Talk:Scheherazade (yacht)

Owner
Should it be mentioned that the most likely owner is Vladimir V. Putin? 2600:1700:4819:CA80:70CC:7497:B4B5:F7B (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for a water-tight source and not merely circumstantial ones, as not having one would risk violating WP:BLP. But it can be alluded to with verifiable sources. The work by Navalny's team strongly implies a connection, but their own sources are unverifiable and there is an explicit denial from the Captain that Putin has ever been on the ship.--Varavour (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This needs to stop. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip tabloid. Unless there are reliable sources that clearly state who the owner is, we can't add speculation. I've read Navalny's site, it is not a reliable source. I get that there is a lot of emotion tied into this subject because of the war, but Wikipedia cannot be a tool for propaganda or a forum for rumours. -  wolf  22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can concede that Navalny's website might not be considered a neutral source, or perhaps a primary source. However, there are several reliable, mainstream sources that have either reported on the findings of Navalny's team (the erstwhile Anti-Corruption Foundation) or independently linked the yacht to Putin. As my previous comment indicates, I held off on including mention of this connection until I found such a seperate source attesting to the possibility of said connection, which I did, in the New York Times. Since that time, other reliable sources, such as the Daily Telegraph and The Week have commented on Navalny's findings, so I do not think mentionining them would constitute placing undue weight on that one source. Certainly the connection to Putin, even if currently unconfirmed, is the primary reason for the yacht's notability, as opposed to its being the thirteenth-longest in the world, and is worthy of a mention—it's why I decided to create the article in the first place. The relevant paragraph(s) should be re-included in the article. As it stands, one could very well claim that the current bowdlerized version misrepresents the facts by suggesting ownership by a "Russian oligarch close to... Putin" rather than Putin himself (although this is probably, strictly speaking, true; even if the yacht is Putin's, the owner's identity would probably be obscured by a complex array of shell companies and offshores, and the ultimate name that one would find would almost certainly not be "Vladmir Vladmirovich Putin" but rather a close associate like Timchenko, Kovalchuk, Roldugin, or one of the Rotenberg brothers, similar to the Residence at Cape Idokopas).--Varavour (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The edited statement on the ownership does not represent the truth (a "Russian oligarch close to Putin" serviced by the members of FSO, really?) The new ownership section of your page appears to be no more reliable then Navalny's site. I seriously doubt I would fund Wikipedia again based on your actions (to lock the article). 125.209.143.233 (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll comment below so as not to have separate threads discussing the same issue. -  wolf  19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph about voyages and management
It seems that there is some dispute about this paragraph, though I don't understand why.

Could those who object to including this information please explain why? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, I did not realize this paragraph had also been removed. I can't see what offending material it might possibly contain.--Varavour (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The yacht's owner is not publicly known" - is the only relevant fact in that paragraph wrt ownership. Other parts such as "Like Crescent, it has been managed by the Monaco company Imperial Yachts. The yacht sailed to Hurghada, Egypt, in September 2020, and to Sochi, Russia, in summer 2020 and in July 2021. Since September 2021 it has been docked at the port of Marina di Carrara in Tuscany." may have some value regarding the yacht's history. Generally, ship articles should focus on the ship, not specualtion and gossip about putative owners. Latest reports in reliable sources indicate that the owner was identified to Italian authorities weeks ago, (and if they know, the Americans know). If the boat belonged to Putin, or anyone on the sanctions list, (or anyone else who would give them reason to seize it, eg: MY Equanimity in the 1MDB scandal) they would've grabbed it already and that would be widely reported. Now, you can say that is speculation on my part - which is the point. We need to stick to facts, supported by reliable sources, that are relevant to yacht. If I found RS confirming who the owner is, whether that be Putin, another sanctioned Russian oligarch, some random billionaire, or just a charter company, I would be among the first to add that to the article. -  wolf  19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the only part you disagree with is these two sentences: Therefore I suggest we restore the rest of the paragraph to the article:




 * Do you have any objections to this? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. That's why I included that pared-down verison my previous comment. It's provides a succinct, factual statement regarding ownership and management, based on what we currently know from RS, and otherwise adds relevant info about the yacht's history. I have no objections to that being added as is. I say that because I know the sources being cited, such as the NYT, are RS, but the same articles contain speculation about possible owners, and we should be wary of that being used as a backdoor means to add such content to the article. That is what led to disruption of this and other related articles in the first place. (imho) -  wolf  20:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Great. Since we agree, I'm requesting that an admin restore this part of the paragraph to the article.
 * Thanks! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize you would jump right to an edit request. I thought you might want to give others an opportunity to comment on this addition and any possible changes. I also figured there would be some additonal discussion, re: where in the article would this go? Should it be added to a single paragraph? Or split, with ownership/management in one section and history in another? And on that point, should there be additonal subsection(s) created? Or a current section renamed? It seems this request is incomplete and not ready for submission. We don't want to be pestering admins with multiple requests, or a premature one. (jmho) -  wolf  21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Incremental changes are fine. It is often impossible to agree on all changes at once. Discussion may of course continue &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm now happy with the paragraph as it currently stands, but of course I'm open to further discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the new-subsection heading you created does the job well Martin. Thank you -  wolf  19:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Crew
Would it be agreeable to add a paragraph about the crew? Something like

AxelBoldt (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this encyclopeadic? Billionaires of all nationalities routinely hire security and staff with ties to spec ops and the intel community, be it British SAS & MI6, American SEALs & CIA, Isreali Mossad & Sayeret, etc.... even Russian Spetsnaz, SVR & FSB. That said, this is speculation about the crew, that might or not mean the owner is Russian, which might or might not mean they are on the sanctions list, and all from a questionable source. It could just be a coincidence that the crews contracts were up, (considering the yacht it is in refit), or it could be the crew was changed out because of the very attention brought to it becuase of the Navalny site. Who knows? I think we should wait until reliable sourcing clearly states who the owner is and not entertain gossip in the meantime. -  wolf  19:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How come it's not relatable? The yacht is docked at the port of Italy and was protected by the Russian federal security service. It's not a private protective company, It's the official agency of Russia. It's like if some apartments in Moscow were guarded by FBI. And the information that all that crew was replaced shortly after the investigation was corroborated by The New York Times. This information is perfectly on point considering the owner controversy and it's backed up by many independent sources including reliable news agencies. GargantuanPantagruel (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The paragraph I was proposing doesn't talk about the owner, just about the crew, and I don't think it uses questionable sources or contains any speculation. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ship articles should primarily be about the ship, not the crew, (unless the crew member, including the owner, is notable). Any content added to the article should be relevant to the ship and supported by reliable sources (RS). I don't see the Navalny blog as RS, but here's some quotes from the NYT ref that was attached to the proposed addition:
 * "Russian crew aboard a superyacht possibly linked to Putin..."
 * "a mysterious ... yacht that U.S. officials say could be owned by President Vladimir V. Putin"
 * (bolding was added here) And last, but not least in importance;
 * "No owner has been publicly identified."


 * It did not say: ""... that is misleading and ventures into WP:SYNTH territory.


 * As I mentioned above, many, if not all, superyacht-owning billionaires, of all nationalities, have security staff that have military/spec-ops, intel-community and law enforcement backgrounds. If on his new yacht, Jeff Bezos hires some US Navy SEALs or US Secret Service agents, (whether they're former or, current but on their own time), as part of the crew, that does not mean that Bezos or his yacht is protected by the US military or US federal government. The only relevant info provided so far in reliable sources is that this yacht is under investigstion, just like all superyachts right now, to determine if the owner in on the sanctions list. If they are, then the yacht will be seized like so many others have, and that will very likely be reported in various RS. In the meantime, we can't post speculation and gossip, this is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. -  wolf  19:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)