how-ukraine-destroyed-over-a-third-of-russian-military-aircraft Euronews], [https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/01/europe/ukraine-drones-russia-airbases-intl CNN], [https://www.kyivpost.com/post/53749 Kyiv Post], [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq69qnvj6nlo BBC] (Spider Web) —Alalch E. 11:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:This article was created at the title Operation Spider Web. Pinging all bold movers:

:# {{ping|MrGreen1163}} You moved the page from Operation Spider Web to Operation Spiderweb, with the rationale: {{tqq|Grammatical error: international media is also referring to the operation as "Spiderweb", not "Spider Web"}}

:# {{ping|ElijahPepe}} You moved the page from Operation Spiderweb to June 2025 Ukrainian attacks on Russian airbases, with the rationale: {{tqq|Articles on military operations tend to use a descriptive title rather than the name of the operation for clarity.}}

:# {{ping|Ganesha811}} You moved the page from June 2025 Ukrainian attacks on Russian airbases to Operation Spider's Web, with the rationale: {{tqq|WP:BOLD move to more recognizable and natural name used by WSJ, BBC, other major intl media}}

:I am interested in one thing the most: Ganesha811, why didn't you simply move back to Operation Spiderweb instead of opting for the current, rarer form.—Alalch E. 13:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::And someone above has proposed renaming it to "cobweb". 331dot (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I noticed that, but I didn't want to mention it because it's simply not going to happen due to a lack of use in sources. —Alalch E. 13:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I followed the usage I saw from the BBC, WSJ, Al Jazeera, and ABC - all major international media, all reliable, which used "Spider's Web" (links [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ld7ppre9vo 1], [https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/ukraine-says-its-drones-destroyed-warplanes-deep-inside-russia-50a634c6? 2], [https://www.aljazeera.com/program/inside-story/2025/6/2/what-message-does-ukraines-operation-spiders-web-send-to-russia-and-us 3], [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-02/ukraine-drone-attack-on-russian-air-bases-explained/105364708 4]). It's not clear to me whether Spiderweb or Spider's Web is more common, but either would be perfectly acceptable in my view. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oppose for this reason; keep as "Spider's Web". Brad (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support. I still prefer cobweb but that is not going to happen, so instead, support move to spiderweb. Lova Falk (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support either Spider's Web or Spiderweb, with a weak preference for Spider's Web due to higher-quality sources using this name (e.g., [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ld7ppre9vo BBC], [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/02/world/europe/ukraine-russia-drone-strike-what-to-know.html NYT], [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/01/defence-review-to-say-uk-must-be-ready-to-fight-a-war-in-europe-or-atlantic Guardian]). "Spider's Web" is better and more natural English. Oppose June 2025 Ukrainian attacks on Russian airbases as unconcise, not matching WP:COMMONNAME, and not sufficiently disambiguating due to other attacks on airbases occurring in June 2025. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Given your explanation, your Support does not seem accurate. You should probably either Comment or Oppose. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::If you want to count it as a weak oppose to Spiderweb I'm OK with that. FOARP (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Current title seems fine to me, Spider Web is the much more common variant of the word while Spiderweb sounds informal. Spider's Web is the most correct definition as stated by FOARP. Ecrusized (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Question: Wonder if this discussion took place for Spider web and Spider Web (disambiguation). Gjs238 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom - Павутина to me also translates better as spider web than spider's web, though may be irrelevant point given current name use in media reports.Epsilon.Prota (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support. Operation Spiderweb. Guylaen (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support per nom. Skitash (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Current title seems fine, but all descriptive titles used by English language sources should redirect to this article title. Ukraine Drone Attack on Russia, 1 June 2025, Ukraine's Spider's Web attack, Ukraine Drone Attack on Russian Air Bases, 1 June 2025, Ukraine Drone Strike, 1 June 2025, Ukraine Drone Strikes Against Russia, 1 June 2025, and more. 2601:646:203:E7B0:4534:5C63:DDFC:F7DC (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :This seems redundant, if they look that up on the English wiki it will give them a page similar to a search engine, where they can locate this article from there. ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 12:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:* Support A majority of sources name the event as "Operation Spiderweb", and Wikipedia tends to reflect its sources.

:ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 12:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP: COMMONNAME. I think this RM can be closed by now, there is a clear majority in favour of the proposal. NLeeuw (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

From Aftermath, final entry, thus very prominent in this section:

"On 6 June 2025, the Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russian VKS started using Tu-160 bombers to launch cruise missiles due to loss of Tu-95 bombers from Operation Spider's Web."

it was stated....

Comment: An encyclopedic entty of minor relevance in the aftermath, based solely a non-citable source (see talk page), and one-sided source in that war (Militarny.com seem to be an Ukrainian war opinion outlets) is not justifyable.

removed , and is up to discussion here

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

As User:Buckshot06 just reverted it back in WITHOUT DISCUSSION !! Although I asked for it in the talk page here ...

See this: ( 13:25, 8 June 2025 Buckshot06 talk contribs 46,650 bytes +555 Undid revision 1294529918 by FrankBierFarmer - not of minor relevance; happened because Tu-95s and Tu-22M3s were destroyed.. undothank Tag: Undo)

Your claim in your comment when reverting "because TU-95s ... " is purely based on the Ukrainian military outlet. You pertain it is a fact. De facto it is a unproven claim, according to our Wiki standards. Please provide a trustworthy reference inidcating another prove of evidence, e.g. from USA intelligence sources.

Wikipedia shall not be mis-used as a biased Ukrainian "mouthpiece" I think, but should tend to be impartial.

KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:I will place a "doubius alert" to the sentence just reverted back in, to stimulate a discussion on the Talk page here. I opt for removal, reasons see arguments above. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::The WP article says at present "On 6 June 2025, the Ukrainian Air Force said that Russian VKS had started using Tu-160 bombers ...". I don't think that that statement is dubious; it seems extremely likely that the Ukrainian Air Force said that. Whether this is true could be subject to discussion, but the WP article doesn't say it is. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::1.) The Referenced Source is not qualified for Wikipedia. So it is clearly dubious, at least.

:::So there is no reason to place a complete Ukraine war propaganda speculation here, except one intends the following:

:::2.) The prominence as "final sentence" has a clear effect. The most relevant actions and statement by the US administration ( Kellog removed, Trump remaining only) are thus "buried" in their effect for fast readers of the article.

:::KR FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I've added Newsweek as a source, not of the actual use of Tu-160s, but that Ukraine says so. [Added 20:05] The section is chronological, so it is very likely that any perceived prominence as "final sentence" will fade as events progress. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Dear @Pol098, thank you for the trustworthy reference.

:::::I added content of your referenced Newsweek piece and thus the "final" sentence has indeed faded already.

:::::-> Now a balanced view is achieved.

:::::I will retract my "dubious" alert, within 24 hours, if there are no objections by other authors, and the Newsweek content stays reported in the paragraph.

::::: KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Outdent|:::::}}I've updated this section, the Newsweek article is not about whether the Russians have been using 160s for strikes. It seems to have been filed before that alleged change happened. The article is solely about whether the bombers were moved eastward, near Alaska. The quote added by FrankBierFarmer I believe was relating to their move, not their usage in strikes against Ukraine.

I'd also caution us about relying too heavily on Newsweek. Per RSP, Newsweek has fallen off pretty dramatically of late and I think we can see that in the analyst they chose. He was a low level MI6 analyst who wasn't military focused and is now a Business lecturer at a mid-tier school. Not exactly the kind of real, in depth insight I would expect from a major publication.

Squatch347 (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have no knowledge and no opinion about the reliability of Newsweek. About the particular article discussed I simply copy, for information with no axe to grind: "Ellie Cook is a Newsweek security and defense reporter based in London, U.K. Her work focuses largely on the Russia-Ukraine war, the U.S. military, weapons systems and emerging technology. She joined Newsweek in January 2023, having previously worked as a reporter at the Daily Express, and is a graduate of International Journalism at City, University of London. Languages: English, Spanish." (from Newsweek)

"Elspeth Cook is a skilled journalist with a focus on security and defense reporting at Newsweek since January 2023. Prior experience includes working as a news reporter for Reach plc's Daily Express and Express.co.uk, covering breaking news stories while meeting stringent deadlines. Notable accomplishments include serving as a senior online editor at Exeposé, where an innovative website design earned a nomination for 'Best Website' at the Student Publication Association National Conference 2020 and contributed to the publication winning 'Best Publication' that same year. Elspeth's background also includes teaching English language skills to primary-aged children with the British Council and various roles in editorial, administrative, and customer service capacities. Academic qualifications include a Master's in International Journalism from City, University of London, and a Bachelor's in English and Spanish from the University of Exeter, supplemented by a robust high school education." (from https://theorg.com/org/newsweek/org-chart/ellie-cook)

(Forgot to sign - pol098, 18:00 approx, 9 June 2025)

::I based the assessment off of WP:RSP: "Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles."

::With that said, I don't have an objection to this article per se and certainly nothing to Ms Cook. It was more the reliance on Ledwidge, who lacks the bona fide to be included given Newsweek's questionable editing of late.

::To be clear, the article, as currently written, is fine with me. I was mostly objecting to its misquoting in an earlier version. Squatch347 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• This is only tangentially related, but there is still no visual evidence that any Tu-160 (Blackjack) was damaged, let alone destroyed. Radio Svoboda (Liberty) could only confirm the loss of "Bears" and "Backfire", not "Blackjacks". It's absolutely possible that some of those Blackjacks were deployed in the aftermath as a replacement for Bears and Backfires, though. NLeeuw (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• :There is a good deal of evidence that the 160s were damaged, probably 3 or 4. The problem is that all the sources I can find are primary rather than secondary. Squatch347 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)