Talk:List of Russian military accidents

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

Nuclear icebreaker "VAYGACH"[edit]

The nuclear-powered icebreaker "VAYGACH" is owned and operated by the Russian Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FGUP) "ATOMFLOT" based in Murmansk, Russia. The "VAYGACH" is not part of the Russian Navy. The Russian language WIKIPEDIA page for VAYGACH is clear on this issue.Moryak (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, please provide a ref - don't just tell people (who may not all speak Russian) to check the Russian WP. The fact is the BBC cite has been given, so give an opposing one if you have one. Btw, perhaps the BBC included the icebreaker because it is de facto part of the Russian military (e.g. I'm sure the military have control over the nuclear waste it produces)? Either way, please prove it's not part of the navy and has no military links.Malick78 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation that proves my point is: http://www.rosatomflot.ru/index.php?menuid=5 This citation is to a Russian language page on the ATOMFLOT website. There is no WIKI rule that requires source citation to be in English. The issue is whether the information is accurate and confirmable. This citation is authoritative - more so than the BBC - because it is from the owner of the vessel at issue. The information it contains is also confirmable, both by the source and by any photo of the vessel showing that it does not fly the Russian naval ensign - therefore, is not a naval ship.Moryak (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say Russian sources were not usable - but telling us to check the Russian WP is not helpful (WP isn't a source for WP). As for your above source, it's not exactly a third-party's view of things. If the BBC lumped Atomflot with the navy, it must have had a reason - and as a third-party (and highly respected), it's a better source than Atomflot itself (ask yourself, would Russian military units always say they are part of the military?). While Atomflot may indeed not be part of the military - the above source still ain't too good. If you want to know why the BBC included Atomflot - I suspect that Atomflot does the bidding of the military and has close ties. You don't get to control nuclear material in Russia without that. Still, the BBC is the best source so far presented. Malick78 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And this is happy to consider it 'military'.Malick78 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malick, I just checked the source you cited - Global Security - and it DOES NOT state that VAYGACH is military. The ROSATOM organization controls all nuclear power nuclear material in Russia. ROSATOM is NOT a military organization and is not part of the Armed Forces. Also, I didn't understand your reference to "third-party view of things". Why would a third-party view matter more than primary information from the owner of a particular thing, in this case a nuclear-powered icebreaker. Yes, the BBC is a respected news organization but it does not always get the story right. What is the basis of your personal judgment that in this case the BBC is a better source that the vessel's owner who "ain't too good"?Федоров (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole Global Security section on the Vaygach is under a "Military" heading :) As for the Rosatom ref, it breaks Wikipedia:RS#Overview which says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (my bolding). BBC is therefore good (even if wrong), the Rosatom ref is bad (even if right) - because it's essentially self-published by an org that has a great incentive to mislead (i.e. it might want to hide its overlords). The more I think about this, the more I see the BBC's reasons for including. Malick78 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a marvelous case for justifying the inclusion of erroneous data. This approach really makes WP such a valuable source of compiled third-party information that may be incorrect. From my point of view your approach negates the value of WP as a place where the free exchange of information helps distill the truth. I am sorry that your clearly strongly held predilections hinder you from accepting good data. Also, from my review of many, many other WP articles I would say that WP is in need of a massive re-edit so as to remove good data and replace it with questionable third-party sources.Федоров (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's only 'erroneous' in your opinion. You and I are nothing in terms of sources, so don't assume your 'truth' is right or has any value (and I won't assume mine has any either). But tell me, why do you think these two sources consider the Vaygach to be military?Malick78 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they are wrong.Федоров (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't want to engage in dialogue, then I shall ignore your comments. I have independent sources... you don't.Malick78 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have engaged in dialogue and cited authoritative primary sources. You have not. Independent sources are not always correct since they often use fallible other "independent" source or use poor translations or do not do well in reading foreign languages. By the way, in WP all comments are ignorable. Hopefully, the marketplace of ideas will result in the posting of correct information rather than just strongly held opinion.Федоров (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when are primary sources encouraged? You seem to misunderstand a fundamental policy of WP.Malick78 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, ignorance is a choice.Федоров (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dedovshchina[edit]

Malicki, "dedovshchina" - the practice of bullying new draftees/recruits in the Russian Army does not qualify as an "accident". Please desist from attempting to insert this category into the "accidents" article.Moryak (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you could do your fellow editors the courtesy of reading WP's rules on this matter? "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."
  • The Dedovschina link is relevant since it's a major problem in the Russian military, just like the spate of accidents. The 'tangential' connection is the Russian military's shocking lack of professionalism.
  • Lastly, you don't get to delete and then refer me to the talk page. You bold edited, I reverted, and then you should have gone to the talk page. Malick78 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your personal assessment that "the Russian military shockingly lacks professionalism" is admissible then my observation that dedovshchina does not tangentially relate to "accidents" is equally valid. If you imply that the presence of accidents is due to your cited lack of professionalism then your lack of professionalism observation is equally validly applied to a number of other navies including that of the USA.Moryak (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Russian military seems to have more accidents than the US military, so to say they both suffer from the same 'unprofessionalism' is absurd. Moreover, Russia conscripts while America has a proffessional army, so again - the equating of the two is silly. Russian also has a special word for bullying in the army. English does not ('hazing' is a general term, used for college students as well, for example). For these reasons, it seems fine to mention Dedovschina here. It is of interest to readers, so valid.
    • As for your mentioning of "navies", this article is not restricted to navies so I fail to see why you focus on them.
    • Finally, am I right in deducing that you are dropping your original complaint that Dedovschina is not "an accident" and therefore deserves no place here? As you can see by WP policy, it is entirely reasonable that an article on problems in the Russian military should mention other problems in the Russian military. Nie pravda li? Malick78 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Russian military accidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Russian_military_accidents&oldid=1208290362"