Talk:Russian cruiser Varyag (1899)

Casualty rate
Where did the 32/90 casualty rate come from? Somebody is persistant. It is not what the cronicles at the St.Petersburg Admiralty say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorf (talk • contribs).
 * Hi, Dorf, thanks for creating an account. First of all, all previous edits were reverted by me, as they were coming from a different IP address every time, and looked a lot like vandalism.  The anonymous editors (were they you?) did not even make changes consistently&mdash;the numbers were often different with every edit.
 * Anyway, back to your question. The 32/90 casualty rate is given by several sources.  Great Soviet Encyclopedia, along with other, less reputable sources, for example, gives 122 killed and wounded, but does not provide a break-down.  Encyclopedia Japan from A to Z (Yaponiya ot A do Ya) quotes "various sources" and says that 32 crew members were buried in Chemulpo.
 * I am not going to revert your changes for now, but if you could provide a reference to your 82/190 rate, it would be helpful. I will also consider posting the article for review&mdash;it needs expansion anyway.  Thanks.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, friend. The source is as follows: Russian State Naval Archive (St. Petersburg), Funds 1659-1940, (Document 6539, as I recall it). The envelope incudes letters sent by a Full Admiral Grand Duke Alexei to the Admiralty in St. Petersburg on January 30th 1904. Basically, the admiral was describing the matters to the Fleet Command, asking them to withdraw "Varyag" and "Koreets" from the Navy registers, and makes a brief report of casualty rates on both sides. According to this report, on the Russian side 32 were "immidiate KIA" and had been buried ashore, 19 were blown to bits by artillery and, due to that, "given sea burial", 27 had died in the ship's hospital from their wounds and other 4 were unaccounted for. The total number of wounded stands as written by me in the previous edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorf (talk • contribs).
 * Thank you as well; this is very useful information. I am, however, not quite sure what you mean by "as written by me in the previous edit".  Could you please clarify (again?) where the 190 number comes from?&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, apololgies, by saying "the previous edit" I only meant that the number was 190. There was a caualties report attached to the letter of the Grand Duke. Most of the wounded (including light wounds) were the crewmembers who serviced deck artillery - none of Varyag's deck mounted 152mm guns had protective shields. One of the rumours has it that shortly after the cruiser was commissioned it was incorporated into the Baltic Guards Division, then commanded by the Grand Duke, who liked to observe the cannons being loaded and polish the actions of ship's loading crews. The shields were removed because they blocked his vision.

This is, of course, only a gossip-like story, but the facts are there - the guns were left unprotected. Hundreds of small splinters would have set the deck on fire and bounce off virtually every metal surface, cutting the sailors down like grass. When ones would have fallen the replacements would soon be subjected to the same 'treatment', making the wounded numbers of the Grand Duke's report quite reasonable indeed.


 * Giving you all this information would like to add as a historian: concerning the background/service record of the Grand Duke it would not be surprising if some of the info that he provided the Admiralty with was different in reality. The documents exist, but their accuracy levels are still to be verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorf (talk • contribs).
 * Again, thank you&mdash;this is all very interesting. Would you consider adding this information to the article, as you obviously know quite a bit about the subject?  Sincerely,&mdash;&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, will definately do so when I have time

Dates
Was she commissioned on 2 or 14 January 1901? Both dates are given. Drutt (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (A belated replyy): Both are correct; Jan 2 will be the contemporary Russian date in the Julian calendar, Jan 14 is the equivalent Gregorian date in use everywhere else (such as at William Cramp’s in the US). Xyl 54 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge
Japanese cruiser Soya should be merged with this article. We don't need two articles about the same ship. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much of "heroism"
The cruiser is a kind of fetish in Russia. Her military failure is overcompensated by excessive use of word “heroic” in propaganda, up to the level of complete junk. Too much of this word in this article. As a result, it is not neutral. Just count the word "heroic" in this article and compare it to articles on other battleships in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.29.60 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting subject and I will look into it (maybe 5½ years too late) .. is there an accepted and objective definition of this "heroic" in a military context? Of course, it sounds like puffery. But the concept of military heroism is very real and widespread. Fishing Publication (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Should the pages Russian cruiser Varyag (1899) and Japanese cruiser Soya be merged as they are the same ship? Thanks for your feedback! Annwfwn (talk) Annwfwn (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, they should be merged. Generally, there should only be one article for a given ship. Occasionally there are situations where the ship is very notable under more than one name so two articles are warranted (USS Phoenix (CL-46) and ARA General Belgrano are the most obvious example), but that's not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge per Parsec, but also per the unusual history of this ship going from Russia -> Japan -> Russia. Splitting out the middle is not a good experience for a reader. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge for above reasons - neither of the articles are at all large. The Japanese material could do with in-line referencing (relevant sources are already given as general references). Davidships (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I started working on it in my sandbox and discovered there are two addition ships that Japan confiscated during the Russo-Japanese war and the sold back to Russia during World War I. Both ships have one singular page each. Annwfwn (talk)