Talk:Russian ship Tsezar Kunikov

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

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]
Because that's how it works and it makes no sense to get butt hurt over it. That statement is also anything but neutral. This isn't an echo chamber for either side. One produces no more or less propaganda than the other, as both historically tend to downplay losses and only report of destroyed enemy assets. Russia arguably moreso than Ukraine. Regardless, we can't just randomly dismiss all sources, simply because they originate from either of the warring parties. That's not how this works. All reliable sources need to be considered and have a place here. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof that Wikipedia policy requires articles to be
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]
  • It's fine to say in the article text that Ukraine says they sunk it, but to be in the infobox or categorized as sunk somebody other than Ukraine needs to confirm this. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 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]
Link, please? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The piece given here says "The location and date the footage was filmed could not be independently verified". 331dot (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you listen to yourself before you press send? That means they verify its the ship but wont verify where and when it happened. For all they care it could have happened yesterday already. These are two completely different areas to cover.
But again it isn't just Reuters that says it. So yeah sure wait for the Russian side who wont say anything worth a dime considering they even censor their own history books from 1939-1941. 217.227.232.204 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Russia had to confirm it sunk. Nowadays almost any intelligent person can create a grainy video of a ship being attacked, and (for Ukraine and Russia) this is war so propaganda is out there. There needs to be somebody other than Ukraine saying the ship sank. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that the video is fake needs evidence seeing how a very reliable source has verified it. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim the video is fake. Reuters verified the ship in the video, not the video itself. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. They were unable to verify the place and time. Reuters does not dispute the veracity of the video. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the Reuters piece do they state that the video is authentic, only that this ship is depicted in the video. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do they claim the opposite. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to. We need an affirmative statement that the video is authentic; that it may or may not be is insufficient. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Reuters is a
WP:RSP source. If other equally authoritative sources dispoute the current version, then those can be added. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not what the RSP list is for. It's a list of commonly discussed sources, regarding their reliability. It isn't a list of sources to accept on blind faith. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blind faith is not the point. There is a claim from a reliable news agency and nothing to dispute it. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their claim is not what you claim it is. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would that be? Taavi Kiisk (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Reuters verified the ship in the video, not the video itself. You are claiming the video is authentic, they do not claim that at all. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's crackpot nonsense. What's the claim here, it's videogame footage? The footage lines up with multiple other independent recordings of explosions in the same geolocated location. 95.91.252.131 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, the heavily listed ship in the video is Caesar Kunikov. At an unverified date and location. How would one verify a video? Taavi Kiisk (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, Reuters, CBS, NBC, Sky, and a dozen others have reviewed the video. Not a single reputable news source is entertaining the idea that the video is fake. The argument against its veracity is based solely on the idea that it is theoretically possible for it to be fake. By that logic, every source has the potential to be fake. Find a reputable source questioning the veracity of the video, or find a better way to spend your time. 2603:7081:9240:1A:D1FD:996F:A755:1AE (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was confirmed:
  1. that the video shows Tsezar Kunikov,
  2. that the ship in the video has been hit by a drone and listed.
It has not been confirmed:
  • Where the video was shot,
  • When the video was shot,
  • What happened with the ship after the video ended.
All the sources make it clear that there are several unknowns about the video. The Ukrainians don't claim that the ship sank, only that it began to sink. BBC Russia quotes a Russian sailor who said that all the crew escaped.[2].
I'll keep reverting any and all editors who try to add OR that the ship has sunk (unless sources equivocally confirm it). — kashmīrī TALK 02:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to those independent videos. I've been nothing but civil here, please do the same. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you enjoy grainy photos and videos, then be my guest. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were able to identify the ship based on its main mast, antenna, bridge and deck as the article says. Taavi Kiisk (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article, thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC also verified it as Ropucha class ship. The footage of a Repucha class ship being attacked by naval drones and eventually sinking is definitivly new. The locations of its sister ships in the black sea are likely actively monitored (by Ukraine, allied forces and Partisans) via sat imagery and communications intercepts so the ID should be solid. --Denniss (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia always downplays these attacks, and so far has declined to comment. The NATO secretary General has commented on the attack, as have Ukrainian sources. Reuters and BBC have verified elements of the video. So far this is all included. We will wait for additional confirmation as it unfolds. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:46, 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

Tsaezar Kunikov, but "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
]

Thanks for pointing out. I've now moved that article to
WP:RUS. — kashmīrī TALK 21:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There are no ae and s for Russian Cyrillic е and з in any official romanization tables at least. Alex Spade (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, article titles are not supposed to be the most correct or official name, but rather the most
WP:COMMONNAME. If Caesar is what the English-language sources use, then so should we, even if it's wrong. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but many modern sources can use name from WP article (Caesar) by mistake. Kunikov and Ropucha are obvious transcription names, lets looking for them in Google Books: I see Tsesar mostly (incorrect romanization in one letter) or Tsezar (one of the possible correct romanization). Alex Spade (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, unlike Kunikov, Ropucha is not a Russian transcription but a Polish word used as a NATO reporting name. It is pronounced "ropukha"[3]. — kashmīrī TALK 19:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the pronounce of ropucha is unimportant for text search. Both Polish and English use non-diacritic Roman alphabet for it, there are not different transcription interpretations for it. We can replace ropucha keyword by landing ship. Caesar is used in post-2022 (after begin of current Rus-Ukr armed conflict) and post-2008 books (after WP article was created) only. Other books in such search use Tsezar mostly or Tsesar. Alex Spade (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there's an open discussion about Russian ship class naming conventions that may be tangentially related to this discussion. Some of you could provide valuable input there. Tupsumato (talk) 19:59, 16 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]

Seems to have been fixed, thanks. Please use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Protected to make edit requests to protected pages in the future. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2024?

Can someone add a year to the latest strike? Idk how to edit And don't care to learn 2001:48F8:3032:959:A035:D309:B4BA:8942 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunk date?

In the article it says the ship was attacked on the 14th of February 2024, but in the infobox the 'Status' field says it sunk on 3/4/2024? Was it attacked in february and did it sink in march? Spinarak (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Fighterbomber is unreliable"

@

WP:RS, yes of course we cannot cite the Fighterbomber telegram channel directly, however this is not the case; the Fighterbomber claims (e.g. firefight lasting for 20 minutes, 4 USVs destroyed, strikes hitting the port side causing listing, etc.) are cited by third-party reliable sources. If you have issue with an indirect source citing Fighterbomber, then you really should write complaints to publications like BBC, Reuters and Ukrainskaya Pravda who have all been repeatedly and frequently citing Fighterbomber for information from the Russian side as well. --benlisquareT•C•E 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

"A clip posted by an influential Russian Telegram channel thought to be linked to Moscow's military appears to show troops aboard the Caesar Kunikov, a Russian landing ship that Ukraine attacked in mid-February." Please go send an email to Newsweek and tell them your opinion about social media, if you really are insistent that Fighterbomber is not a reliable source, even in third-party indirect mentions. --benlisquareT•C•E 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troops aboard a ship on an unverified video != ship has sunk. — kashmīrī TALK 00:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, back in February weren't you adamant that we needed to hear from both sides, just in case the Ukrainian claim was false? Now that Fighterbomber has said, and I quote,

There was no way to save the ship (the list was rapidly increasing, the ship was lying on the left side). From the moment the enemy drones were discovered and the start of the battle, until the ship was completely flooded, a little more than 40 minutes passed. The crew left the ship using life rafts, without loss of personnel, and evacuated all secret documentation and part of the secret equipment with weapons. The last 10th drone monitored the dying ship until the sinking, after which the 10th drone tried to attack the accompanying tug, but was destroyed by the group on board.

...is this not enough information from the horse's mouth to give us the Russian account of events? There's really no other way to mince words, they've stated themselves that the ship "could not be saved", are we supposed to not trust the Russian side of events now? This is a
"grass is green" moment here; when a recollection of events states that ship compartments have flooded at sea and can't be saved, the obvious inference is that it has sunk, ships don't stay afloat for days on end after flooding. I really don't understand why you are so adamant against the article stating the obvious, given all of the information that has surfaced between February and now. And even if your concern regarding "social media" holds weight, then why delete the entire change completely, including the detail of events as described by Fighterbomber referenced by third-party citations? And why restore the dubious IP editor's change that claimed that the ship sunk on March 4? --benlisquareT•C•E 00:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Benlisquare I never denied that the ship might have sunk, but sourcing is simply insufficient for such a claim. A Telegram channel, however famous, is still anonymous social media for Wikipedia. Its anonymous author claiming to have spoken to an anonymous sailor claiming to have seen the ship sinking is, well, a VERY weak source. — kashmīrī TALK 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unreliable if an Ukrainian channel reports that ship has sunk without proof. If a heavily russian biased channel post this information then something really bad did indeed happen with this ship.--Denniss (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another good point that you've mentioned. RuAF-linked Telegram propaganda channels tend to err on the side of spinning stories in favour of Russia doing well in the war, and there have been many notorious instances of Telegram channel admins being jailed or murdered for spreading rumours that imply that Russia is not meeting mission objectives. Just from memory, there's two such examples off the top of my head: The admin of the RuAF-associated propaganda channel on Telegram "Нам пишут из Янины" mysteriously died (allegedly a suicide) after revealing 16,000 Russian KIA in Avdiivka on his channel, while former FSB operative Igor Girkin was jailed after a series of doomposting about the war on his Telegram channel. Given the precedent, I somewhat doubt that Fighterbomber would want to spread unsubstantiated rumours about such a significant Russian loss unless they were reasonably certain about the validity of the details shared. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the situation here is not "Wikipedia is writing that Tsezar Kunikov sank", it's "Wikipedia is writing that the Ukrainian Armed Forces claims that Tsezar Kunikov sank, and that RuAF-affiliated Telegram channel Fighterbomber claims that Tsezar Kunikov sank", which have very different nuances here. We're not necessarily stating anything as fact, but by inferring what the UAF side and the RuAF side have to say, the reader can come to their own conclusions. I'm opposed to removing the Fighterbomber description of events because if RSes are fine with mentioning what Fighterbomber says, than so should we; Wikipedia also loves to directly cite Oryx as well without going through a 3rd party cite, which probably isn't ideal; here, we're going through third-party refs to give the Fighterbomber description of events. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_ship_Tsezar_Kunikov&oldid=1212676468"