Talk:Russian commando frogmen

Requests
Has a concise version with a Main article... heading been left at Frogmen? --Wetman 09:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC) How can I contact you via e-mail, Mr Appleyard? You information about Russian "frogmen" has too many mistakes. - Alex North, 22 November 2005.
 * Frogman is long enough without adding more matter duplicating what is on another file pointed to. Anthony Appleyard 09:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Character code issues have turned the Cyrillic text on this page into mojibake; can anyone fix this? -- Karada 12:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Yegor Chernyshev 00:04 12 feb. 2008

Operations against German V-1 launching pads in Russia??
Quote: "(Date not stated)[sic!!!]: The Germans had built V1 rocket launching pads in the Strelna area to bombard Leningrad. The diver-intelligence officer Vladimir Borisov swam to the area and changed into German clothes and reconnoitered in the plant and returned and reported what he had found. Soviet aircraft and artillery destroyed the V1 launching pads." The first complete V-1 airframe was delivered 30 August 1942 and the first powered trial was on 10 December 1942, launched from beneath an He-111. The first V-1 was launched at London on 13 June 1944, one week after D-Day. The majority of V-1 was launched at London and later on Antwerp and other Belgian targets. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb BTW: the lifting of the Leningrad siege took place on 27 January 1944. Is there any source for conventional (static) V-1 launch sites and/or air-launch V-1 operations in Russia (especially around Leningrad)? This Vladimir Borisov story is a myth ;-) The passage might be corrected (= WHAT did Soviet aircraft and artillery destroy?) or it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.61.12 (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Brave Vladimir Borisov might have served in a recon operation against a German facility/plant near Leningrad, but there were no V-1 launching pads in Estonia, Latvia or Russia. Without doubt the Soviet Union suffered a lot from German weaponry, but never from V-1s. Hoax deleted!

Distinction Between Soviet and Russian
The terms Soviet Union and Russia are not interchangeable. Neither are the terms Russian and Soviet. For the most part, the word "Russian" in this article means either Soviet or former Soviet. I am making appropriate clarifications to the article.MVMosin 06:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My, my, my. Quite a few nation-region discrepancies to correct. If anyone sees a place where I didn't change it and should have, or a place where I shouldn't have changed it and did, edit accordingly. I also replaced the word "KGB" with "Osnaz" in the 1989 account because Osnaz is technically a seperate entity. A common misconception, and understandable, seeing as Osnaz is under the Committee's control.MVMosin 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Poti
Georgia had no "torpedo baots"

The "operation" the Russian military conducted there was nothing near to anything combat related. The mayor of Poti granted the Russians access to the Navy/Coast guard area and Russian engineers planted explosives on two or three former inactive Navy vessels, which were raised again after 2008. There practicaly was no need for "specialists" to walk in an unportected unguarded area, which was evacuated. In this article it sounds like a combat scenario and overdramatized. I would delete it, sounds kinda silly. 10:08, 6 February 2012‎ User:79.239.106.185

Citations needed
The article is entirely without citation. It has been here since 2005. Is 10 years not enough to find even one reliable source? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

, When content has been challenged and 2 years go by without a citation, it is not unusual to delete the challenged content, particularly when it is in-line linked to a 404 error. Inline links are not supposed to be used in the content. Dead inline links are particularly undesirable as they are useless for verification.

I am happy to see that you are adding references, and the ones to Borovikov are fine, as they are technically verifiable. However, you have added several bare urls as references, which is nit so good, as if anything changes on the website and the link goes dead, they become unverifiable again. I can fix the Shadowspear links, and as they are all the same link they should be named and become one reference, but the one in cyrillic is beyond me as can't read it at all. Please try to provide the necessary information in the citation to make it robust against website revision, or your work may be wasted. If you don't know what is expected in a citation, please read WP:CITEHOW. If this is insufficient I am willing to help where I can.

Ideally a web citation should contain the url of the page where the actual information can be seen, the name of the author(s) if available, the title of the article, and if not in English, an English translation of the title, the title or domain name of the website, the publisher, if known, the date of publication if available, page number(s) if applicable and the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown, so it can be correctly archived or referenced to an archive). The language of the article can also be mentioned if it is not English - this is helpful, but not a big deal.

If you do nothing else, the access date is the single most useful clue when someone is trying to reconstruct a dead link. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The links are working fine for me.Fury 1991 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Which links are working fine?
 * I did what I can with the Russian newspaper website reference. Please check that it is correct. I rely on Google translate which is not always reliable. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You Russian? Looks good what you did with the links.Fury 1991 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * It's also possible to use a script like ReFill (see User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill) to convert bare urls to citations, as I did with the billywaugh.net ref. HTH --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian word for frogman
It might be worth adding the common use Russian term for 'frogman', in Cyrillic and transliterated into Latin alphabet. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian commando frogmen. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202112154/http://specialoperations.com/Foreign/Russia/Naval_Units.htm to http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Russia/Naval_Units.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material
The source "shadowspear": https://www.shadowspear.com/2009/01/delfin/ is used to reference much of this article. The source states: and that sources the article text "Every OMRP has about 120–200 operatives. There are now four OMRPs in Russia" which was used as the basis of the infobox field size, given as 480-800 (i.e. 4 x 120-200). This can only be a lower estimate as there are an unknown number of PDSS units as well. The information has now been removed from the infobox five times by with varying justifications: So although the sourcing is fine for the article itself, being used 18 times, it is now "not reliable" according to Fustos. I've tried a compromise "at least 480-800" and even added the source to the infobox field, but it has been removed each time. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * unsourced
 * didn't find any source to back up claim. It's probably original research. Erroneous at that
 * removing horrible WP:OR. 480 to 800 (OMRP) + 650 to 780 (PDSS) = 1130 to 1580 frogmen, NOT 480 to 800, btw this is WP:OR as well
 * shadowspear is not a reliable source. also it doesn't state the number given. removing Erroneous WP:OR
 * judging by the russian page of the unit, they don't hold shadowspear in high regard either


 * how good the source is isn't defined by the number of times it's used in the articel. I've been working on getting proper souring and will add it ASAP. Fustos (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * for example, one mistaken claim, sourced by the shadowspear article, is claiming no post soviet state, besides russia, has inherited naval special forces units. this is wrong. i know of at least one, the 73rd Naval Special Purpose Center of ukraine Fustos (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What you "know" counts for diddly-squat here. We base our content on sources, not your say-so. Basing most of an article on a source is usually a good indication of its usefulness, so I disagree with your assessment of shadowspear. The shadowspear/Delfin source was originally added by in 2005 and it has remained there since, another indication of its reliability. If you can find other sources to update or augment the source we have, that would be great. In the meantime, it is unacceptable to remove sourced content simply because you don't like the source. Kindly revert yourself to restore the status quo while you search for other sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What you "know" counts for diddly-squat here. We base our content on sources, not your say-so. Basing most of an article on a source is usually a good indication of its usefulness, so I disagree with your assessment of shadowspear. The shadowspear/Delfin source was originally added by in 2005 and it has remained there since, another indication of its reliability. If you can find other sources to update or augment the source we have, that would be great. In the meantime, it is unacceptable to remove sourced content simply because you don't like the source. Kindly revert yourself to restore the status quo while you search for other sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Russian commando frogmen
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russian commando frogmen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From Indonesia: Jill Forshee, Culture and customs of Indonesia, Greenwood Publishing Group: 2006: ISBN 0-313-33339-4. 237 pp. From Black Sea:  From Japan:  From Iran: А. Г. Булатова. Лакцы (XIX — нач. XX вв.). Историко-этнографические очерки. — Махачкала, 2000. From Terrorism:  From Six-Day War: Oren 2002, electronic edition, Section "The War: Day Five, June 9". From Canadian armed forces divers: B-GL-361-007-FP-001 COMBAT DIVING, Canada, 2002 From East Germany: Mary Elise Sarotte, Collapse: The Accidental Opening of the Berlin Wall, New York: Basic Books, 2014</li> <li>From Sri Lanka: </li> <li>From Decima Flottiglia MAS: pp 6-11, issue 39, Historical Diving Times</li> <li>From Spetsnaz: Spetsnaz:Russia's Special Forces by Mark Galeotti</li> <li>From Special Boat Service: Neville, Leigh,  Special Forces in the War on Terror (General Military), Osprey Publishing, 2015 ISBN 978-1472807908, p.146</li> <li>From Naval mine: Slide 31 of 81. Hosted by Federation of American Scientists.</li> <li>From Mexico: David J. Weber, The Mexican Frontier, 1821–1846: The American Southwest under Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, 1982</li> <li>From Norway: </li> <li>From Port Said: Port-Saïd : Architectures XIXe-XXe siècles</li> <li>From Philippines: </li> <li>From Russian Navy: The NAVY of the Russian Empire, St. Petersburg, 1996</li> <li>From Pakistan: </li> <li>From Baltic Fleet: Боевой путь Советского Военно-морсого Флота, Военное Издательство, Moscow, 1988</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the practice of using uninformative reference names leads to this sort of problem. If editors would have the sense to use something like, it would make the job of useful bots like this so much easier (and hence the job of editors trying to figure it out). I've removed the non-existent named citation and requested the source. Hopefully the IP who added the material will look again at where they got the information from and let us know. My guess would be Leonov's book, Blood on the Shores, but without access to it, I can't be sure. --RexxS (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the practice of using uninformative reference names leads to this sort of problem. If editors would have the sense to use something like, it would make the job of useful bots like this so much easier (and hence the job of editors trying to figure it out). I've removed the non-existent named citation and requested the source. Hopefully the IP who added the material will look again at where they got the information from and let us know. My guess would be Leonov's book, Blood on the Shores, but without access to it, I can't be sure. --RexxS (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Портрет В. Леонова.jpg