Talk:Vlora incident

Albania Low‑importance

	Vlora incident is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Balkan / European / Russian & Soviet / Cold War

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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Multiple issues

I have placed two tags on this page given the multitude of grammatical errors and the fact that the text is written like an essay, in particular the The Soviet position in the Mediterranean subsection. @NormalguyfromUK has removed the tags for an unexplained reason and I suggest they seek support and proofreading help from other users prior to publishing a page in order to avoid such tags. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was removed for one reason because it doesn't make sense here are enough sources were used anyway Albanian, Russian and English to which you don't need to improve much here anymore, other users can do that for which please the tags NormalguyfromUK (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the sources, just the manner in the which the text is written. You can always tag myself or other editors and we would be happy to proofread if you have a draft article as a work in progress. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have readded these tags, since this article needs a significant amount of work. Notably it's not clear if it's addressing solely the 1961 incident or the whole of the conflict between the USSR and Albania over mediterranean policy. It also appears to have neutrality issues.Gugrak (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and improve a lot of things. I've actually already used a lot of sources, so we don't need any tags like multiple issues and so on. What I'll definitely do is rewrite the text so that it's better NormalguyfromUK (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these tags are still appropriate until it's been fixed. It's not even clear that this should be classed as a military conflict TBH which I think is overstating what happened for the greater glory of Albania.Gugrak (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was one when the Albanian army stole the submarines by force, and the Soviets were also being pursued by the Albanian soldiers during the withdrawal and they were threatened with military weapons. It was clearly a military conflict, and of course it was also a political conflict! NormalguyfromUK (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result

So because of the result that I put in my last edit, it will be removed from Gugrak all the time, according to him, such information as what happened after the incident should not be in the result, but it's the outcome of what happened afterwards. It's not without reason why so many use See (aftermath) at Result to show what happened afterwards NormalguyfromUK (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See aftermath is used when the result is unclear and to avoid things like Pyrrhic such and such victory and Tactical blue victory, Strategic blue defeat which attract POV pushers like flies. the result here is clear, and the infobox should be limited to what is clearly and directly an outcome of the battle alone. The break down of diplomatic relations with the soviet union was the result of a much wider series of events than this incident alone, so it's misleading to include it as a result. Gugrak (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, that's why I didn't use Pyrrhic or Decisive, but that's not misleading, look at other wiki articles there who did it the same way as me NormalguyfromUK (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's WP:OTHER. Gugrak (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I'm actually saying, as you can see here, there was an expulsion of Soviets from Albania directly during the incident and you should find a diplomatic collapse here and make it direct at the result NormalguyfromUK (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "Vlora Incident" to "The Attack on the Soviet Naval Presence" or "Battle of Vlora Base"

Dear Wikipedia community, I would like to initiate a discussion regarding the appropriateness of renaming the article "Vlora Incident." I propose two possible alternatives: "The Attack on the Soviet Naval Presence" or "Battle of Vlora Base." I believe that a renaming would provide a more accurate and comprehensive representation of this event. In the following paragraphs, I will present my reasons for these suggestions and warmly invite you to contribute your opinions and proposals.

1."The Attack on the Soviet Naval Presence": This new title would emphasize the focus on the attack against the Soviet naval presence that occurred during the incident. "Vlora Incident" sounds rather general and does not adequately convey that it was an attack on a specific military facility. By highlighting the Soviet naval aspect, we can better capture the historical significance of this event.

2."Battle of Vlora Base": The alternative title "Battle of Vlora Base" would emphasize the military character of the incident. It was not an isolated incident but an actual clash between different forces. The term "Battle" underscores the intensity of the confrontation and makes it clear that it was a significant military engagement. This would enable readers to better understand the scope and impact of the incident.

I firmly believe that renaming "Vlora Incident" to either "The Attack on the Soviet Naval Presence" or "Battle of Vlora Base" would result in a more accurate and meaningful description of the event. These new titles would shift the focus towards the military component and historical significance of the incident. I kindly ask all of you to contribute your thoughts and opinions on this matter so that we can make an informed decision. Thank you for your participation and dedication! NormalguyfromUK (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and quotation

Hello. It'd be great if an editor could provide full quotation from reliable sources here, so that we can try to verify the information. Verifiable and reliably sourced content definitely should be restored. I'd do it myself, but my net speed is terrible. The article also evidently has a lack of reliable sources, relying more on tabloids. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]