Jump to content

Talk:ARA Libertad (Q-2)

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

Merged article

[edit]

This article has been merged with ARA Libertad (Q-2) (April 29, 2007). ●DanMS • Talk 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References, sources, citations?

[edit]

I've tagged this interesting little article (which AFAIK seems to be accurate) so the (verifiable?) sources used to write it are cited. To the "key" editors that contributed to this article: please add citations, references, bibliography as appropriate. I'll try also to contribute some.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more structure & contents

[edit]

Hi, I'll review the structure of this article & rearrange some of the existing text (and possibly adding more) which is now in a "big chunk".
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

general caracteristics

[edit]

It seems to me it is impossible for the vessel speed to be 138 knots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.60.207 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.shiptracking.eu/ais/#/getvesseldetails?mmsi=701000001 the vessel's speed is 11.8 knots. That seems reasonable for a vessel of that size with a diesel engine. Who's going to change it?

Agent0060 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

these news should be added

[edit]

http://www.brecorder.com/world/south-america/83481-ghana-holds-argentine-frigate-over-debt-buenos-aires-.html Lastdingo (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French were there first (not successful)

[edit]

I seem to remember in 2008-ish, when a Russian sailship came to Bergen for the tallshiprace. It was a piece of news that the ship had sailed in express speed beyond the UK. It was the thing to do, as the British were brutal for wanting to arrest a Russian man, who already had fled to Moscow. Actual reason: It may be that when the Ship was at port in the South of France, the French court ruled that collecting debt from the Czar-era meant that you were entitled to arrest that ship at port. The ship made haste for the three mile zone or beyond. If you leg it from France, you do not want to know what the British will do to you.

The difference is, the French did not collect debt that day, were as the Ghanese are one big step closer.

As for my point: any more of similar stories? --83.108.29.226 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Number

[edit]

I see Ambassador Castro has claimed the IMO have stated that the ARA Libertad doesn't have an IMO number. There is nothing from the IMO on their website, see [1] for example or [2]. Seems that contrary to what the ambassador has claimed that IMO number is used extensively. Per WP:NOTNEWS I'm going to suggest it isn't changed until the IMO comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the IMO No reference. It always was completely spurious. This ship does not have one, and never has; the number quoted is not even a valid IMO number(read how they are constructed). Shipspotting.com doesn't meet WP:RS (it's a member edited enthusiasts site) - members there wrongly used an ID number from the Miramar database [3]. It's inclusion here led to WP being cited by media and the Ghana Government to demonstrate that the Libertad was not a naval vessel entitled under international law to immunity from interference, but merely a civilian vessel within the IMO's ambit. The lawyers' bills we be on the way!Davidships (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Claim

[edit]

I've removed a dubious claim that this ship appears on Russian banknote. The source used to cite this [4] does not make this claim, it merely notes internet claims that is shows this ship. The ship on the banknotes is in fact the STS Sedov. WCMemail 21:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not merely note Internet claims. The article contains two paragraphs on the issue, which are reproduced below.
Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. §Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран. — Не нужно искать тайного смысла там, где его нет, — говорит Игорь Крылков. — На фотографии, с которой я срисовывал порт, стоял современный пароход. Но в последний момент в Центробанке сказали, что с общей идеей банкноты пароход не стыкуется. Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал. Откуда мне было знать, что в Архангельск он не заходил?
A Google machine translation shows that whereas the former mentions the Internet claims (along with their rationale), the latter reproduces Krylkov's reply, in which he suggests that he did not know with certainty that the ship in question was the Sedov.
By the way, the Russian Internet users break and another inconsistency in the "canvas" in denominations of 500 rubles. According to them, standing on a moored near Arkhangelsk Sea Commercial Port sailboat never comes close to Russia. And even more so to Arkhangelsk. Considering the number of masts and location of the cabin, was identified as an Argentine sailing ship "Libertad". In the image of a foreign ship on the Russian bill began to seek out almost a hint of economic "relations" between the two countries. - No need to look for hidden meaning where there is none, - says Igor Krylkov. - The photograph, which I was drawing the port was a modern ship. But at the last moment in the Central Bank said that the general idea of the steamer does not fit the bill. I immediately found a photo with the sailboat and redraw. How could I know that in Arkhangelsk, he did not come?
It is worth noting that the claim has credibility. For instance, as the article notes, the Sedov has four masts, which are not shown on the banknote: File:Banknote_500000_rubles_(1995)_front.jpg
Further, it is quite uncommon for a ship to be featured on a banknote of a foreign country. I am of the opinion that, at the very least, the uniqueness of the event warrants a mention in the article. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian Internet users" - ie rumour and conjecture on the Internet, this is not a reliable source to make that claim. You're perpetuating an Internet hoax - take this to WP:RSN rather than blindly reverting. WCMemail 08:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN#Ship on a banknote - please for once allow outside comment and don't deter it with reams of text. WCMemail 08:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that such a description (in Russian, based on [1][2]) :
Судно Либертад было определено российскими интернет-пользователями, как судно изображённое на российских банкнотах в 500 000 рублей (1997) и 500 рублей (1998, 2001, 2004)[1]. Художник этих банкнот (бывший главный художник центробанка России) Игорь Крылков в интервью газете "Московский комсомолец" заявил, что перерисовал это парусное судно с фотографии[1]. Позже, то что на купюре Либертад, в эфире Первого канала подтвердил историк Сергей Терентьев[2]. Последняя модификация банкноты (2010) изменила вид корабля[2].
  • I think that in English is written as (you can correct if necessary):
The ship Libertad was defined by russian Internet users as the ship, which is depicted on the Russian 500,000 rubles bill (1997) and 500 rubles bill (1998, 2001, 2004)[1]. Designer of these banknotes (former the chief artist of the central bank) Igor Krylkov in the interview to newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets" said that redrew this ship from the photo[1]. Later, the fact that the banknote depicts Libertad, confirmed to Channel One Russia by the historian Sergey Terentyev[2]. The last modification of banknote changed view of the sailing ship[2].
  1. ^ a b c d e Gnedinskaya, Anastasia (26 June 2011). "Khudozhnik ot kupyur" Художник от купюр [The Artist of the Banknotes] (in Russian). Moskovskij Komsomolets. Archived from the original on 4 December 2014. Retrieved 27 November 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e "Народная экономика" выяснила, как время изменило виды с денежных купюр // Channel One Russia

Your suggestions and additions? --Insider (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your current mistake is ignoring that content must be reliably sourced and the current version you have reverted to is not. The source does not support the claim made. I have already challenged you to provide a source that verifies the claim made. This you failed to do, you can't restore material that fails verification under the guise of WP:BRD. I can't allow you to restore material that fails verification.


Krylkov quite clearly dismisses rumours it was the Libertad, you are simply ignoring what the sources says. Sergey Terentyev does not confirm it is the Libertad and could not anyway, he expresses his opinion it is the Libertad. The source you've given doesn't verify the claim you're making. Even if you agree with adding the text above, I would still tag it for fringe theories, since it falls into the category WP:OTHERSTUFF. WCMemail 08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "Internet rumours" in source [1]? Only russian Internet users. Provide reliable sources about the Sedov. [5][6] It is not reliable sources. Cite this: "Igor Krylkov dismissed the Internet rumours" in source. --Insider (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered your own question when you point out the Interview mentions Russian Internet Users. In the same Interview Krylkov ridicules the suggestion of "secret signs" or gaffes. I've already answered you twice I won't be repeating myself further. If you want to cut it down further:
I would still tag this as fringe material because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. WCMemail 09:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further if you look at what is actually left, the article now basically says some guys on the Internet think a picture of this ship is on a Russian bank note. Is this really encyclopedic content? WCMemail 09:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And then write as in the source: "russian Internet users", not "Internet rumours". You misunderstand interview.
I hope the colors will help you. Red color about the sailing ship. Green color about an allusion to the economic relations. Also recall that "с тем парусником" means "with the sailing ship" (concrete sailing ship).--Insider (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference mk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Arguing semantics doesn't wash, we don't have to use the exact words the source uses. Pointedly Wikipedia encourages you not to, since to copy is a copyright violation. WCMemail 12:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You laugh? 3 words are copyvio? Especially as it is written in the original "пользователи Рунета" ("users of Runet"). So the problem is not understanding the source in Russian language. Read it as a whole. Not taken out of context. --Insider (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't read the article, the claim it is the Sedov isn't even mentioned. WCMemail 09:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When did speculation on the Internet become encyclopedic content? This doesn't belong here. I've waited patiently for a reliable source for this claim and none have been forthcoming. This doesn't belong on wikipedia. WCMemail 08:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the point. The speculation was published by a reliable source. Hence, it has its room in the article - for the time being, as a speculation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point spectacularly, fringe theories mentioned in a reliable source are still fringe theories. And no there is no room in wikipedia for such material, your revert was incorrect as was your attempt at intimidation by a false warning regarding edit warring. This material doesn't belong in the article. WCMemail 08:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are not fringe, and no sources ever say they are fringe. So far you are the only user around to voice this opinion, and there are at least four others who do think the material belongs to the article. Let us wait for a more convincing consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, the source states that they're Internet rumours, the artist dismisses that, that is almost the dictionary definition of fringe. I will be taking this to WP:ANI. WCMemail 09:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WCM, Internet rumours cannot overcome reliable sources. Simple like it sounds. BTW, Libertad never visited Arkhangelsk.--Darius (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darius, however, he wrote this in article. See original version. No rumors, exactly as in the source. --11:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop misrepresenting the source, the original artist does not confirm this, he in fact dismisses Internet rumours of secret signs and gaffes as ridiculous. WCMemail 14:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any willingness to discuss, which means the next stop will be ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is indeed what happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source very clearly, quoting the artist, says it is Libertad, and that Libertad never visited Arkhangelsk.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No the source does not say that, the interviewer states that is an Internet rumour which the artist dismissed. At no point in the interview does the artist confirm this. You are abusing your admin privileges to force Bullshit into this article. WCMemail 11:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is incorrect. The artist confirms the rumours. I am a native Russian speaker, and you are not a Russian speaker at all. I do not see how your opinion on a content of a text in Russian can be of any value, since you can not possibly understand what is written there. Concerning my admin privileges, I never ever applied (or promised to apply) them to this case, hence what you say about abuse is bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cobblers, don't play that card, already had a native Russian speaker confirm the source doesn't support that claim. You were canvassed to come here to back up your mate and you've behaved disgracefully. As an admin you should not be escalating this yet you see intent on raising the temperature of this discussion. This material doesn't belong here, you're not discussing the subject you're trying to argue from authority and to be frank making an arse of yourself.WCMemail 12:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring this Russian speaker here and stop making personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the discussion at WP:ANI and tried to follow the discussion here and the various claims. I may be a fool to try this, but maybe a less personalised account of the points at issue might help?

  1. There have been claims that the ship on the banknote is the Libertad and that the Libertad never visited Arkhangelsk.
  2. The claim that the ship on the banknote is the Libertad is not prima facie dubious. The banknote shows a ship with three masts with 5 yardarms each, a tall wheelhouse midships and a bow with a long sweeping shallow curve. The Libertad shares all these features, the Sedov (four masts, 6 yardarms on each of the main three masts, low wheelhouse aft of midships and a bow with a short pronounced curve) does not.
  3. There have been claims that the Libertad was chosen to present Argentinian-Russian relations. The artist, Krylkov, gives a different account of the choice.
  4. The Google translation of Krylkov's comments is clear enough on one point: when he drew the ship, he did not know it had never visited the port shown.
  5. Krylkov in Google translation is not as clear as we would wish. In "I immediately found a photo with the sailboat", "the sailboat" could refer to "the sailboat on the banknote" or "the Libertad". But in "How could I know that in Arkhangelsk, he did not come?", he does seem to accept that the ship had not visited the port shown and thus to accept the identification of the ship as the Libertad. But the interview does not give us the question Krylkov is answering and he does not - even in Russian - name the banknote ship as the Libertad.
  6. In the above discussion, we're told that historian Sergey Terentyev has identified the ship as the Libertad. I can't tell if we have a reliable source stating that Terntyev made that identification or a whether we recognise Terntyev as an authority.

It seems to me that we have enough to say that there have been claims that (a) the Libertad was shown on the banknote, even though it had never visited that port, and (b) the choice was symbolic, but that the artist dismisses (b), the claim that the choice was symbolic. At present, we don't have consensus here for stating that the ship was the Libertad. NebY (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning #5, the "sailboat" in the interview refers to the ship on the banknote.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that in the ANI thread Ymblanter has backed away from stating explicitly that the source says it is the Libertad, softening it to state that it "kind of" infers it. The source is unreliable for that conclusion and as a tabloid it's not a good source to use anyway. So I agree with Neby the best we can conclude from it is that the source can be cited for the presence of rumour and conjecture on the Internet. That fails very much into fringe territory, something that is not a candidate for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Simply because we can source that these things exist doesn't mean we have to include them. WCMemail 19:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state here that I strongly disagree with WCM's assessment of my statements.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw if you look at pictures of the Sedov from that angle you cannot see the shorter fourth mast. Plus there are obvious differences such as the decorative mouldings on the Libertad that are absent in the banknote. As I also showed at RSN there are other sailboats superficially similar to that on the banknote. All of which by the way I'd conjecture on our part and bring WP:OR unsuitable for deciding content. I appreciate that you withdrew the accusation of lying. WCMemail 19:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ARA Libertad (Q-2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ARA_Libertad_(Q-2)&oldid=1228261575"