Talk:Russian landing ship Novocherkassk

Comments

Now seeing additional photo of an example mission, unable to determine of its the ship. Novocherkask ship- See https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143172430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by James48843 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article for a week due to the ongoing edit warring. Please use this page to discuss what should occur and, if necessary, ask for opinions at relevant noticeboards or wikiprojects. Any administrator can remove the protection if a consensus emerges. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all my apologies for the small amount of edit warring. I have only been concise in my edit summaries for the reverts I was making within the article and tried to follow proper procedure however this was rewarded with a new editor being hostile.

Anyways on to the article. Current sources provided and available information is that the ship has been reportedly destroyed. Furthermore the sources provided have created their articles based on a single telegram statement, now that telegram statement would not be accepted as a source on its own so I don't quite understand how articles simply repeating are accepted. There has been no visual confirmation of a complete loss so the article should currently be in the present tense. If a visual confirmation is obtained or there are more reports of a complete loss from reputable sources then I understand the changing of the articles tense however two sources which are simply repeating a telegram statement doesn't seem good enough to me. Also with this being a current event and it likely to change quickly a consensus may be hard to come by, I believe at this current time I am correct however in a few hours more reports could emerge that the ship is a confirmed loss so not sure the protection of the page for 7 days is the best course of action. Brandon Downes (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're saying that new sources might soon clarify the issue making protection redundant, that's not a problem because I am watching and if I miss anything people are welcome to ping me. All that is needed is some agreement about what should happen and the protection will be removed. If I'm not around, ask at WP:RPPD. Or, if you happen to agree with the statement in the next section you might comment saying that. If there appears to be no opposition I can make a requested edit, or if I'm not around, use WP:EDITREQUEST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph with the most-powerful non-nuclear explosion is misleading at best. Forbes (source) compared it to Russias Father of All Bombs as most-powerful non-nuclear bomb (not explosion, see Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions for other examples). I can't think of a better one (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

True, for example: Beirut exposion was 1100 tons of TNT. 30 tons is far to largest explosions (non nuclear). 37.188.153.231 (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Who ever it edited, now it is worse. With the [[Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions] directly linked, the reader will realise 30 ton is far off the linked examples.

Why not just remove this exageration? I can't think of a better one (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

David Axe is a military blogger for Forbes, so I removed it as a source entirely. He was citing a Russian telegram post, which may or may not be accurate, but none of it is confirmed, and this isn't the kind of cautious high quality reporting we should be using. I avoid using Forbes entirely since it's hard to tell the "good" journalistic side of Forbes and the blogger side of Forbes at first glance, and there are other sources likely discussing the topic. Later high quality reporting may cover the extent and estimate of the explosion and then it will be added. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggested edit

In the History section, in the second paragraph, someone replaced "several" with "a number of", which is vague and unnecessary. The sentence would be fine without it: I suggest deleting "a number of", leaving the end of the sentence to read: "...Novocherkassk was docked in the port of Berdiansk in southern Ukraine with other Russian warships." -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Lock down ?

I’m seeing some other sources now confirming a significant attack - so something’s going on. Maybe a day lockdown to let info consolidate, but a week would be much too long. J (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh I 100% agree something has happened I just don't believe we have enough evidence (considering the current evidence is one telegram statement) to say that the ship is a complete loss and should therefore change the article from present to past tense. Brandon Downes (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I downgraded the protection to semi. It would have been better if a couple of people had said they agreed with the current state of the article (or some other specified state) but it's easy to try this for a while and see what happens. Anyone thinking of reverting the current state should first examine WP:EW. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Tye destruction of the ship is stated by official and verified AFU StartCom account (https://t.me/AFUStratCom/21854), as well as by Ukrainian Air Forces spokesperson (https://t.me/kpszsu/8903).

Telegram is considered an official way of communication of governmental and military institutions in Ukraine as far as accounts are verified.

Russian military confirmed that the ship was ‘damaged’, but denies it's full destruction. 176.37.2.231 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In the videos you can see the ship completely exploding in a big fireball. So much for "damaged". DerElektriker (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There is now a photo of said ship by a pier, completely burnt-out and destroyed. Not sure what would be the original source, but here it is shared https://t.me/ShrikeNews/11638

I would assume it's safe to say the ship was indeed destroyed, and rely on common sense concerning the editing. 46.96.10.184 (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

OSINT identification of the wreck.

https://twitter.com/EE_EspadaEscudo/status/1739600515300749561/photo/1 188.31.6.238 (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an exact quote from the NYT article on this: "While the extent of the damage to the ship was not immediately clear, the attack hit what appeared to be a valuable target." Thus, the exact details are not confirmed.Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Large amount of verifiable evidence of the utter destruction of the ship

There is a large amount of verifiable evidence of the utter destruction of the ship. It is not merely "damaged" as Russian official sources have reported, nor merely "sunk" as early Ukrainian sources reported. We need not argue here about it, but just assemble the reliable sources that show what happened, during the attack on the ship in port (live video) and during the aftermath (multiple live video, from multiple angles of the port) and now, on the next day, multiple aerial photos of the remains of parts of the ship superstructure still above sea level in the Port of Feodosiya. Let's just look for the good sources, and improve the article as we assemble them over the coming days. N2e (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

High quality sources are all that matters, not our own personal opinions. We are not experts on what does or does not qualify as "destroyed" as well. AP, Reuters, etc only confirm that Russians admit that it was damaged, and say little else is confirmed. Ukrainian sources meanwhile say more, but they may be jumping the gun. There is no rush for posting the latest news since Wikipedia is not the news. Once high quality sources say it is destroyed or elaborate on the extent of damage, it will be added back to the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have been added to the article in the last half day, including both general news media sites and ones covering military/naval news more specifically. These now are using terminology about the destruction of the ship, and describe what twisted metal is sticking above the water on the day after the event. We should, of course, question any sources that do not meet Wikipedia reliable source standards. N2e (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Reuters is the gold standard, and they use very cautious language, with only a single sentence about the photograph of debris calling it "unverified", that it's claimed by Ukranian bloggers as the ship, not citing any other source. So there is an alleged photo, but it is not universally confirmed. Reuters and other high quality sources are exercizing due caution, which is what we at Wikipedia follow as well. We are still at the Ukraine sources say, and Russian sources say stage of the reporting. There is a claimed photo, but it has not been independently verified. We should follow the highest quality sources which are engaging in caution. There is no rush, and even if the ship is sunk, it will be confirmed by reliable sources. These sources instead merely cite Ukraine officials saying it is destroyed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nrk.no/urix/her-ligger-russernes-senkede-skip-1.16693055

It's barely scrap, if that. Its gone and sources reflect that. Edit it to absolutely and utterly fucked up. 148.122.139.196 (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I am going to second Harizoh here. Stop pushing propaganda. WP:RS independent of the conflict - not Ukrainian news, not Russian news - should be used along with neutral terminology. Wording like "destroyed" and "utter destruction" is not helpful nor is it true. Ships have suffered catastrophic explosions, been raised and repaired, but it takes years. Only once the dust has settled will we know for sure what the result was. Here at Wikipedia, we do not take sides. Llammakey (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but saying that it was damaged, just because Russian officials said it, is just reposting Russian propaganda. If a source like Reuters says that "Russia said the sky is green" then it does not mean that its green, it only means that some idiot in Russia said this.

The article immediately said that Russia said that it was damaged, so it immediately was pushing Russian propaganda. Something neutral would have been stuff like "it was presumably attacked by Ukraine and the current state of the Vessel remains unknown". And then wait 2-3 days until real confirmation exists. DerElektriker (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Simply because the Ukrainians have no idea what the Russians will do with the ship. This isn't out in the ocean. This is in a port. This ship is completely recoverable. If you do not know what that means, please read the Attack on Pearl Harbor or the Attack on Taranto and what happened to the majority of the ships "sunk" during a battle in a port when a nation choses to rebuild them. Llammakey (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course. As reported by Reuters [1],

Footage posted on Russian news outlets on Telegram, purportedly from the port, showed powerful explosions detonating and fires burning. Unverified social media videos purporting to capture the strike showed a vast explosion and ballooning flames lighting up the night sky. An unverified daytime photograph, which Ukrainian bloggers claimed showed the ship's remains, depicted a charred, elongated clump of debris emerging out of the water by a dock.

"We can see how powerful the explosion was, what the detonation was like. After that, it’s very hard for a ship to survive, because this was not a rocket, this is the detonation of munitions," according to Ukrainian command. Whoever was on that ship is probably dead. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• This source says that "34 sailors may have been killed and 23 have been confirmed injured, according to the Russian media platform Astra on Telegram". This is unconfirmed of course. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The ship is gone: all the "unverified, claimed damaged" etc that is still found in the article is just ridiculous when now even satellite imagery confirms that only an exploded wreck remains of the ship. This article needs to be updated to face the reality. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-warship-crimea-putin-latest-news-b2469790.html Carius (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The "satellite imagery" is from a Ukrainian Telegram account. The Independent article has no analysis, no context, just says - "here, look at these pictures from this random Ukrainian's account." Furthermore, there is no analysis of the hull - if it is intact, was it just the superstructure destroyed, or whether the ship was scuttled to put out the fire, etc. There is a lot we do not know about the state of the ship, and will not until probably the war's end. However, I won't fight over this crappy article's inclusion but it is the kind of shit journalism that has everyone abandoning mainstream media.Llammakey (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

CNN... now there's a reputable source... When a ship sinks from bomb, missile, or torpedo damage from breached compartments where the keel of the ship is intact, yes, they can be refloated. When a magazine detonates or in this case, where a cargo hold full of munitions explode, well, think of a pipe bomb. The only way that ship will ever sail again is if her pieces make a trip through a smelter, rolling mill and shipyard. Ever see the famous footage of the detonation in Pearl on Dec. 7, 1941? That was the USS Arizona. 2600:100B:B13A:8E10:0:14:5A75:2201 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow. WP:OR. The footage was not of Arizona, it was of the destroyer USS Shaw (DD-373) after being hit by multiple torpedoes and bombs, and heavily damaged. The only footage of Arizona during the attack was it burning and sinking. Shaw was returned to service and earned 10 more battle stars. 15:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

One last thing; the history states that Russian officials said one sailor was killed and two were injured. Does that seem credible on a ship with a crew of 98 in a port basin with a half dozen other ships tied up nearby? That would indicate that they stopped fighting the fire and ran like hell. This in a military known for firing on their own troops retreating from withering resistance to an assault. 2600:100B:B13D:94D3:0:19:B309:5D01 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It could be phrased a bit clearer, but the 1 killed and 2 injured was from the Crimean governor, and appears to be talking about civilian casualties not naval. There's been no reliable sources discussing casualties of naval sailors or officers only telegram posts and supposed leaks. Once there's confirmation this information will be added to the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and this really isn't on point to the Cherkassk, but the YouTube footage I've seen specifically identifies the Arizona and as she was 32,000 tons and the USS Shaw was a 1500 tonner, the difference in the detonation would be considerable. The point was that when the Arizona's magazine blew up, and apparently the explosion took out the hull to port and starboard and may not have cracked the keel, she was still deemed unrecoverable although some of her guns were salvaged. The Cherkassk was more of an armed merchantman than a warship. Look at the picture of her in Sevastapol and see how the sea has dimpled her hull over time. With only twin 57mm DP guns as defensive weapons she couldn't have had much in her magazine. This all points to her cargo exploding amidships and the force acting against a thin and probably fairly round bottomed hull. I wouldn't bet much on her bow and stern being connected by much anymore. 2600:100B:B13D:94D3:0:19:B309:5D01 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Previously there were only unconfirmed photos, but now CNN is reporting on confirmed satellite imagery from a reputable company so we can just ignore the previous unconfirmed photographs. I'm sticking to just what they are reporting and can be confirmed. The ship was attacked, there was significant explosions, and now it is partially submerged. The high quality sources are not calling it "destroyed" and we should not call it such either. It is the opinion of Ukraine's military that it is destroyed, and that repair efforts would be difficult to repair, and such opinion has been added to the article. High quality journalistic reporting is not saying whether it is definitively destroyed or not, and if they interview any experts or engage in analysis, then it will be added to the article. There's also a bit of a semantic debate over how to define "Destroyed". Multiple battleships were refloated and repaired after the Pearl Harbor attack for instance, such as the USS Nevada. So we should avoid pretending we are naval experts and rely upon sources. 17:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Secondary explosion

The sheer size of the secondary explosion and ensuing mushroom cloud suggest that the ship was not laid up for want of spare parts as the history implied. It is not accepted practice to have a combat load of munitions aboard during refit. Also, it is probably safe to change all of the description to past tense. 2600:100B:B13A:8E10:0:14:5A75:2201 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as it was written it makes it seem like the ship was holed up for spare parts, then it was attacked. I added an AP News source that says the ship was afterwards used for logistics to and from Russia to supply the front. We don't have an exact timeframe when it was repaired and put back into service. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)