Open main menu

"Had placed" or "at that time placed"Edit

@RGloucester: thank you for serious copyediting, but there is one question. You've replaced the phrase

The Ukrainian vessels continued moving but then stopped near the anchorage 471 about nine miles from the Crimean Bridge and stayed their for the next eight hours <...> At that time a large old freight ship was placed by Russians across the only passage under that bridge and thus the route to the Sea of Azov was physically blocked.

by the phrase

The Ukrainian vessels then continued their journey, stopping near an anchorage about 14 kilometres (9 mi) from the Crimean Bridge, and remained there for the next eight hours. The Russians had placed a large tanker ship under that bridge, blocking the route into the Sea of Azov.

It seems you are trying to claim that the passage under the bridge had been blocked before the ships stopped. Do you have any sources that the cargo ship was put under the bridge before the Ukrainian ships were blocked at 10.35 in the anchorage area No. 471? As for me, this happened around 2 p.m., the local website KerchInfo reported this at 14.25, but it not mentioned this ship at 13.55--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I was trying to fix the sentence, not change the content. "At that time placed" doesn't make sense in English. RGloucester 20:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Accepted. I really appreciate your help because I really need it :( And what about the anchorage number and the ship's position across the passageway? I believe that this information is important because there have been speculations that the ship just ran aground.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, and what about "At this time something was placed"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed it. The ship's 'position across the passageway' is made clear by the existing sentence. RGloucester 04:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What relevance to mentioning anti-air batteries in CrimeaEdit

Nicoljaus reverted my removal of mention of anti-air batteries in Crimea as irrelevant to the Kerch Strait event. Rather than reverting the reversion, I am asking for a broader judgement of relevance. It would be extremely easy and even further irrelevant to add any number of other Ukrainian and Russian actions to this article but I think there are logical limits.Moryak (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand, sources note that deployment of AA batteries happened after the incident or even link it to. On the other, however, plans for such deployment were reported well before this incident. So, I have some doubts that this can be considered a response to the incident. After all, denunciation of the Russo-Ukrainian Friendship treaty and Ukraine's plans to introduce resolution on Azov Sea into UNGA aren't reactions to the Kerch Strait incident as well - since both were considered and (in case of the Friendship treaty) initiated before this incident. Same goes for batteries then. --Seryo93 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Complex issue. I canceled the deletion because I had seen at the ref - two events were correlated there. If the deployment was done according to the previous plans - perhaps this is really unnecessary to be mentioned. But best of all, in my opinion, to mention both the fact that C-400 was soon deployed, and that this relocation was planned in advance. Thus, the information will be the most complete and objective.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Here is the analytical material where it says: For its part, Moscow has moved additional anti-ship and advanced air defence missiles into the region.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The map from Jirka.h23Edit

Jirka.h23 has posteed a map. It is alleged that the map is made on the basis of Bellingcat data. But Bellingcat claims that the shelling and capture were made outside territorial waters. On the map of Jirka.h23, the such point is depicted on the border itself. Since there is no instrument to measure distance on OpenStreetMap, I don’t know how correctly the line was drawn there. Until this issue is resolved, I believe that this map should not be in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nicoljaus, it seems you are mistaken. On the map is depicted mayday call - claimed by the Ukrainian Liga Novosti audio tape 1. Not the exact place of shelling and capture, as exact location is not known because Ukraine provided only 4-digit locations, with this you can not specify exact location. Is it clearer? Let me know if you still do not understand anything else. Regards. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You've claimed that the map was "Based on Bellingcat", yes? Bellingcat said:
Additionally, an alleged mayday call released by Ukrainian publication Liga Novosti from one of the three Ukrainian vessels includes the audio “How many wounded do you have? I need help! I need help! Mayday! Mayday!” followed by the coordinates N 44° 51’ 00’’, E 36° 23’ 04’’. This location is southwest of the position Russia claims it fired on the ‘Berdyansk’, and is also outside of the 12 nautical mile limit, and thus in international waters.
Thus, the mayday call is even further from the coast than the intended site of the shelling. And the place of shelling is located "22.72km from the coast of Crimea, and more than 500m outside of Russian-claimed territorial waters when it came under fire." Why is the marker on your map right on the border if the map is “Bellingcat based”?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is southwest of the position Russia claims it fired on the ‘Berdyansk’, but I did not place the shooting position because they were very close and could overlap, instead I chose an even more southern place claimed by Ukraine. If you convert coordinates: N 44° 51’ 00’’, E 36° 23’ 04’’ to decimal degrees (for example here) you get coordinates: 44.85, 36.384444. Then you can insert them to OpenStreetMap, where you will get this position. You know, from such a height 500m is nothing, so it may seem right on the border. The coordinates are right, you can easily verify it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The coordinates are correct, but what about the boundary line? I would suggest drawing it more correctly, since you refer to Bellingcat.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Boundary line is not my work, but is included in OpenStreetMap. What do you suggest, to edit OpenStreetMap sea boundaries? I have no experience with it, but you can try it if you think they are wrong. For now, I do not see any prohibition on using these maps. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
See what you did. You took a very crudely drawn border, combined it with accurate GPS data, and so you did an excellent original research - there was no shooting in 12-mile zone! No, this is not done. It may be worthwhile to remove these lines and draw 12-mile line at this point more accurately.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
My intention was mainly to show positions in relation to the mainland, I did not think that the borderline could be inaccurate, OpenStreetMap is used here commonly. Now I consider their deletion from the picture and replacement by more accurate ones. Agreed? Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoljaus (talkcontribs) 16:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Sea borderlines has been removed from the picture. Whoever wants, can make it there then manually. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Kerch Strait incident" page.