Talk:Russian cruiser Moskva

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)

Flag ship history inconsistency

This article currently says "she replaced the Kynda-class cruiser Admiral Golovko as the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet." - however Soviet cruiser Admiral Golovko says "The vessel acted as the flagship for the Black Sea Fleet until replaced by Project 1134B Berkut B warship Kerch in 1997.", linking to Russian cruiser Kerch. Which is it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:58, 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)

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)

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)

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)

Storm

Do we have any independent data about the stormy weather while the cruiser was being towed? There are tweets like this, saying about 14 knots, but a more reliable source would be preferable. --Jmk (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jmk that report appears to be credible. There were reports of choppy waters on 13. On 14 the weather had stablized. But the Russian spin had already latched on to the storm theory by then. Some of the analysts had pointed this during the interviews. Venkat TL (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@665788/historic this is historical wheather data from the west coast of Rumania, light wind. I read a rapport of light wind and rain, but can't find it again. So aprox. 50-100 nm from where the Moscow the was hit weather was better than average - so the russian take on the weather seems to be "more propaganda" than fact. 5.186.126.139 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Moskva was a cruiser; the biggest type of naval ship short of an aircraft carrier, and the biggest ship in the Black Sea. Cruisers do not sink because of rough weather. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

They do if they are floundering. 2001:2F8:1F:355:ED61:45EB:684:EC83 (talk) 10:39, 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)

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)

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."[1]--Found5dollar (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Found5dollar and Pigsonthewing: More information from The Guardian:[2] "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)

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)

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" [3] 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)

• 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)

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)

Russian ministry of Defense: commander of Navy admiral Nikolay Evmenov and command of Black Sea navy met with crew of Moskva cruiser in Sevastopol.

Video shows about 50 sailor in first row, and some sailors in the 2nd row (max: 50)

No word on the remaining sailors

Russian Translation from video: The cruiser's officers, midshipmen & sailors will continue to serve in the Navy, the Navy chief said. He added that the Moskva cruiser's crew recruits would be discharged according to the law between May & June.

References

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’’.

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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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

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 [6] 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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)