Jump to content

Talk:Russian ship Tsezar Kunikov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.227.232.204 (talk) at 16:50, 14 February 2024 (→Additional RSes for sinking: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which ship is seen burning?

In the video the number on the ship in the front resembles "58", a "1" is not visible however (scraped off? or completely different ship?), so if the decision is between only the two ships mentioned here, I'd say the Novocherkassk is the one in the back with the quite intense fire on the foredeck. However, one can also see a bit of smoke from the ship in the front (though that might only be smoldering debris blown over from the Saratov at the dock).--OBrian (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is quite possible, that for current operation all Ropuchas had changed their numbers (at least the nearest ship is painted off its name near stern). Moreover there are sources that Ropuchas from other fleets had also entered in Black Sea for exercises in the beginning of 2022. So, it is possible, that they are not even CK and N. Alex Spade (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional RSes for sinking

I don't want to overwhelm the page needlessly with excessive citations, so here are a few additional WP:RSes regarding today's sinking:

Regards, --benlisquareT•C•E 09:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t help but notice that Realhonestman’s only contributions are removing sections that “disparage” Russian equipment. Real interesting, that. 2601:147:4580:34C0:70D6:16A4:46CA:DD6C (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely natural for someone interested in neutrality to wait for more sources rather than editing the Wikipedia on a whim because ukraine officials said something, especially considering the amount of lies and propaganda they're producing 130.193.121.50 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
love me how "ukraine says" articles are used as a viable source for Wikipedia 130.193.121.50 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof that Wikipedia policy requires articles to be "factual", whatever that might subjectively mean? WP:RS is Wikipedia policy, and we cover what third-party RSes have covered. BBC, CNN and Reuters are on the WP:RSP list, that is not up for debate. There is no policy anywhere that says that we must hear "both sides" of the story, or that we need to "hear the other warring side" before we can edit military-related articles. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to assess the reliability of sources. If all available sources only refer to Ukrainian Army twitter post, then we can assume the information is highly unreliable, and we'd better wait for better reporting. — kashmīrī TALK 10:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of Russian telegram channels confirming this. Perhaps on the the biggest channel, Rybar, has acknowledged it sinking. 1.145.210.134 (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the biggest channels* 1.145.210.134 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Telegram is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Read WP:RS. — kashmīrī TALK 10:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to recall, this is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of unverified rumours. We always prefer reliability of information over speed of reporting. — kashmīrī TALK 10:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a viable source, the direct quote from rybar channel says "The extent of damage to the warship is unknown." 78.109.65.213 (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official Ukrainian press release only says that the ship "began to sink"[1], not that its has sunk. — kashmīrī TALK 10:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denniss Where is this video evidence available? 331dot (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you seek footage of this attack, Ukraine's HUR posted it to YouTube. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the official footage of the GUR, but there is no independent verification. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters also confirmed that its the Kunikov 217.227.232.204 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Is Caesar Kunikov correct (official) transcription (transliteration?) of the ship's name? I admit I'm not a specialist in this field and Caesar (given name) has a link to the ship's namesake, but Tsaezar Kunikov, "Caesar" nonetheless sounds like some kind of "westernization" of his given name (and, consequently, the ship's name). Tupsumato (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, correction

The initial summary of the article erroneously claims that Ukraine claimed to have sunk the ship on Feb 14, 2014. The correct year should be 2024, as is correctly described elsewhere on the page. 129.2.192.2 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_ship_Tsezar_Kunikov&oldid=1207364160"