Talk:Russian cruiser Moskva/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

This is the warship the Snake Island defenders said "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" 180.15.102.73 (talk) 00:33, 14 April 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) 00:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022 (2)

"Moskva (Russian: Москва — "Moscow", formerly Slava (Russian: Слава, lit. 'Glory')) is a guided missile cruiser of the Russian Navy." Change "is a..." to "was a..." ship has been confirmed to have sunk by the Russian ministry of defense. MysticalHurc (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that support your requested edit. Firestar464 (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Patience.... satellites tell all

We will know tomorrow if it sank Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources anyone?

You really want to tell me that good-time-invest.com is a reliable source for this kind of news? It's even used twice in the article at the moment. If Turkey and Romania claim that the cruiser Moskva has sunk then there must be a better source! Otherwise I call bullshit, propaganda, SEO or whatever you like. 2003:EE:3736:DE95:F8CF:A41E:768F:DFEE (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I have removed the spammy blog. Venkat TL (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022 (4)

It has officially sunk per the Russian MOD, please add asap Masterr m8 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please kindly look at section right above this request with two links attacked quoting Russian Ministry of Defence. Spaceman998 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Done Venkat TL (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This article is nominated for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Please share your opinion on the proposal by clicking this link. Venkat TL (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

The current state of the Russian Warship is "fucked off". This is in addition to being sunk in the Black Sea.

This is a new Naval term. Use it. 2600:8804:500E:9400:2C7F:AECC:8482:B063 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Venkat TL (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@IP editor: I think you mean "up" not "off"? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Slava?

Why was it called Slava? is that a city, or a person, or what? --AW (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Slava" translated from russian means "Glory" or "Fame" - here Glory seems more appropriate. 76.93.19.253 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Robotech

It looks like the weapons systems of the Moskva have been converted to Robotech standards.[1] The situation of the NATO fleet in the region looks pretty hopeless. I mean, 2D4x100 damage per missile! That's just dead serious... --Illythr (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs updating -- 16 Bazalts were upgraded to 16 Vulkans (bigger boom for the buck as well as higher speed/range. 76.93.19.253 (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Clash with Ukrainians

Should we include what the Ukrainians supposedly said to them? See WP:NOTCENSORED. PatGallacher (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism & Strike by a Neptune Anti-Ship Missile

A Ukrainian volunteer connected to the military by the name of Serg Marco wrote on Facebook that a Russian military vessel "Moskva" was struck by a Neptune anti-ship missile. Unconfirmed as of now, he writes “the cruiser is on fire and there is a storm at sea.” Once this is confirmed the page should be updated to reflect it's further particpation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:2C32:2C25:23F2:4AEF (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How about learning to spell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.17.219 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There are claims on Twitter that this ship was struck by Neptune missiles, but I have not seen anything from a WP:RS-worthy news organization. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The BBC now has on their ongoing reporting here that the Ukrainians say they struck the ship with "rockets". 331dot (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The source that the BBC is using is from the Ukrainians themselves, who still haven't proven if the attack even happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneedku (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, though this story is at least further along than some tweets. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not about speed guys, the information will come out in due course and then the page can be updated accurately. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added the Current Related template due to the unreliable information. Owen250708 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I removed the content of reportedly damaged as Wikivoice should not be used for one-sided claims in a warzone. Though its been blindly reverted on flimsy grounds.Slywriter (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense the ship is severely damaged, and has been evacuated of all personnel.[2][3] 190.103.152.226 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A source which did not exist an hour ago. We are not the news and we should not be in a rush to publish anything attributed to Government officials only. And we certainly shouldn't use Wikivoice without independent confirmation.Slywriter (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

According to wiki perennial_sources TASS is a Reliable source for reporting on the Russian Government's statements. So if TASS reported that the Russian Ministry of Defense said that the ship is heavily damaged and needed to be evacuated as per wiki consensus that counts for RS for the statement. 190.103.152.226 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Reread my comment. I did not question the current TASS sourcing, which is far more reliable and due than a bbc blog repeating Ukrainian officials without independent verification of their statementSlywriter (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone please fix the reference. Both TASS and RIA has reported as such, fire, ammunition detonation, severe damage, all crews evacuated. Acrofred (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Never mind that the US Navy doesn't have any battleship in service, but could anyone please fix the "balletic missile submarine" in the last sentence of the sinking section, it's really ridiculous for a page that many are reading because of current events.Hyper Shinchan (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it BigJoeRockHead (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting

Drmies, Excuse me, when do Ukranian officials justify using Wikivoice to make a claim of a damaged ship in a warzone? I look forward to hearing what policy supports this edit standing as is. Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia's ministry of defense has confirmed that the ship is severely damaged. Also see here on the NYTimes.190.103.152.226 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying at all, Slywriter, but I sense the faux outrage. One of the links that you removed was from the BBC, and that's how reliable sources work: if they publish something, we can certainly consider including it. And that whole "Wikivoice" thing is a bit silly here, since what you removed was "it was claimed by Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych", so you could say it was actually the exact opposite of "Wikivoice". In addition, you cited NOTNEWS in an edit summary, which is...well, silly, and in that edit you removed the reliable source that in the the previous edit you claimed wasn't there: "When reliable sources confirm what occurred, Wikipedia can relay it". So, yes, that source was there, and then you removed it, and the statement was properly attributed and no claims were made in Wikivoice. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Drmies,Actually, you reverted two edits. One which explicitly used Wikivoice in the Infobox. That was an absolutely correct item to remove as Ukranian officials should not have been used to affirm something on Wikipedia that no independent source could confirm. The Second edit on the Ukranian officials, there's certainly more room for debate and a revert of that alone would not have elicited "outrage". Though the "outrage" is for your completely unnecessary templating on my talk page for what were and remain Good faith attempt to uphold WP:NPOV given the only evidence at the time were 2 Ukranian officials and as we are not the news, we can wait for actual facts and not engage in covering potential propaganda.Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The infobox said "reportedly damaged", with a reliable source. Good luck getting POV in Wikivoice out of "reportedly damaged". Drmies (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

As claimed by 2 Ukrainian officials with zero independent verification. BBC took no ownership of reporting the damaged ship. Higher standards of sourcing, not lower should be expected when writing encyclopedia articles on events in an active warzone with both sides engaged in information warfare. So yes, we should err on the side of saying nothing for a few hours, rather than potentially allowing false information to spread across the globe because for all Wikipedia's disclaimers, people do accept Wikipedia articles as fact.Slywriter (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The NYTrash and the BBC are 'reliable'? LMAO.

no way

this page must not be a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_cruiser_Moskva&diff=1082582750&oldid=1082581892 [Stanislaw Semczuk 2022-04-14 23:55 UTC] Story about stormy weather is blatantly contradicted by publicly available weather reports from the area; the sea was calm in this region; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.233.88.56 (talk)

soibangla (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Find a better source and replace. As it stands, on-wiki, the article can not support any statement on current events without TASS as all previous sources were Ukrainian officials, which is the same propaganda problem. Slywriter (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

To the best of anyone's knowledge thusfar, the Russian MOD statement does not seem to be propaganda. There is no attempt to blame any party for the ship's destruction, and furthermore there is no apparent benefit that the Russians derive from making this announcement. The announcement itself appears to be a simple statement of the fact that the ship was destroyed and the crew were evacuated. Raelyks (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It's way too early for this to be in the lead, but if the Russian version is going in, so is the Ukraine version. Including only the former is absolutely unacceptable. soibangla (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially one of, if not the most significant event involving this particular vessel that has ever occured, so I would disagree with your first point. I am all for adding the Ukrainian perspective, and I wish we had that first, but whatever you put in the lead needs to be supported with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Raelyks (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I am all for adding the Ukrainian perspective except you excluded it. In the lead. Unbelievable. soibangla (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Because there aren't reliable sources. Also, I believe one of Zelensky's aides just compared the attack on the Mosokva to the fire at Belgorod, calling both incidents "bad luck". You will recall that the official position of the Ukranian Government on the Belgorod Fuel Depot attack is that it neither confirms or denies UKR involvement. Raelyks (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So you go with the Russian defense ministry line via state media, without even mentioning how this story originated from Ukraine first — in the lead. Wow. soibangla (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The TASS report was the first genuine WP:reliable source confirming this incident. Idk what else to tell you. Up until the russians confirmed the ship was destroyed, it was essentially impossible to ascertain its condition without blindly trusting UKR social media reports. Once again, it is regrettable that we did not have reliable sources affirming the Ukrainian position earlier. I am not trying to make a political statement with this edit, I am trying to adhere to Wikipedia:Encyclopedic style. However, speaking to you directly, I will say that I do fully support the Ukrainians in their struggle, and I hope they push the invaders all the way back to Moscow. Raelyks (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP: TASS is "reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government" that is at war and lying left and right. Without Ukraine's position. In the lead during an unfolding event. You don't see any problem with that? That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Moskva is a guided missile cruiser of the Russian Navy, or was?

According to the article the ship is damaged - due to an ammunition explosion and\or Ukrainian shore based anti-ship missiles. Elsewhere I'm seeing it claimed the ship exploded and sank. If the ship has been sunk then the article needs tweaking to past tense. I'm also seeing conflicting media claims that the ship has either been fully evacuated, or that Russia has been unable to reach the vessel which may have as many as 510 crew on board.

I'm not suggesting anything change yet - breaking news and all that, just that changes may be needed depending on what is ultimately reported. 人族 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems that's the ship was sunk according to all the preliminary information provided by Russian and Ukrainian accounts, however until we don't have OSINT images of official statements the ship is damaged/heavily crippled.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Surely a ship of that size is impossible to hide from satellites. @icowrich Icowrich (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

HMS Sheffield, sunk under similar conditions in The Falklands War, took 6 days to go under after being abandoned by the Ship's company. Warships are very hard to physically sink by ASMs (assuming the russian crew were following correct water integrity procedures).

The fact that she has been abandoned at sea means that she will not fight in this war again, but given the proximity to land there is good chance she can be recovered and refitted over years. Alternatively, if one of her magazines blew, she might have gone down rapidly. The truth is, no one outside of a few sailors and russian navy command knows for sure yet. Best to wait until we have a confirmed source that she has sunk. Munchingfoo (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Any ship can be salvaged. Unless the ship is written off, we should be using present tense is and not was. Venkat TL (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources claim that the ship sunk

Multiple sources claim that the ship sunk . (and many more)

Any actual RS rather than anonymous Twitter propaganda accounts? Mellk (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Arvydas Anušauskas, Lithuanian minister of defense: "From 2 a.m., a Turkish ship evacuated 54 sailors from the cruiser, and at about 3 a.m., Turkey and Romania reported that the ship was completely sunk."

References

It will come out eventually and then the page can be updated accurately. However, we can see what you're trying to do and let it be known that it is futile when it comes up against facts. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source of information. We've already seen the Ukrainian military literally posts video game footage claiming it's real. https://kotaku.com/ukraine-invasion-war-russia-arma-3-iii-bohemia-video-ga-1848591313 69.127.80.46 (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022 (3)

178.222.177.13 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

MOSCOW, 14 April. /TASS/. The source of ignition on the cruiser "Moskva" is localized, there is no open burning and ammunition explosions have been stopped. This was reported to journalists in the Russian Defense Ministry on Thursday.

"The source of fire on the cruiser Moskva has been localized. There is no open burning. Explosions of ammunition have been stopped," the ministry said.

As specified in the Ministry of Defense, the cruiser remains buoyant, and its main missile armament is not damaged. "The crew of the cruiser was evacuated to the ships of the Black Sea Fleet in the area. Measures are being taken to tow the cruiser to the port," the military department added, noting that the causes of the fire were being established.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14375981

 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) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

the entire article needs to be reverted to before the horde of Ukrainian bots defaced the whole thing. the ship has not been sunk, as stated by numerous news agencies and shown in photos. the only "source" of the ship being "sunk" are random posts on twitter.com - not a reliable source. this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to retract your statement now? The Moskva is clearly an ex-ship; it's gone to meet its maker; it's pining for the фьорды; it's at the bottom of the sea, and the only thing that the civilised peoples of the world are concerned about is the claim that some of the Russian crew managed to make it off the ship in one piece. If true, that sucks. 82.4.53.3 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Moskva is an ex-ship, jolly good for the ukrainians! But WP is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine.. Being first with unconfirmed rumours(even if true) is not the point of WP. 51.174.226.218 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian Media quotes the Russian MoD as saying the ship sunk

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14383383 YD407OTZ (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

https://ria.ru/20220414/kreyser-1783626130.html Spaceman998 (talk)

Waiting for the propagandists who were editing this page earlier to dispute this Yellowmellow45 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

both articles state that it sank while being towed due to stormy weather, not sank by a missile strike yesterday by Ukrainians. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Crew

Nothing in the article mentions the number of crew. Is there some conventional source for things like the crew-numbers on Russian naval vessels? MrDemeanour (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

BBC mentions a crew of 510: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61103927 YD407OTZ (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour good catch. I have added the crew size into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Dmitry Medvedev statement on Moskva

https://www.er-duma.ru/news/predsedatel-partii-edinaya-rossiya-dmitrij-medvedev-zayavil-o-postavlennyh-vks-rossii-zadachah-po-unichtozheniyu-gruppirovki-sputnikov-starlink/

User:Mfb Please read the Official link above. Use Google translate if you have to. Please self revert and restore the content. Venkat TL (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

See my edit comment, it doesn't seem to be an official source. Unless we find a reputable independent source confirming this it shouldn't be added to the article. --mfb (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mfb Are you kidding me? Please google Duma, before responding here. Your comment above or edit summary is not making any sense to me. Please explain what you mean. Duma is as official as it gets. Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The explanation is already there. Wrong website. Here is the Tweet again in case you missed it. --mfb (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mfb Thank you for clarifying this now. You could have mentioned in the edit summary that it is a fake website of Duma. Users dont normally browse random social media links in edit summary.

Resolved

Venkat TL (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022 (5)

Intro:

The next day, following an effort to tow her ashore, Russian officials stated that the ship had sunk.

should be

The next day Russian officials stated that the ship had sunk following an effort to tow her ashore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F0:3F11:A833:E1E0:D396:6A0C:3C21 (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for Commons file

At File:Russian cruiser Moskva.jpg, please undo this change [4]. I could not do it myself, likely because the Commons file is under cascading protection of this article. Thanks Centaur271188 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Centaur271188 requested there Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism Cleaned. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Where it was hit should be added

[5]

Proposal: add “according to US intel, was hit 75 miles from Odessa” somewhere in lede.

It likely sank close by even if towed, assuming it was waterlogged, no? Readers can likely infer this, so no need to do original research and link where it was hit to where it likely sank. If you look at depth charts of the Black Sea, it likely avoided deeper areas, assuming it was being towed to a Russian port in Crimea. However, I don’t think a tractor salvage is possible, as has been suggested by memes. Imagine all the charcoal sketches of Russian sailors and their bared bosoms James Cameron is going to find when all of this is over. Something had to have been distracting them. 2600:1012:B063:C86:55D4:E6AB:394A:5D73 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

added in metric system. Not sure what you are trying to say in the second para.

Resolved

Venkat TL (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggest several minor changes and correction of a grammar/word-choice error.

Here are 3 proposals for tweaks to make this already good article better.

Proposed tweak 1:

2nd to last sentence in lead section includes a verb in the incorrect tense. In the below the word "have" should be "has".

"Russia have not announced any casualties in the fire or the sinking of the ship. American sources believed there were casualties in the event."

Proposed tweak 2:

The 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the section "Impact" could do with several changes.

The following sentence would be better if split in 3 at the semicolon and the 2nd comma ("which did, and her") and slightly reworded.

"Moskva was the only warship in Russia's Black Sea Fleet with the S-300F missile system for long-range air defence; she did not herself fire missiles at land targets in Ukraine, but provided anti-aircraft support to vessels that did, and her sinking prompted Russian ships to move further offshore."

Would be more readable if split thusly:

"Moskva was the only warship in Russia's Black Sea Fleet with the S-300F missile system for long-range air defence. She did not herself fire missiles at land targets in Ukraine, but provided anti-aircraft support to vessels which did. Her sinking prompted other Russian ships to operate further from shore."

Proposed tweak 3:

The end of the 5th paragraph of the section labeled "Aftermath" could be a little bit shorter.

"Russian commentators have otherwise repeated the official version of the government."

could be shortened to:

"Russian commentators have otherwise repeated the official government version."

2601:1C1:C100:9380:0:0:0:E052 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC) A Nony Mous

{{done}} thank you for pointing them. Venkat TL (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 14 April 2022

In the info box would it be possible to list the shipbuilder as being located in the Ukraine, formerly the Soviet Union, and use the Ukrainian spelling of the town Mykolaiv (instead of Russian spelling Nikolayev).

I also get it if there’s official Wikipedia policy on places within the former USSR. 142.167.59.64 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

True cross

I know tass isn't a great source but can we use this for it having a claimed splinter of the true cross onboard:

https://tass.com/society/1123855

©Geni (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Decommissioned and Reinstated dates

Can anybody find out the exact Decommissioned and Reinstated dates? so we can complete that section in the infobox. Must be some Russian website out there --Aaron106 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia references

16 return from a long journey
17 docked
18 test
19,20 Russian-China exercises
21 Mediterranean
22 slap in the US face
23 latakya
24 back to Sevastopol
25 Order of Nakhimov
26 rookies from Moscow
27 no such reference, it was about excellenece list(?)
29 waiting for a decision
30 renovation decided
31 renovation instea modernisation
32 first journay
33 The boat will defent Crimea during many years
34 first Basalt shooting

Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Xx236 . Can you please help to replace the reference number 16 on the current version of the article. Venkat TL (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/418490 Крейсер "Москва" вернулся в Севастополь после дальнего похода Returned to Sevastopol from a long journey Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 thanks. Please check the edit, if the text of the English Wikipedia article is supported by the link you gave. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

American official confirming the Ukrainian strike

"Russia says flagship missile cruiser has sunk after explosion off coast of Ukraine". Washington Post. 14 April 2022.

reports citing unnamed American official backing the claim that the ship was hit by Ukrainian anti-ship missile Venkat TL (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla You had removed a lot of content sourced from this article. Please read it and restore back the content you removed. Venkat TL (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL: It was improperly sourced to Twitter. Others can use a RS to restore. soibangla (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Unlock the page, if you please!

If you're sitting on your hands, indifferent to taking responsibility for keeping this page current, then unlock the effing thing, so we can - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.84.220 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please propose any edits you wish on this page. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a breaking news site. Also, Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

54 sailors rescued

A turkish source, that I'm not familiar with, reports that 54 sailors were rescued by a Turkish ship. However, i haven't seen this claim reported by sources I'm familliar with. Has this been confirmed? Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw 54 at some point, can't remember where, but given the weather, darkness and capsize (rolled onto port side, I saw somewhere) it's hard to believe everybody got out, or even most did. WaPo and CNN now report survivors are unclear. Russia doesn't have much reason to report only few got out, but right now we have their "fully evacuated" version. soibangla (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If true, then Turkish sources would also report on it. There might be some Turkish language sources perhaps? I would like to see this confirmed by other sources rather than relying upon one source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Daily Sabah is not a Turkish source. LOL. 2001:2F8:1F:355:ED61:45EB:684:EC83 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A Turkish source reports on it: https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/turkish-ship-rescued-54-sailors-on-russian-cruiser-moskva-lithuania

The defence minister confirms: https://www.facebook.com/100002969526590/posts/4800110346764569/?flite=scwspnss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:CCAF:5500:F45C:9FB:9585:5AEE (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just the same old claim--Lithuaian 'sources' claim that a Turkish ship pulled 50 or so survivors from the waters or from a boat. This is not a claim that there were only 50 survivors. 2001:2F8:1F:355:ED61:45EB:684:EC83 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Only 50 survivors https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkish-ship-rescues-over-50-russian-sailors-from-naval-cruiser-moskva-56382 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:d4df:6600:f45c:9fb:9585:5aee (talk • contribs)

I'm finding this report very strange since few sources are repeating it. Why hasn't Reuters, CNN, NPR, etc talked about this? Perhaps it was an early report that hasn't been confirmed? Perhaps it's mistaken? The only non-turkish source I can find is a brief mention by The Guardian (only a sentence). Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential Broken Arrow

Experts and analysts are warning that the warship may have been carrying two nuclear warheads when it sunk/was sunk.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10721351/Ukraine-war-Fears-Moskva-warship-carrying-nuclear-weapons-sank.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.2.78 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Any better source? See WP:DAILYMAIL, as the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

found the original sources that are being parroted everywhere without attribution

Mykhailo Samus https://www.facebook.com/mykhailo.samus.79/posts/551689999620762

Defense express https://defence-ua.com/minds_and_ideas/na_raketnomu_krejseri_moskva_jakij_tone_pislja_udaru_neptuna_mozhut_buti_jaderni_bojepripasi_opituvannja_fahivtsiv-6946.html

Andrii Klymenko https://www.facebook.com/100003576664760/posts/4741459019316607/?d=n Ryan92084 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that the New York Times is a reliable source either, as has been proven time and a again, for example with Biden's son and his laptop. --Marneus (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

None of those reliable, and it's all speculation. Wait until confirmation, there's no rush on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Seem to have been added already. Venkat TL (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Weather and TV

We have:

The sinking, reportedly due to "stormy seas", was briefly reported on Russian news media and television on 15 April 2022.

Does someone have a source for the local weather at the time? On social media, I've seen it said that there were winds of just 4mph.

Also I have seen a clip of Russian television, with a former MP discussing the sinking, and reportedly saying it was "[causa belli]]" for war on Ukraine. Again, this needs a better source than the social media where I have seen this, but it is more than "briefly reported . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing This is an RS about Russian state media. ""World War III Has Begun After Sinking Of Moskva": Russian State TV". NDTV.com. 15 April 2022.. Funny stuff. Venkat TL (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

So they are simultaneously saying it was an accidental fire/explosion and a provocation for WWIII? Can someone add this absurd projection in a non WP:SYNTH-ey way? 2600:1012:B063:C86:55D4:E6AB:394A:5D73 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

NPR quote about the "stormy seas" actually being calm, "Russian defense officials said later that the vessel sank while being towed to shore in stormy weather, though weather reports indicate that conditions on the Black Sea were mild."[6]--Found5dollar (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Found5dollar and Pigsonthewing: More information from The Guardian:[7] "Mark Hertling, the former commanding general of the United States Army Europe, told CNN: "As they were towing that ship in, that very wounded ship, into Sevastopol, they claim a storm sank it. Looking at the weather report outside of Sevastopol today the winds were about four miles an hour with 40 degree [4C] temperatures and a little bit of rain." " But we also have reports about that evening's rough weather at the location where Moskva was hit by the Ukrainians, and we do not know how far she was from Sevastopol when she sank. The Sevastopol weather report may be irrelevant. Centaur271188 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary of the article has been removed from the lead

Hi @Centaur271188 I see that you have removed the summary of the article's second half from the article. Please read WP:LEAD and explain how this removal is justified. The lead after your removal is extremely short and does not adequately summarize the article. Venkat TL (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I removed that part from the lead section in this exact edit [8]. I think it did not summarise any important points of the article, it was only a small piece of information (Arvydas Anusauskas' statement) which already existed as 2 short paragraphs in 'Sinking' and 'Casualties' sections (later I merged them and placed the combined one in 'Casualties'). If you want to add information about crew's evacuation, probable casualties etc. it is OK of course, but the paragraph should be expanded to cover other details. Centaur271188 (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Centaur271188, I disagree with your assessment on what is important here. Regardless of our disagreement, Both of us need to follow WP:LEAD. And need to provide an adequate summary of the "Entire article" in max 4 paragraphs. The two short paras that are currently there in the lead do not provide the adequate summary of the article. I want to add a lot of things but there has to be a start somewhere. I have already given my first shot and you have reverted me and removed whatever I added. I am not willing to edit war over this. So kindly restore if you agree or add whatever line you assess is important for the lead and also include in prose whatever you believe summarizes the article well. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: OK, I have just self-reverted [9]. I am not experienced in lead section writing, but if this paragraph is about the crew's condition during and after the sinking, then it should briefly mention all contradictory reports from Ukraine, Russia and third-party sources. Thanks Centaur271188 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Centaur271188 thank you for agreeing to self revert and restore my addition. Yes, I will add. Others will also add and improve the lead. Venkat TL (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

"True cross" reinstated

I've reinstated the text about the "true cross". it was deleted with comments that it wasn't notable, wasn't a genuine relic, and just had a brief sentence in the Guardian.

Notability: regardless of its actual genuineness, it was a very precious relic of the Russian state church. Its loss hasn't been reported (though its installing in the ship was) - but the loss is plausible and a great humiliation: keeping it out of the news is to be expected. The Russian embassy in London was asked about it, but didn't respond.
Genuineness: irrelevant. It was very precious. "We shouldn't be pretending it's real" - we're not.
Newsworthiness: "a brief sentence in the Guardian"? That's what was cited, but a search for <"true cross" moskva> brings up plenty of hits. I've added another.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian news sites are not reliable at all, so they shouldn't be used period. There's only a brief mention in The Guardian. The issue is that with a disaster there is going to be lots and lots and lots of things reported. Wikipedia is not for listing everything, just what's notable. Notability is determined by sources and we should give weight proportionally to how much weight reliable sources give. The coverage of the true cross does not justify inclusion and is not notable.

It doesn't tie into the story about the disaster at all or give any explanation why it's important. It's bordering on trivial information. If it can be formatted as "Did you know? The Moskva had a portion of the True Cross?" then it's WP:TRIVIA. Okay, and?

As written, the few sentences dedicated to it describe it as a legitimate relic, even though it's widely established that true cross relics are fraudulent. Indeed, most date to the medieval period where manufacture of fake relics were common. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Harizotoh9: for comments. Reading what I wrote, it does suggest that it's legitimate, which wasn't my intention; I'll reword that bit. Regarding reliability of TASS: it's reliable enough in reporting in 2020 that the cross fragment was to be kept in the ship, and how important it was, even if war reporting is nonsense. Regarding notability and relevance: I think it's significant symbolically; the Russian state considered it a unique, important, and precious object, not just something that was aboard. A bit as if an original copy of Magna Carta or the US Constitution had been ceremoniously installed on a ship that was then sunk by an enemy. Does anybody else have an opinion? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen the actual Sunday Times article, but according to this page "Putin's admirals believed the thin sliver of wood deflected missiles and torpedoes", which seems relevant. Pol098 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Dubious and unsubtantiated claim: "Russia cannot legally send ships to replace the lost Moskva"

Short version:

The instant article, repeats a frequent claim:

      ". . . Russia cannot legally send ships to replace the
      lost Moskva from its other fleet bases."

What would prevent Russia from accomplishing such replacement by simply declaring that the desired replacement flag ship is now home ported somewhere on the Black Sea?

Nothing. Nothing prevents them from doing so. Certainly not the treaty which is spuriously claimed to create this 'dilemma'.

Call it the "the re-home-porting loophole".

The remainder of the long version:

The sources cited in the article neither answer nor acknowledge that question. [This contributor has not been able to find any sources responsive to it. If anyone wants to continue the claim they need to provide citations which actually address the issue.]

It is reasonable to assume that those involved in writing, fact checking, and/or editing the currently cited sources have not read the Montreux Convention.

Heck, up until several hours ago even the Wikipedia page on the Montreux Convention neither linked to the treaty's text nor to any source which itself linked to the treaty's text.

[No. The following is not original research! It is fact checking the claim that a treaty says something.]

The Montreux Convention itself does not touch the details of how the "home port" of a warship is to be determine/falsified.

      https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1937-TS0030.pdf

      https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20173/v173.pdf

If any source with formal expertise in international law has ever made the _considered_ claim that the re-home-porting loophole does not exist, then a citation to such a source seems called for.

In the meantime repetition of this "Russia can't replace the Moskva." claim should be recognized as sloppy "logic" on the part of hurried reporters who are overly inclined to make a bigger deal of this (albeit quite significant) incident than is strictly warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:9380:0:0:0:E052 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your analysis is interesting, but it's not a basis for an edit. Bring secondary source, not your interpretation of the treaty.. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

He posted links to the treaty so there is no "his interpretation" of it. Try reading the links.Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

I had a go a rewriting the lead section per its template notice. For the most part I neither added nor removed much text, but instead reordered what was there in an effort to create a more logical structure. As it stood, we jumped into its loss in the second sentence, and then back to its history in past conflicts. —BillC ^talk 11:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The diff looks like I have hacked the lead violently, but the reality is less drastic. —BillC ^talk 11:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is it now

I was looking for where the ship is now laying on the seabed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.189.241 (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

BBC has drawn a map with the location. Venkat TL (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

I have added a location map in the article. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• An OSINT Analyst claims to have found the location of the ship. Close to where it was last sighted on 12 April. Sutton, H. I. (15 April 2022). "Satellite Image Pinpoints Russian Cruiser Moskva As She Burned". Naval News. --Venkat TL (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

= Also do we know how deep it is? Per Google Earth much of that region is 120 - 150 feet. Could the wreck be a hazard to navigation? == 2600:1700:F540:5560:B85A:4F99:5F30:684E (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

She or it?

Previously the page used "she" or "it" inconsistently, I changed them all to "it" but I have no opinion as to whether "it" or "she" should be used, as long as it's consistent. General Vicinity (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If the first use gets priority I guess it should be "she" [10] General Vicinity (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@General Vicinity, WP:SHIP consistently use she. Please use she. Venkat TL (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It is customary for ships to be referred as feminine objects, though apparently some have gone away from that tradition. "It" might be OK, though "she" is more idiomatic, so please follow Venkat TL's advice. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki @General Vicinity, in the meanwhile I looked at a Featured article (e.g. AHS_Centaur) and it used the name of the ship Centaur instead of she. I guess we can avoid the dispute and use Moskva. SInce I am not sure if Russians use she for this ship. Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what Russians use; this isn't Russian wikipedia. "She" is customary in English. "It" looks ignorant, to my eye (and I don't see that there's much dispute here; I don't see anyone advocating for "it"). MrDemeanour (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have the opinion that "she" is an antiquated sexist term and should be discontinued. A ship in a non-gendered inanimate object and should be referred to as "it". Precedence is not an adequate justification for the continuation of a sexist practice. —JM 19:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodamiller (talk • contribs)

@General Vicinity, MrDemeanour, Szmenderowiecki, and Venkat TL: 'It' and 'she' are both OK per MOS:GNL and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. This article has used 'she' since the beginning (@Venkat: AHS Centaur page also has quite a few 'she/her'), like many others. Apparently 'it' is used more often than 'she' in the cited reports about 'her' sinking. Centaur271188 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Centaur271188 is right. Either remains acceptable as a basis for consistent use in the article in question - see WP:SHE4SHIPS, with the usage in the first non-stub version taking precedence. There has recently been an almost-interminable review of this question here, which led to no change to currect guidance. Davidships (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer "it" or "Moskva" as needed. "she" just treats the ship as person instead of an inanimate object, presumably a holdover of when Anglo-Saxon/Anglish had gendered object nouns (as Romance languages still do), or older shamanistic beliefs of objects having spirits. Though if it were in a Japanese videogame or cartoon, it would be represented by a mecha-girl. Though per Venkat TL, we seem to have a procedure of first precedent occurrence. (resultant in "she") -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We've had multiple RfCs on Wikipedia regarding the usage of "she" for ships (here is one such example from 2014; there are many more), and the long-standing site-wide consensus across Wikipedia, per WP:SHIPPRONOUNS and WP:SHE4SHIPS, is that both "she" and "it" are acceptable, and that the first usage is preferred to avoid needless edit warring; regardless of how some may perceive the implications of "she" being used to describe an inanimate object, it is customary in the English language (used by the English Wikipedia) to refer to seaborne vessels as female. Any conjecture here on this particular talk page would be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and thus inappropriate to be making content-based decisions from. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you see what I wrote? I said that per Venkat TL, the procedure says to use "she" due to first non-stub usage. Also per what I said, this could just tbe avoided by using "Moskva" instead. Also "the ship", "the warship", "the cruiser", "the missile cruiser", "this ship", "this warship", "this cruiser", "this missile cruiser" -- completely avoids he/she/it -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Generally I favor "she" when referring to ships as this is the nearly universal usage among mariners in the Anglosphere. However, in this case I am making an exception. The ship was Russian and in that language ships are traditionally referred to as male. Thus Russians would refer to the Moskva as "he." I think this would be jarring and confusing to most of our readers, and including an explanatory note would make the article clunky. Better to just go gender neutral in this instance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree. If the Russians refer to ships as male, and insist that others follow their usage, then they should have conquered the British Isles in 1066, but they didn't. This is the English Wikipedia, and we write article prose using English mannerisms, style norms and expressions, not Russian ones. If non-native English readers are potentially confused by this, then this is their chance to learn more about Anglosphere culture, and its unique quirks and features. As a long-term contributor to the Chinese Wikipedia, I assure you that the community there views erroneous Anglicisms with disdain (e.g. using the sentence order "我們要報仇！因為珍珠港" instead of "因為珍珠港，我們要報仇！"), and I'm confident that other language Wikipedias likewise will be hesitant (at best, and that's putting it nicely) to allow hyperforeignisms to override standard written practice, so it's strange and baffling to allow the English Wikipedia to be excessively concerned about how non-native speakers "may potentially" think of this and that, as one of the considerations for writing in a particular style. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I fully agree with this. Ships have had female pronouns since the 14th century and don't see any reason why this tradition should be changed. Most Wikipedia articles on ships (and articles on ships in general) use them. Oebelysk (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As Russia still didn't confirm the missile strike, shouldn't we keep their version too, in the Fate section?

Suggestions please SReader2101 (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's doubtful that Russia will publicly concede its ship was sunk by Ukrainian missiles. Third parties have done so, so there is no need to equivocate in the lead/infobox. The article still states the Russian position. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point there are two equally valad claims until proven otherwise so the Russian claim should stay.Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. 50.111.59.42 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just like the case with EgyptAir Flight 990, where two governments differ in the cause. So, both official accounts have to be included. Likely, the Russian side is a lie in order to show face; but a claim to that notion requires solid proof. On the morale situation, Russia actually has much to lose when admitting to a missle strike, even though their account is not all that much better (onboard fire implying crew incompetence). KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 14:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Definite article

Why is the definite article, 'the', being removed from "the Moskva"? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It is usual to refer to ships by their name, without "the". From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles:
Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:

• Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (preferred)
• The Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (not recommended)

Pol098 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, using the definite article with Moskva was the case in all the accounts I read, including those in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and The Times, so I find it hard to believe the guidance you link is actually correct, since all of these sources are generally well edited. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

We would not want to enable the misreading that there had been a missile strike on the namesake *city* of Moskva, so in such instances it is inadvisable to use the naked name. RTS Moskva would be the equivalent usage to HMS Sheffield or USS Iowa’’.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian & Ukrainian/US explanations aren't contradictory (as of 17 Ap 22)

Russia says that the ship sank "after a fire and explosions". Ukraine (supported by US analysis) says that the ship sank after being hit by missiles. These explanations aren't actually contradictory if we interpret the Russian one as deliberately misleading. The complete explanation is perhaps "the ship sank after missile hits caused a fire and explosions". I would tend to add a bit to the Russian explanation: "the ship sank after a fire and explosions, with no explanation of cause". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pol098 [11] In the second para, It notes: (I quote) "Russia's Defense Ministry said, "The source of ignition on the cruiser Moskva has been localized". So due to this statement, your proposal cannot be added. Venkat TL (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pol098, the Russian explanation is just a valid as the Ukrainian one. Nobody else was there to verify if the ship was hit by one or two missiles, or none as the case may be.Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:@Degen Earthfast:While I don't think this is a major issue, what I wrote remains correct as far as I can see. Russia said "The source of ignition on the cruiser Moskva has been localized", but without stating the cause. This (deliberately I should think) does not exclude "The source of ignition on the cruiser Moskva has been localized as a missile". And it is true that "the Russian explanation is just as valid as the Ukrainian one" - but, as I said, the Russian explanation "fire and explosion" does not exclude a missile strike, does not contradict the Ukrainian explanation. It would be very easy for the Russians to actually state the cause they have "localised" (did they actually identify it or only locate where, but not what, it was?), but they have not stated any cause, "the ship sank after missile hits caused a fire and explosions" remains consistent with both Russian and Ukrainian statements, though not proven to be true. All this assuming the Russians haven't made a detailed statement of cause or denial of missile strike that I have missed. To summarise what I am saying: As far as I know Russia has never explicitly denied that a missile might have caused Moskva to sink. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the Russian explanation is NOT "just as valid" - the Russian regime lies constantly. We're talking about a brutal dictatorship here, not a gov't with oversight and verification from independent parties. If the Western news analysis comes from Western military recon of what happened, that's the line to follow here. 50.111.59.42 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the Russian explanation is NOT "just as valid". In reality I agree with you; for the purposes of Wikipedia, if an official statement says something, then it's valid to say so, if necessary with reliably sourced and auhoritative statements of doubt. In this sort of case both the Russian and Ukrainian statements should be looked at with suspicion, with 3rd-party analysis (e.g., US) and/or verifiable evidence needed. The analysis and some evidence (apparent holes in ship shown in photographs) exists in this case. I repeat that the purpose of my comment was to point out that the Russians haven't actually denied a missile strike. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources for post-attack damages

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1515958749705478152 https://twitter.com/BormanIke/status/1515816220393713665

-- Kreyren (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Kreyren, are you suggesting these changes be implemented? Just trying to determine what you are suggesting. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

to be to be

"... Christian relic purported to be to be a part of the True Cross" --> 2x "to be" ... --Okmijnuhb (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. In the future you can use the template {{semi-protected edit request}} for this kind of thing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sinking" Information removed.

Most of the text from the "Sinking" section has been moved to a separate article; but as a result, the only info left here is the Ukrainian version. The Russian claim is no longer mentioned at all. That can't be right, can it? Herr Hartmann (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No, and I'm kinda surprised there is a separate article about the sinking. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the separate article as there has been plenty of coverage. But what's left here is not adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The Russian version has been removed from the Info-Box: Fate as well. It seems like someone (or several someones) is actively trying to eliminate the Russian side of the story. That's not really what we do around here! Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki follows what the Reliable Sources say. If there is a valid Russian source, it can be cited. That means no blogs, personal websites, et al. 50.111.59.42 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't need Russian sources. Reliable Sources are reporting that Ukraine says one thing and Russia says something else. Actually, the source currently cited for the "Fate" entry reports exactly that. At the moment we still don't know what really happened. All we have are two different "official" statements that obviously contradict one another. Choosing to include one story and leaving out the other is not what we do around here. Eventually, one of the two stories will be proven to be false. But even then, the fact that the false story was circulated at the time of the sinking will still remain a relevant part of the ship's history. As I'm writing this, the Russian story has been re-included into the article, so the problem is no longer acute. But removing it in the first place was definitely a mistake. Herr Hartmann (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone point me to relevant wikipedia rules for dealing with these situations - where there are multiple official accounts of what happened? It seems that currently, the article is implicitly valuing the Ukrainian and American account more. PolyCreator (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't found the exact section yet, but it ought to be somewhere in WP:NPOV. And yes, the article still favors the Ukrainian/International version very much. It's no longer as bad as it was before, but I still think it's not good enough yet. Herr Hartmann (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Photo of burning ship

this photo shows the burning ship shortly before she sank. Could it be used under NFFU rules? Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That photo had already been linked into the article. Apparently it was taken out again. So the answer to your question seems to be "No." Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple wiki pages with the sinking or burning ship aftermath. For example the ARA Belgrano includes the photo as it is sinking and still burning.

The two photos online are important evidence of the event, and as such should be included. EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The Belgrano photo is public domain. Neither of the Moskva photos I have seen are even attributed (official/unofficial?, Russian/Turkish?). Davidships (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Herr Hartmann: Linking to a photo and uploading it to en-Wiki under NFFU rules are not the same thing. As we cannot establish the the photo is either public domain or on a Commons compatible licence, we treat it as copyright. That does not mean we can't use it if we can demonstrate that it meets all criteria for use. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The photo clearly shows two missile impacts on the ship, which would serve to counter the Kremlin propaganda going around. --2.24.139.190 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Although the photo shows two holes in the ship, H I Sutton, independent defense analyst and author, stated on a CNN news report that these holes "need closer examination to confirm whether they were caused by missiles or are simply fire damage". My point is that these two holes need further independent examination, meaning that the cause still remains disputed. CastleFort1 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg

better image

Geek surine (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Depth of sea where the Moskva sank?

How deep was the Black Sea where the Moskva sank? (The Black Sea is 2210m at its deepest point.) Does anyone have GPS coords for where the ship is believed to have gone down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algorithmicist (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

45°10’43.39″N, 30°55’30.54″E PolyCreator (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

U.S.-style times, or European/military?

MOS:AMPM says to "use context" to determine whether times should be 12-hour (U.S. style with a.m. or p.m. suffix) or 24-hour. I think the latter because of both European and military ties to the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Latter definitely makes more sense given the proximity and relevance to Europe. PolyCreator (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Read: Moskva warship sinking: dramatic photos and video give clues to flagship's fate as Ukraine and Russia tell contrasting tales abc.net.au

Weather in photos/video is calm, there is no storm. Ship is listing. Australia Broadcasting Corporation, World News, abc.net.au Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

'The captain of the ship was reported to have died in the incident.'

I have removed the unverified statement. According to the BBC Anton Kuprin is alive.Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)