Talk:Russian frigate Admiral Makarov

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian frigate Admiral Makarov article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Russia Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

MU180034.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Makarov Sunk by Ukraine

There is social media chatter that the Makarov was sunk by Ukraine. At the moment, these are only rumours - the page can't be changed until its confirmed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be changed until confirmed. Is there a way we can report the people who vandalize the page? Amireeez (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well this explains the "submarine" thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They really need something funnier than submarine lmao. For now keep the alleged sinking in service. If ends up false like previous claims, add that IdkIdc12345 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors

You can't just label a ship as sunk because of some social media rumors. We need confirmation, because there isn't even any video evidence. Amireeez (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video evidence isn't the standard Wikipedia abides by, but you're still correct here. Until this exits the realm of speculation on random Twitter threads and enters the realm of being reported on as confirmed by reliable news sources, this should have absolutely no mention in the article. Thankfully, Deepfriedokra has semi-protected the article, so at least a bunch of slacktivist idiots from Reddit can't flood the article with vandalism. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An official statement would be nice. Confirmation from independent reliable sources would be nice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I 've just seen social media announcements so far, which seem to say either sunk or on fire and being evacuated. We need a confirmation/better source before we can change the article,but I suspect its probably true. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saw pay-walled article about Ukraine reports Makarov on fire. If true, guess we see if they have learned anything about damage control (beyond spinning the news). Nothing usable yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that many reputable publications, from Forbes to The Independent are reporting on the potential sinking, it makes sense to change the ship's status from a definitive "Active" to an uncertain status (e.g., "Unknown"). Once hard evidence comes forward one way or another, it could be changed accordingly. I don't think the article should reflect its status as "Active" by default until we get definitive evidence of its status. Bobobob2 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen video released by the Ukrainian of a ship burning that does fit the profile of the Admiral Makarov, so I would say confidence is high that it is the truth, but I haven't seen anything definitive and reliable about it sinking.Nelsonabreu (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best sources are merely saying what a Ukranian MP and admiral says. Nothing more and nothing more has been confirmed as of yet. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon and Kyiv have denied that the Admiral Makarov is sunk. Rumors by BroSINT accounts on twitter don't count as "proof". https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/05/07/russian-navy-warship-admiral-makarov-reportedly-sunk-by-ukrainian-missiles/ CheburekiTaster (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentagon has disclaimed knowledge of its sinking/status, which is different from denying it. The current article wording of not confirming it is appropriate, though. Warren Dew (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change it's status to unknow because we don't know it was sank or damage or active. Usairf (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put a sentence "On 7 May the Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksiy Arestovych said that the report was a 'misunderstanding', and that the vessel attacked near Snake Island was actually a Serna-class landing craft,[18] apparently hit by a missile launched by a Baykar Bayraktar TB2 drone.[19]" in the article. I want to point out that according to the Wikipedia article on Oleksiy Arestovych and the respective List of Ministers of Defense (Ukraine), that person is not the Ukrainian Defense Minister. I don't know how reputable the sources for the statement are, but the statement is at least partially wrong. I don't remove it myself, but maybe someone who is more familiar with the topic can have a look at this.134.94.167.202 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksiy Arestovych is the spokesperson and advisor for Zelensky. CheburekiTaster (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance flights

Specific flight route RAF Boeing RC-135W Rivet Joint https://www.flightradar24.com/RRR7236/2bc06999 Specific flight route USAF Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk https://www.flightradar24.com/FORTE11/2bbf3ce4 Specific flight route Turkish Navy ATR C-72-600TMPA https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/tcb-752#2bc0cdcf Specific flight route USAF Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk https://www.flightradar24.com/FORTE11/2bc56662

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the template {{Current}} to {{Current related}} as the ship itself is not a current event, but is affected by one. 91.129.110.108 (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Ukrainians absolutely fucked this ships shit up, so it's no longer active 👌 90.254.5.166 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜 melecie talk - 14:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the Turkey "released footage"

The first video is the one that has been debunked. The second video they show, the ship hit is a small Serna-class landing craft [1], as Arestovych said. So, misinformation.

Admiral Makarov damaged in apparent Unmanned Surface Vessel attack by UAF

A series of explosions rocked the heavily fortified headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea fleet in Crimea yesterday amid reports that a Russian flagship had been damaged in a drone attack.

The Admiral Makarov, Russia’s naval flagship, appeared to have been damaged in the attack.

Russian officials claimed that a minesweeper was slightly damaged. 2601:600:9681:4C50:6D75:F0C7:8033:DCAE (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was definitely an attack on the Black Sea fleet, but it's still unclear if this specific ship was damaged. Reports don't seem too confident. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I've been bold enough to include it as 'reports' - cites The Times. Russian milbloggers etc etc also posting - I'm cautious also but I think this time it looks pretty likely. Didn't mean to jump in! Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add - the video from the surface drone clearly shows the Makarov. As the camera approaches, the ship is struck by an aerial drone which starts a fire before the surface drone strikes - black screen. I believe video is not part of reliable source for WP - which begs a question really. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to the Sunday Times article is here (archive). Boud (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Russian Telegram channels whatever damage that occurred was to the radar arrays. Due to the proximity to the large city of Sevastopol i'm confident that we'll know the extent of the damage soon enough.118.99.106.79 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a reliable source news article published on the attack. [2] Likely to be a few more decent secondary source articles published throughout the day. Also, that Naval News article is cited with a well-formed citation in the Wikipedia Unmanned surface vehicle article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Cheers! Added as citation. Thanks.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

499/799

what about adding in the initial photo something like "with the obsolete pennant 799 (now is 499)"? 151.29.137.229 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]