Jump to content

Talk:Russian cruiser Aurora

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

Laid

[edit]

Was she laid down in 1896 or 1897? Both dates are in the article. GrahamBould 12:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keel was apparently laid down on 23 May 1897 [1] Jll 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack?

[edit]

What is the flag - a naval jack I assume - flying from the bow in the main picture? It doesn't look like the Russian or USSR Jacks. It looks more like the Basque flag from Northern Spain / Southern France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.253.85 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the (old) Imperial Russian Navy Jack. Like many navies, it flew two flags, the Navy Ensign knowns as the St. Andrew's cross (white field, thick blue diagonal cross), which is still used by the Russian Navy, and this Navy Jack at the head (red field, thin white cross, thick blue St. Andrew's cross), which isn't. Thus, this jack it's flying is in fact the flag it flew when first commissioned, so it's probably flighing its original colours for historical accuracy. It IS a museum ship, after all. 208.127.80.59 (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disposition of lower hull?

[edit]

In the main article section Russian_cruiser_Aurora#To_the_present the section states the following.

The cut off lower hull section was towed into the Gulf of Finland, to the unfinished base at Ruchi, and sunk near the shore. (Source: Russian language entry for the Cruiser Aurora)

The only reference on the English Wikipedia to a non-existant red link article named Ruchi, Murmansk, which would indicate that it is in Murmansk province. Something doesn't make sense as Murmansk is far to the north, near the White Sea and the Barents Sea, not the Gulf of Finland. The location of the "Ruchi" in the article would appear to be off of the Gulf of Finland. Can somebody help improve the article by clarifing where the "Ruchi" base was?--TGC55 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add mention that the American space agency NASA allowed astronaut Scott Carpenter to name his Mercury capsule "Aurora 7". This took place during the Cold War, when the whole mission of NASA was to prove that U.S. space technology was superior to that of the Russian Soviet Union. (Despite the fact that German scientists, former Nazis, were making all the design decisions, for the U.S.) I remember seeing Scott Carpenter interviewed on TV, during which he said that "...I damn near fell out of my chair when he learned that the Communist Revolution started on a Russian battleship named Aurora..."! What were they thinking at NASA? All the folks at NASA had at least one college degree. Right? But probably NOT in history. LOL! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_7 As a young boy, I remember the "groan-ups" sarcastically commenting, "...hey, Scott Carpenter, college educated space cadet, don't you know that 'Merican values originated on the decks of the battleship U.S.S. Constitution... old Iron-Sides? ...not the commie 'Rora, nor the Merimack nor the Hunley." That was shocking, and an indictment of U.S. higher education, for the U.S. military. 71.207.224.57 (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenter himself said '... I liked Aurora 7. It has a celestial significance and it had a sentimental meaning to me because my address as a child back in Colorado was on the corner of Aurora and 7th Streets in Boulder"...' and 'I got Aurora from Aurora Borealis, which is an astronomic phenomenon - which we, of course were about to be! After the fact, it occurred to me that I had been born and raised at a home in Boulder, Colorado, on the corner of Aurora and Seventh streets.' [2] Hardly an indictment of higher education, the other meanings of Aurora were far better known than the Russian ship. Benea (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over adult films being made on board

[edit]

Aurora has also been in the news the past couple years because of a number of adult films which have been made on board.Historian932 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreso controversial because straight-up *pornography* (if it is judged to have no other aim or artistic value) is ILLEGAL in Russia, ship or no ship, museum or no museum, historically significant setting or shot in the middle of nowhere - a law that is rarely enforced, but still... 208.127.80.59 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nebolsine

[edit]

I've taken this out temporarily, it would be useful when the article on Nebolsine is written:

'From certification of Capitan of 1-st rank Arcadi K. Nebolsine, given 09/11/1905 by Rear-Admiral O. Enqvist: "When he was a Senior officer of the cruiser (Aurora), he did business such a way that the cruiser was one of the best ships of the Squadron II. When he, wounded in the head and feet, during the battle took a command of the cruiser, he honorably fulfilled his duty. On arrival to Manila, he quickly repaired the cruiser to a good condition. Nebolsine is fluent in English and French. I think he could benefit (Russia) in the position of Naval agent (i.e., Naval attache)" <RGA VMF. F. 873. Op. 13 . D. 38. P. 15>. In year 1905 Arcadi K. Nebolsine was appointed as Russian Naval agent at the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC.'

Benea (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


That passage about piece of hull being towed to a mysterious location and the smashed Russian "engineering marvel" claims (which were never made), the author of that addition obviously made that up, there is no reference to that in any Russian language publication, perhaps he has access to classified data, would like to know what it is. Or you can add any ideologically motivated nonsense and fabrication to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.238.237 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioned?

[edit]

If there was a plan in January 2013 to "re-commission" the ship, she cannot now be the oldest commissioned Russian ship!203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to point out the same contradiction, but Wikipedia does not give a shit. - 91.10.63.170 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October revolution

[edit]

While the blank shot from the ship was indeed the signal to begin the attack on the Winter palace (and as such would become a familiar symbol of 1917) it was hardly the beginning of the takeover attempt, rather the beginning of a late and critical phase. The red guards had been advancing around the city for most of the day and smoking out the positions of the regular troops, without any assistance from the Aurora. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian cruiser Aurora. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio

[edit]

As I can see the Aurora has T-aerial as Radio emitter. Am I right? ZJ (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identification

[edit]

What class did the Aurora cruiser belong to at the British Naval Headquarters in 1900-1904 (1st class cruiser, or 2nd class cruiser)?--Абрамов В.Г. (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Section?

[edit]

The section "Second World War" ends with the Aurora sinking in 1941. The next section, "To the present", picks up with the Aurora "[h]aving long served as a museum ship" in 1984. This leaves a four decade chunk of the ship's history completely missing from the main body of the article, including, presumably, such important events as being raised and being converted into a museum ship. This seems, to me, like a major error that someone should rectify. 2603:8080:D503:4F9D:39D0:EAE5:94A7:4F84 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mikhail Nikolsky

[edit]

Service section is very poor, but obviously the ship's commanding officer, Captain Mikhail Nikolsky, was killed during February Revolution, on 28.2/13.3.1917, not October Revolution, as is implied (there is a source quoted, I don't know what is in there). Pibwl ←« 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_cruiser_Aurora&oldid=1248054517"