This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sinking of the Moskva article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Russian cruiser Moskva was copied or moved into Destroying of the Moskva with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Most similar articles to this one - about events of consequence in a war - include some description of the "so what?". That's what makes the event itself notable enough to deserve its own article. But this currently lacks such an outcomes / results section. Now, that's understandable - events are still unfolding. But I think we should take a stab at it with what is known now, and to give a place to add to in the future as more becomes clear. e.g. Ukraine trumpeting the sinking as a PR victory, Russia showing anger at it, or indifference. Credibly-cited conclusions about how it affects Russia's capacity for operations in the black sea. Implications for anti-ship tactics and defense thereof in warfare, etc. Anyone want to throw a first cut in there? Denzera ( talk) 21:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Change the title from "Destroying of the Moskva" to "Sinking of the Moskva", it's better grammar and it's correct. PixelatedGalaxy ( talk) 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree Herr Hartmann ( talk) 23:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@
331dot,
Ad Orientem,
Alex Blokha,
Bri,
CAVincent,
Harizotoh9,
Pigsonthewing, and
Venkat TL: (and others) Merge this article back into
Russian cruiser Moskva, please. The single most notable event about her is her sinking, no need to split content. Even RMS Titanic does not have a separate sinking page like this.
Centaur271188 (
talk)
00:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This should be merged with the Russian cruiser Moskva (as per the other examples in the See Also); while a notable event, it is not on the scale of the sinking of the titanic. Having two articles on the same ship will only lead to inaccuracies down the line - better to have one well kept article (turn it into a GA), than split in two. 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 10:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
merge it back into the main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.59.42 ( talk) 16:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that we merge this with Russian cruiser Moskva. The ship is not so notable that it deserves its own separate sinking article (i.e. Sinking of RMS Titanic), and is more akin to the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano or the HMS Sheffield (D80). There are a lot of facts still unknown/unverified about the sinking, and having two separate articles is not going to help with quality/POV control. 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 10:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Although closed (and I agree WP:SNOW was the right call) I thought I'd add to opposing the merge by noting that the Moskva was sufficiently important to already have a substantial and well-referenced article not only before sinking but before present hostilities broke out. The sinking was, separately, also an important event which is likely to have implications well beyond present hostilities - something military planners will be studying around the world for some time to come. Having separate articles is amply justified. Also noting: it sure seems odd to me that most of the opposition to this being a separate article is coming from IP editors, some of whom seem to be oddly familiar with WP practices for users who haven't bothered to create accounts. CAVincent ( talk) 02:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
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) 19:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
A report cited here [1] says the ship sank at 3 a.m. on 14 April. The satellite radar shows other vessels nearby at 6:52 pm on 13 April [2]. Perhaps the pictures showing the damaged ship were taken late afternoon 13 April? Or am I missing something? -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 20:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. I think the article is a little confusing, because the chain of events is jumbled and not made clear.
This table is an attempt to show roughly when the main events occurred - the order may not be correct.
Please add time, events and references to this table :
April Date | Time of event |
Time/ date of report |
Subject | WP:Secondary source |
WP:Primary source ¬es |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
13 | 18:52 | Radar image | [1] | ||
13 | day | April 18 | ship listing and burning | [2] | Telegram |
13 | 19:40 | Sun sets | [3] | Civil Twilight is +½h | |
13 | 20:42 | Ukranian claim | [4] | ||
13 | Russian claim | ||||
14 | 03:00 | ship sunk | [5] |
We may or may not include the table in the article, but at least it shows a single timeline.
Notice the difference between when the event occurred, and when it was reported some time later.
There seems to be no fact about when the hull was breached, causing seawater to enter the ship.
There are conflicting reports on what the weather was like, and when.
TGCP (
talk)
22:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
References
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) 21:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I've removed c:File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg from the infobox as it appears to be a copyright violation (see above section). However, a local non-free file, File:Moskva Sinking.jpg, does exist, but was removed from this article for lacking a non-free use rationale. I don't have much experience with writing non-free use rationales, but I thought I'd point this out for if anyone else wanted to. However, I'll say in advance, I don't think that as currently stands it would be acceptable to use that image in the infobox. We do not have confirmation from RS of the photo's authenticity, so it would be inaccurate to show it as the infobox image. But it could perhaps be included in § "Other observations", with caption and adjacent text noting that its authenticity has not been confirmed. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 03:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@
WikiHannibal: Indeed it would be; It's not deprecated, but it is "generally unreliable"; see
WP:METRO. "Generally unreliable" is not good enough for a current and highly politicized event.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/
they)
08:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.This one isn't reputably published here, it's on Metro. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 18:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
COMMONS:File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS at COMMONS:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 21:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! Does anybody know the name of the Turkish ship [3] involved with the crew rescue? What about the salvage attempts by 2 rescue tug boats? One of them was the Shakhter (SB-922), project 712 [4] with he famous picture probably taken from the [5] [6] SB-742 project 22870. -- Nicola Romani ( talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI, COMMONS:File:FQlEjIoXwAYLYpS.jpg has been nominated for deletion. See the discussion on COMMONS at COMMONS:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 18:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
According to WP:NCS, it is generally preferred not to have "the" in front of the name of a ship. Hence, should the title of this article be more correct as "Sinking of Moskva"? Loqiical ( talk) 11:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should say Moskva was the largest warship by displacement sunk since WWII. Our source doesn't actually say that: "The 12,490-tonne vessel is the biggest Russian warship to be sunk in action since World War Two." However, the BBC appears to be wrong about the displacement. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Request Sanity Check. Pinging Abecedare. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RealClearDefense. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't believe we're citing this Asia Times story: The mystery of the Moskva and Makarov. Check out the photo of "The damaged Moskva being towed to shore." It's obviously a joke. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 16:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The source we have cited does not say "If Ukraine's assertion that the ship was sunk in a missile strike is true". It says, "The 12,490-tonne vessel is the biggest Russian warship to be sunk in action since World War Two." It does not qualify this in any way. If we have another source that expresses this doubt, we could add it. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Do the sources support "real-time battlefield targeting intelligence"? They say "crucial information to Ukrainian forces that allowed them to attack and sink" and "the location of the warship before it was struck." To me the former implies a continuous stream of location information, while the latter could be a single location at a single point in time. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 15:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The NYT source [7] says this: "targeting data ... was provided to Ukraine in the hours before the Neptune missiles were launched" and "officials declined to elaborate on what specific information was passed along". "Hours before" is the opposite of "real-time". GA-RT-22 ( talk) 17:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Amazing. Have we learned nothing about trusting Russia? Rumor had it, (not Pro-Russian, or MSM) most of the ship died! Minus the few fortunite rescued by Turkish ship; that just happened to be in the area; during the sinking; and storm. Fix the deaths; shame on you for turning into pro-Kremlin propaganda outlet. 2600:1001:B104:5406:45BE:A6E1:8C14:E8CC ( talk) 19:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The chain reaction, with “storm” should’ve killed most. Keep saying number of Deaths: 1 (per Russia)
You should be ashamed! 2600:1001:B104:5406:45BE:A6E1:8C14:E8CC ( talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:SHE4SHIPS. "Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason." The style in this article is "she". Changing a single instance of "she" to "it" is not acceptable because it makes the article internally inconsistent. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 01:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This article provides more details of the sinking and an alleged picture of the historic missile launch. [12] Znuddel ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is taking the same "two sides" approach that was abandoned when it came to the article covering the sinking of the Belgrano. Particularly, it is presenting the claims of the Russian government as of equal validity to those of Every. Other. Source, all of which state that the ship was sunk by the Ukrainian armed forces. This is not just a Ukrainian claim and it is wrong for this article to present it as if it were simply Ukraine that disagreed with Russia on how the ship sank. Moreover it is wrong to use "Russia" as if all Russian sources agreed with the Russian government on why the ship sank - the article clearly presents Russian sources that disagree with the official version from the Russian government.
One other very obvious problem with this approach is that the Russian government never explicitly denied that the ship was hit by missiles. They only stated that the ship suffered a fire after an ammunition explosion, and then sank whilst being towed - this statement is not inconsistent with the ship being struck by missiles which either caused the "ammunition explosion" or were the "ammunition" that "exploded". We are treating these statements as contradictory when they are, in fact, not contradictory.
The article should be changed to give only a single timeline for events noting only where the sources actively differ as to what actually occurred. Where every source says that something happened except one, this should be dealt with as per WP:FRINGE. FOARP ( talk) 09:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not the first time, there is another sunken ship, the Russians have not learned that it is not good to call ships Moskva in Black Sea: Soviet destroyer Moskva 86.122.55.243 ( talk) 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The video does not show the storm stated in Russian reports.[57]
This is the only current acknowledgement (I could see!) that the Russian report of heavy weather is a fabrication. Surely it's worth having a sentence with reliable citations to nearby weather reports? ElectronicsForDogs ( talk) 22:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sinking of the Moskva article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Russian cruiser Moskva was copied or moved into Destroying of the Moskva with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Most similar articles to this one - about events of consequence in a war - include some description of the "so what?". That's what makes the event itself notable enough to deserve its own article. But this currently lacks such an outcomes / results section. Now, that's understandable - events are still unfolding. But I think we should take a stab at it with what is known now, and to give a place to add to in the future as more becomes clear. e.g. Ukraine trumpeting the sinking as a PR victory, Russia showing anger at it, or indifference. Credibly-cited conclusions about how it affects Russia's capacity for operations in the black sea. Implications for anti-ship tactics and defense thereof in warfare, etc. Anyone want to throw a first cut in there? Denzera ( talk) 21:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Change the title from "Destroying of the Moskva" to "Sinking of the Moskva", it's better grammar and it's correct. PixelatedGalaxy ( talk) 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree Herr Hartmann ( talk) 23:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@
331dot,
Ad Orientem,
Alex Blokha,
Bri,
CAVincent,
Harizotoh9,
Pigsonthewing, and
Venkat TL: (and others) Merge this article back into
Russian cruiser Moskva, please. The single most notable event about her is her sinking, no need to split content. Even RMS Titanic does not have a separate sinking page like this.
Centaur271188 (
talk)
00:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This should be merged with the Russian cruiser Moskva (as per the other examples in the See Also); while a notable event, it is not on the scale of the sinking of the titanic. Having two articles on the same ship will only lead to inaccuracies down the line - better to have one well kept article (turn it into a GA), than split in two. 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 10:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
merge it back into the main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.59.42 ( talk) 16:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that we merge this with Russian cruiser Moskva. The ship is not so notable that it deserves its own separate sinking article (i.e. Sinking of RMS Titanic), and is more akin to the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano or the HMS Sheffield (D80). There are a lot of facts still unknown/unverified about the sinking, and having two separate articles is not going to help with quality/POV control. 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 10:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Although closed (and I agree WP:SNOW was the right call) I thought I'd add to opposing the merge by noting that the Moskva was sufficiently important to already have a substantial and well-referenced article not only before sinking but before present hostilities broke out. The sinking was, separately, also an important event which is likely to have implications well beyond present hostilities - something military planners will be studying around the world for some time to come. Having separate articles is amply justified. Also noting: it sure seems odd to me that most of the opposition to this being a separate article is coming from IP editors, some of whom seem to be oddly familiar with WP practices for users who haven't bothered to create accounts. CAVincent ( talk) 02:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
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) 19:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
A report cited here [1] says the ship sank at 3 a.m. on 14 April. The satellite radar shows other vessels nearby at 6:52 pm on 13 April [2]. Perhaps the pictures showing the damaged ship were taken late afternoon 13 April? Or am I missing something? -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 20:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. I think the article is a little confusing, because the chain of events is jumbled and not made clear.
This table is an attempt to show roughly when the main events occurred - the order may not be correct.
Please add time, events and references to this table :
April Date | Time of event |
Time/ date of report |
Subject | WP:Secondary source |
WP:Primary source ¬es |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
13 | 18:52 | Radar image | [1] | ||
13 | day | April 18 | ship listing and burning | [2] | Telegram |
13 | 19:40 | Sun sets | [3] | Civil Twilight is +½h | |
13 | 20:42 | Ukranian claim | [4] | ||
13 | Russian claim | ||||
14 | 03:00 | ship sunk | [5] |
We may or may not include the table in the article, but at least it shows a single timeline.
Notice the difference between when the event occurred, and when it was reported some time later.
There seems to be no fact about when the hull was breached, causing seawater to enter the ship.
There are conflicting reports on what the weather was like, and when.
TGCP (
talk)
22:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
References
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) 21:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I've removed c:File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg from the infobox as it appears to be a copyright violation (see above section). However, a local non-free file, File:Moskva Sinking.jpg, does exist, but was removed from this article for lacking a non-free use rationale. I don't have much experience with writing non-free use rationales, but I thought I'd point this out for if anyone else wanted to. However, I'll say in advance, I don't think that as currently stands it would be acceptable to use that image in the infobox. We do not have confirmation from RS of the photo's authenticity, so it would be inaccurate to show it as the infobox image. But it could perhaps be included in § "Other observations", with caption and adjacent text noting that its authenticity has not been confirmed. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 03:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@
WikiHannibal: Indeed it would be; It's not deprecated, but it is "generally unreliable"; see
WP:METRO. "Generally unreliable" is not good enough for a current and highly politicized event.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/
they)
08:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.This one isn't reputably published here, it's on Metro. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 18:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
COMMONS:File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS at COMMONS:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 21:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! Does anybody know the name of the Turkish ship [3] involved with the crew rescue? What about the salvage attempts by 2 rescue tug boats? One of them was the Shakhter (SB-922), project 712 [4] with he famous picture probably taken from the [5] [6] SB-742 project 22870. -- Nicola Romani ( talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI, COMMONS:File:FQlEjIoXwAYLYpS.jpg has been nominated for deletion. See the discussion on COMMONS at COMMONS:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 18:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
According to WP:NCS, it is generally preferred not to have "the" in front of the name of a ship. Hence, should the title of this article be more correct as "Sinking of Moskva"? Loqiical ( talk) 11:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should say Moskva was the largest warship by displacement sunk since WWII. Our source doesn't actually say that: "The 12,490-tonne vessel is the biggest Russian warship to be sunk in action since World War Two." However, the BBC appears to be wrong about the displacement. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Request Sanity Check. Pinging Abecedare. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RealClearDefense. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't believe we're citing this Asia Times story: The mystery of the Moskva and Makarov. Check out the photo of "The damaged Moskva being towed to shore." It's obviously a joke. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 16:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The source we have cited does not say "If Ukraine's assertion that the ship was sunk in a missile strike is true". It says, "The 12,490-tonne vessel is the biggest Russian warship to be sunk in action since World War Two." It does not qualify this in any way. If we have another source that expresses this doubt, we could add it. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Do the sources support "real-time battlefield targeting intelligence"? They say "crucial information to Ukrainian forces that allowed them to attack and sink" and "the location of the warship before it was struck." To me the former implies a continuous stream of location information, while the latter could be a single location at a single point in time. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 15:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The NYT source [7] says this: "targeting data ... was provided to Ukraine in the hours before the Neptune missiles were launched" and "officials declined to elaborate on what specific information was passed along". "Hours before" is the opposite of "real-time". GA-RT-22 ( talk) 17:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Amazing. Have we learned nothing about trusting Russia? Rumor had it, (not Pro-Russian, or MSM) most of the ship died! Minus the few fortunite rescued by Turkish ship; that just happened to be in the area; during the sinking; and storm. Fix the deaths; shame on you for turning into pro-Kremlin propaganda outlet. 2600:1001:B104:5406:45BE:A6E1:8C14:E8CC ( talk) 19:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The chain reaction, with “storm” should’ve killed most. Keep saying number of Deaths: 1 (per Russia)
You should be ashamed! 2600:1001:B104:5406:45BE:A6E1:8C14:E8CC ( talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:SHE4SHIPS. "Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason." The style in this article is "she". Changing a single instance of "she" to "it" is not acceptable because it makes the article internally inconsistent. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 01:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This article provides more details of the sinking and an alleged picture of the historic missile launch. [12] Znuddel ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is taking the same "two sides" approach that was abandoned when it came to the article covering the sinking of the Belgrano. Particularly, it is presenting the claims of the Russian government as of equal validity to those of Every. Other. Source, all of which state that the ship was sunk by the Ukrainian armed forces. This is not just a Ukrainian claim and it is wrong for this article to present it as if it were simply Ukraine that disagreed with Russia on how the ship sank. Moreover it is wrong to use "Russia" as if all Russian sources agreed with the Russian government on why the ship sank - the article clearly presents Russian sources that disagree with the official version from the Russian government.
One other very obvious problem with this approach is that the Russian government never explicitly denied that the ship was hit by missiles. They only stated that the ship suffered a fire after an ammunition explosion, and then sank whilst being towed - this statement is not inconsistent with the ship being struck by missiles which either caused the "ammunition explosion" or were the "ammunition" that "exploded". We are treating these statements as contradictory when they are, in fact, not contradictory.
The article should be changed to give only a single timeline for events noting only where the sources actively differ as to what actually occurred. Where every source says that something happened except one, this should be dealt with as per WP:FRINGE. FOARP ( talk) 09:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not the first time, there is another sunken ship, the Russians have not learned that it is not good to call ships Moskva in Black Sea: Soviet destroyer Moskva 86.122.55.243 ( talk) 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The video does not show the storm stated in Russian reports.[57]
This is the only current acknowledgement (I could see!) that the Russian report of heavy weather is a fabrication. Surely it's worth having a sentence with reliable citations to nearby weather reports? ElectronicsForDogs ( talk) 22:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)